Ps, I do understand your point of view too, and that's a reasonable argument. I'm just saying Firefox also has a reasonable argument because it's about "likelihood of consumer confusion" and in this case we know it did in fact cause consumer confusion.
TFA says when the reporter saw it, they asked Mozilla about the deal. Only after Mozilla said "what the hell... We didn't know about this" did the reporter ask Dell. So at least to the reporter, there was in fact consumer confusion, which is the primary test under trademark law.
You low how commercials and labels so often indicate "not affiliated with..."? There is a reason for that. Had Dell labeled it "Installation of Firefox, a free browser not affiliated with Dell" that would be different.
Note that in your example, if you posted on Craigslist, "I will install Windows for $200" it is unlikely that a) anyone would think Microsoft was involved in posting your or and b) that it would do Microsoft any harm. Thus, you'd be allowed to use the Windows trademark since it wouldn't result in consumer confusion.
It looks Mozilla made a deal with Dell to sell Firefox. Given Mozilla is dependent on the goodwill of the free software movement, there are actual damages from that false implication of affiliation. Because "likelihood of consumer confusion" figures prominently in trademark law, that's one reasonably strong legal argument. I'm not a lawyer, I just play one in court. Actual lawyers may express better arguments too.
The main thing in trademark law is likelihood of consumer confusion. The first thing the reporter did was ask MOZILLA about the deal. When Mozilla said "wtf", the reporter asked Dell. If a tech reporter thought it looked like implied affiliation, some customers probably will to. You can't use someone's trademarked name to falsely imply affiliation.
If you sell a Coke at your garage sale, nobody is going to think that Coca-Cola Inc is involved in that, so there is no problem.
You may remember a few years ago advertisements did NOT say "T-Mobile is better than AT&T". Instead they compared themselves to "the leading brand". Only fairly recently was it decided that such a comparison was not trading on the good reputation of the target and not implying affiliation, and was therefore allowed.
The tests is whether the speaker is a) attempting to tie themselves to the trademark's good reputation or b) implying an affiliation where none exists.
In this case, the first thing the reporter did was contact MOZILLA to ask about the deal they had with Dell. The reporter figured the Mozilla had made a deal to sell Firefox through Dell. That sounds like an implication of affiliation, and a false one. It arguably makes Firefox look bad, as though they are doing something that many of their users and developers would object to. Almost like a false flag operation, making it look like Mozilla is involved. That's not allowed.
Finally you said something honest! All this time you've been saying 11 cents, comparing it to the 3.5 cent actual retail price of natural gas. I'm glad you're now being a little more transparent - some people PREDICT that one day the cost to build new solar plant may come down. Other people predict Bitcoin will make them rich. I'm not betting on either.
Nanosolar scammed / lost half a billion of our money, Mt Gox did the same. Similarly for Solyndra and all the other bitcoin scams / losses. The one difference between Bitcoin and solar is that Bitcoin is available 24 hours a day.
Your link says that's the predicted cost to the utility to build a solar plant. That is, not including distribution costs, etc. The actual retail price is 35 cents, compared to 3.5 for natural gas.
Even your link says "solar electricity doesn’t really compete" with other sources.
You keep posting that, a blogger who starts his post with "change all the numbers, because solar is way more effective than the manufacturers rate their systems to be". That blogger WISHES solar was only twice as expensive. The DOE price survey says solar customers actually pay ten times as much.
DOE says the national average is 35 cents. I don't know where you got 11 cents. Is that the marginal cost at 1PM on a sunny day in Southern California? Is that the panel manufacturing cost, ignoring installation, trackers, distribution, etc.?
The only two citations I see in that article are a) the solar energy association and b) the head of a solar company. If their claim is in any way hinted at by any DOE report , it's too bad they didn't cite that report. I have a guess as to why they didn't cite anything. I wouldn't be surprised if DOE had run a projection on the scenario that taxpayers might subsidize solar more, so one person using solar would pay less because his neighbors are effectively paying the outrageous cost. They could have also done a "what if" analysis of what would happen IF solar electric magically became feasible.(Starting with 24 / 365 sunshine).
You don't need any energy storage as long as your base power can supply all your needs. Period. If nuclear, hydro, natural gas, and coal can provide all of power, you don't need to store ie solar. Which is good, becuase there is no feasible means of storage. How much wind or solar you have has ZERO effect on that. Sometimes wind will make no power, either because it's not windy enough, or it's too windy. So you need the reliable sources to provide 100% during those times.
I see you've "rebutted" the DOE price survey by pointing to a blogger as your source. LOL. Garfield, the cartoon cat, says your're mistaken.
Since you brought up the actual numbers, I figured I'd add those in. So we have:
Nuclear 7 cents Natural Gas 3.5 cents
-------- Solar 35 cents (10AM - 4 PM only) Wind 5 cents (when wind is between 30-40 MPH)
The two groups are separate because the top two are base power - reliable sources available all the time. The bottom two are supplementary power - they are available SOMETIMES, and when they are available you can reduce the generation from the base power plants.
Solar electric costs ten times as much as hydro or natural gas. So if everyone was using solar power, instead of paying $150 / month for your electric bill, it would be $1,500 / month. If paying $1,500 / month for electricity is your definition of "did work" you must be that filthy 0.0001%, mega wealthy.
Yes, I'm aware that if you're the only one using solar, politicians will force al of your neighbors to pay the bill. Subsidies "work" when 1,000 people are all subsidizing one guy. We can't all subsidize ourselves $1,500 / month though.
If you enjoy solar, talk about the solar that DOES work - direct solar (pre)heating, for example. Let the sun warm your water before it heads to the water heater. THAT works. Solar electric, not so much, though it is a good way to power a low end calculator.
Breeder reactors may very well work out well. We'll see.
Wind power is a very nice supplement to use when it's windy, so it works well in addition to base power in certain geographical areas. Wind is NOT base power simply because it's not windy all the time. When it happens to be windy, you can dial back your natural gas or nuclear generation (base) for an hour.
Solar electric is great for locations where you can't easily run a power line, like a vacation cabin in the wilderness. However, it costs over ten times as much as natural gas or hyroelectric. Your monthly electric bill is probably around $150 right now. If you switched to solar, it would cost $1,500 / month. That just doesn't work. Direct solar preheating, on the other hand, works well in many locations. (Let the sun warm your water before it goes to the water heater.)
For electricity and vehicles, there are two / three choices for base load - fossil fuels or nuclear. Fossil fuels can be divided into traditional (coal, heavy oil) and cleaner (natural gas).
For me, having been introduced to the basic idea of a "hard" concept made it a lot easier when the subject was taught in school ten years later. For example, basic cooking introduced me to a lot of math and a little chemistry. At age five, making lemonade was age-appropriate. It made sense that to make half as much lemonade, we'd use half as many lemons. (Ratios). Gee, we used one cup of sugar to make a big jug of lemonade, how much sugar should we use to make half as much? In school, fractions were easy for me - as easy as making lemonade, which I'd been doing for years.
The hobbyist niche didn't fully support them in the old days either, with something like 80% of retail revenue coming at Christmas time and Radio Shack selling a ton of RC toys and such. Other times of the year, non-geeks looking for cables, adapters, etc. were a major market for them. Their slogan "you've got questions, we've got answers" was accurate - their employees got raises for passing tests in various fields, so they would have the answer. Any average Joe could come in saying "I want to hook both my DVD player and my game console to two TVs..." and the Radio Shack employees would steer them to the products they needed, cable, A/B switches, etc.
For the niche that defined the brand, that's still there, it's just shifted a little bit. The same guys, like me, are still interested in similar stuff. It's just shifted from ie short-wave radio to 3D printing. If each Radio Shack location (or some of them) had a 3D printer in the store, that would bring traffic from the same people who used to buy resistors and antennas there. We're not building homebrew computers anymore, but we sure might want some servos to hook to our Raspberry Pi.
Video game stores aren't still trying to sell Atari 2600 games, but they haven't changed too much - they are just selling the new games. Radio Shack could do the same. Not by selling (only) the same resistors they sold 30 years ago, but by adding what today's geeks want, stuff for rPi and microcontroller systems, and whatever else is most popular on makezine.com.
If legal weight limits were the problem, yes. Most of the time, they aren't. More often, a typical truck is carrying about half it's legal cargo weight.
Let's look at the case of running into the weight limit, though. That may be true 10% of the time. Suppose one truck is carrying bottled water or something else heavy. It'll have about 50,000 pounds of cargo. The other nine trucks aren't at their limit. Spending $ million X 10 = $40 million more on those trucks could conceivably increase their cargo by 4,000 pounds. That's a ten thousand dollars a pound. Noone is dumb enough to spend $10,000 per pound, except maybe the US federal government.
Let's pretend that's true. Let's pretend most families are like that. They aren't, but let's pretend you're right.
Bob works for me, and he puts in 60 hours / week when needed, 50 hours average. His wife, Sally, works for a competing company, you. She leaves at 3:00 to pick up the kid from school. Are you going to pay Sally as much as I pay Bob, because she has a good excuse? As your competition, I sure hope so because you'll go broke that way. Bob, working those long hours, produces twice as much.
You know what's funny? In that "traditional family" where mom takes care of the house and kids, they don't even CARE if both paychecks are the same. They go into the couple's bank account anyway , so Sally and Bob are perfectly happy if "Bob's" paycheck is three times the size of "Sally's" - either way, it's THEIR money.
The other day someone posted a link to a Wikipedia listing of nationalization and denationalization of various industries in the US. Most of it had to do with railroads. I don't know about other states, but here in Texas the railroad commissioner is considered the third most powerful government office. It's a stepping stone to the governor's office.
I'd be hesitant to run a railroad, or have a large enterprise rely on the railroad, knowing that the government might decide to take it over tomorrow, or completely rewrite all of the rules because it'll help his gubernatorial campaign.
Aerodynamic changes may make sense. Carbon fiber, no.
According to your estimate, the carbon fiber might save 2,500 liters per year. At $1 per liter, that's $2,500. You think it makes sense to spend MILLIONS in order to save thousands. Typical liberal math.
Do you have any idea how many starving children could be fed with four million dollars? Fuck why don't you left wing freaks ever engage your brains.
Wow that CF reduced the average weight of loaded truck by 6%, which increases highway fuel economy by 1%. Only $4 million worth of carbon fiber and it'll save several gallons of fuel per year.
Slashdot Mirror
Ps, I do understand your point of view too, and that's a reasonable argument. I'm just saying Firefox also has a reasonable argument because it's about "likelihood of consumer confusion" and in this case we know it did in fact cause consumer confusion.
TFA says when the reporter saw it, they asked Mozilla about the deal. Only after Mozilla said "what the hell... We didn't know about this" did the reporter ask Dell. So at least to the reporter, there was in fact consumer confusion, which is the primary test under trademark law.
You low how commercials and labels so often indicate "not affiliated with ..."? There is a reason for that. Had Dell labeled it "Installation of Firefox, a free browser not affiliated with Dell" that would be different.
Note that in your example, if you posted on Craigslist, "I will install Windows for $200" it is unlikely that a) anyone would think Microsoft was involved in posting your or and b) that it would do Microsoft any harm. Thus, you'd be allowed to use the Windows trademark since it wouldn't result in consumer confusion.
It looks Mozilla made a deal with Dell to sell Firefox.
Given Mozilla is dependent on the goodwill of the free software movement, there are actual damages from that false implication of affiliation. Because "likelihood of consumer confusion" figures prominently in trademark law, that's one reasonably strong legal argument. I'm not a lawyer, I just play one in court. Actual lawyers may express better arguments too.
The main thing in trademark law is likelihood of consumer confusion. The first thing the reporter did was ask MOZILLA about the deal. When Mozilla said "wtf", the reporter asked Dell. If a tech reporter thought it looked like implied affiliation, some customers probably will to. You can't use someone's trademarked name to falsely imply affiliation.
If you sell a Coke at your garage sale, nobody is going to think that Coca-Cola Inc is involved in that, so there is no problem.
I can think of ONE purchaser who would pay $100, and they'd buy 100,000 copies at $100 each.
You may remember a few years ago advertisements did NOT say "T-Mobile is better than AT&T". Instead they compared themselves to "the leading brand". Only fairly recently was it decided that such a comparison was not trading on the good reputation of the target and not implying affiliation, and was therefore allowed.
The tests is whether the speaker is a) attempting to tie themselves to the trademark's good reputation or b) implying an affiliation where none exists.
In this case, the first thing the reporter did was contact MOZILLA to ask about the deal they had with Dell. The reporter figured the Mozilla had made a deal to sell Firefox through Dell. That sounds like an implication of affiliation, and a false one. It arguably makes Firefox look bad, as though they are doing something that many of their users and developers would object to. Almost like a false flag operation, making it look like Mozilla is involved. That's not allowed.
> This is the DOE *prediction* is for 2018
Finally you said something honest! All this time you've been saying 11 cents, comparing it to the 3.5 cent actual retail price of natural gas. I'm glad you're now being a little more transparent - some people PREDICT that one day the cost to build new solar plant may come down. Other people predict Bitcoin will make them rich. I'm not betting on either.
Nanosolar scammed / lost half a billion of our money, Mt Gox did the same. Similarly for Solyndra and all the other bitcoin scams / losses. The one difference between Bitcoin and solar is that Bitcoin is available 24 hours a day.
Your link says that's the predicted cost to the utility to build a solar plant. That is, not including distribution costs, etc.
The actual retail price is 35 cents, compared to 3.5 for natural gas.
Even your link says "solar electricity doesn’t really compete" with other sources.
You keep posting that, a blogger who starts his post with "change all the numbers, because solar is way more effective than the manufacturers rate their systems to be". That blogger WISHES solar was only twice as expensive. The DOE price survey says solar customers actually pay ten times as much.
DOE says the national average is 35 cents. .?
I don't know where you got 11 cents. Is that the marginal cost at 1PM on a sunny day in Southern California? Is that the panel manufacturing cost, ignoring installation, trackers, distribution, etc
The only two citations I see in that article are a) the solar energy association and b) the head of a solar company. If their claim is in any way hinted at by any DOE report , it's too bad they didn't cite that report. I have a guess as to why they didn't cite anything. I wouldn't be surprised if DOE had run a projection on the scenario that taxpayers might subsidize solar more, so one person using solar would pay less because his neighbors are effectively paying the outrageous cost. They could have also done a "what if" analysis of what would happen IF solar electric magically became feasible.(Starting with 24 / 365 sunshine).
You don't need any energy storage as long as your base power can supply all your needs. Period. If nuclear, hydro, natural gas, and coal can provide all of power, you don't need to store ie solar. Which is good, becuase there is no feasible means of storage. How much wind or solar you have has ZERO effect on that. Sometimes wind will make no power, either because it's not windy enough, or it's too windy. So you need the reliable sources to provide 100% during those times.
I see you've "rebutted" the DOE price survey by pointing to a blogger as your source. LOL. Garfield, the cartoon cat, says your're mistaken.
Since you brought up the actual numbers, I figured I'd add those in. So we have:
Nuclear 7 cents
Natural Gas 3.5 cents
--------
Solar 35 cents (10AM - 4 PM only)
Wind 5 cents (when wind is between 30-40 MPH)
The two groups are separate because the top two are base power - reliable sources available all the time.
The bottom two are supplementary power - they are available SOMETIMES, and when they are available you can reduce the generation from the base power plants.
Solar electric costs ten times as much as hydro or natural gas. So if everyone was using solar power, instead of paying $150 / month for your electric bill, it would be $1,500 / month. If paying $1,500 / month for electricity is your definition of "did work" you must be that filthy 0.0001%, mega wealthy.
Yes, I'm aware that if you're the only one using solar, politicians will force al of your neighbors to pay the bill. Subsidies "work" when 1,000 people are all subsidizing one guy. We can't all subsidize ourselves $1,500 / month though.
If you enjoy solar, talk about the solar that DOES work - direct solar (pre)heating, for example. Let the sun warm your water before it heads to the water heater. THAT works. Solar electric, not so much, though it is a good way to power a low end calculator.
Breeder reactors may very well work out well. We'll see.
Wind power is a very nice supplement to use when it's windy, so it works well in addition to base power in certain geographical areas. Wind is NOT base power simply because it's not windy all the time. When it happens to be windy, you can dial back your natural gas or nuclear generation (base) for an hour.
Solar electric is great for locations where you can't easily run a power line, like a vacation cabin in the wilderness. However, it costs over ten times as much as natural gas or hyroelectric. Your monthly electric bill is probably around $150 right now. If you switched to solar, it would cost $1,500 / month. That just doesn't work. Direct solar preheating, on the other hand, works well in many locations. (Let the sun warm your water before it goes to the water heater.)
For electricity and vehicles, there are two / three choices for base load - fossil fuels or nuclear. Fossil fuels can be divided into traditional (coal, heavy oil) and cleaner (natural gas).
Lol
For me, having been introduced to the basic idea of a "hard" concept made it a lot easier when the subject was taught in school ten years later. For example, basic cooking introduced me to a lot of math and a little chemistry. At age five, making lemonade was age-appropriate. It made sense that to make half as much lemonade, we'd use half as many lemons. (Ratios). Gee, we used one cup of sugar to make a big jug of lemonade, how much sugar should we use to make half as much? In school, fractions were easy for me - as easy as making lemonade, which I'd been doing for years.
The hobbyist niche didn't fully support them in the old days either, with something like 80% of retail revenue coming at Christmas time and Radio Shack selling a ton of RC toys and such. Other times of the year, non-geeks looking for cables, adapters, etc. were a major market for them. Their slogan "you've got questions, we've got answers" was accurate - their employees got raises for passing tests in various fields, so they would have the answer. Any average Joe could come in saying "I want to hook both my DVD player and my game console to two TVs ..." and the Radio Shack employees would steer them to the products they needed, cable, A/B switches, etc.
For the niche that defined the brand, that's still there, it's just shifted a little bit. The same guys, like me, are still interested in similar stuff. It's just shifted from ie short-wave radio to 3D printing. If each Radio Shack location (or some of them) had a 3D printer in the store, that would bring traffic from the same people who used to buy resistors and antennas there. We're not building homebrew computers anymore, but we sure might want some servos to hook to our Raspberry Pi.
Video game stores aren't still trying to sell Atari 2600 games, but they haven't changed too much - they are just selling the new games. Radio Shack could do the same. Not by selling (only) the same resistors they sold 30 years ago, but by adding what today's geeks want, stuff for rPi and microcontroller systems, and whatever else is most popular on makezine.com.
> if you're running into legal weight limits
If legal weight limits were the problem, yes. Most of the time, they aren't. More often, a typical truck is carrying about half it's legal cargo weight.
Let's look at the case of running into the weight limit, though. That may be true 10% of the time. Suppose one truck is carrying bottled water or something else heavy. It'll have about 50,000 pounds of cargo. The other nine trucks aren't at their limit.
Spending $ million X 10 = $40 million more on those trucks could conceivably increase their cargo by 4,000 pounds. That's a ten thousand dollars a pound. Noone is dumb enough to spend $10,000 per pound, except maybe the US federal government.
> Since I actually NO how to run a company ... I would destroy YOU company
I'm glad you _no_ how to run a company, since you don't know basic English. So how exactly is your company doing.
One of mine has 60% market share.
Let's pretend that's true. Let's pretend most families are like that. They aren't, but let's pretend you're right.
Bob works for me, and he puts in 60 hours / week when needed, 50 hours average. His wife, Sally, works for a competing company, you. She leaves at 3:00 to pick up the kid from school. Are you going to pay Sally as much as I pay Bob, because she has a good excuse? As your competition, I sure hope so because you'll go broke that way. Bob, working those long hours, produces twice as much.
You know what's funny? In that "traditional family" where mom takes care of the house and kids, they don't even CARE if both paychecks are the same. They go into the couple's bank account anyway , so Sally and Bob are perfectly happy if "Bob's" paycheck is three times the size of "Sally's" - either way, it's THEIR money.
Your right, it would be a waste of $3.75 million PER TRUCK, so in total it would waste billions of dollars.
The other day someone posted a link to a Wikipedia listing of nationalization and denationalization of various industries in the US. Most of it had to do with railroads. I don't know about other states, but here in Texas the railroad commissioner is considered the third most powerful government office. It's a stepping stone to the governor's office.
I'd be hesitant to run a railroad, or have a large enterprise rely on the railroad, knowing that the government might decide to take it over tomorrow, or completely rewrite all of the rules because it'll help his gubernatorial campaign.
Aerodynamic changes may make sense. Carbon fiber, no.
According to your estimate, the carbon fiber might save 2,500 liters per year. At $1 per liter, that's $2,500. You think it makes sense to spend MILLIONS in order to save thousands. Typical liberal math.
Do you have any idea how many starving children could be fed with four million dollars? Fuck why don't you left wing freaks ever engage your brains.
Wow that CF reduced the average weight of loaded truck by 6%, which increases highway fuel economy by 1%. Only $4 million worth of carbon fiber and it'll save several gallons of fuel per year.