No. You cannot have a trademark just by virtue of owning a domain name. A "trademark" is one's distinctive mark within a trade, and since this person has no product, there is no trade.
Whether you like it or not - delivering advertising is a product.
Trademark laws exist to protect consumers from purchasing or using one product when they meant to purchase or use another. You would have a problem if you tried to imitate the other site.
One of the key elements of defending yourself against a charge of trademark infringement is showing that you operate in a different area of business. In this case, both domain owners operate on the internet and target internet users.
So, once you actually know a little about trademark law (as opposed to spewing bias and hearsay), it is not entirely clear that the poster is safely in the clear.
they sent me threatening letters stating they'd take me to court over $20 in late fees. I called their bluff and said fine take me to court over $20.
They didn't get that money, and they won't ever be seeing anymore from me. the SMART business move would be to send me a buy one get one free voucher, stating as a sign of good will we are wiping your late fee's and would love to have your business back.
You want to be _rewarded_ for failing to keep your end of the bargain/contract up? I mean, there is such a thing as poor customer service - but get real.
I'd love to hear *reasons* for why these people would be wrong (as opposed to attacks on their credentials). Why do we place so much confidence in dating techniques when there is apparently quite a bit of controversy about them, and in spite of demonstrations that there may be significant problems?
The controversey and 'demonstrations' are mostly from people with an axe to grind - not people interested in the scientific process.
Now, take this quote as prime example:
In fact, the denouement came in 1989, with a blind test, conducted by the British Science and Engineering Research Council (BSERC), at 38 of the world's leading radiocarbon testing laboratories. According to Andy Coghlan, the council commissioned a blind trial that compared the accuracy with which 38 laboratories around the world dated artifacts of known age. An item of known age was divided into 38 parts. One part was sent to each testing laboratory for a full measurement of its age. After careful testing by the 38 laboratories, only seven produced results that the organizers of the trial considered to be satisfactory.(28) At the August, 1990, Symposium of the Canadian Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, Gunnar Heinsohn read from a newspaper account of the BSERC meeting, at which this evidence was disclosed. None of the testing laboratories achieved a correct date, even with plus or minus tolerances, and many were off by thousands of years.
My response? "Well, duh - what did you expect?" Pretty much anyone who has ever studied radiocarbon dating, even amateurs, know that the (raw) figure you get from the lab is damm near dimensionless. The enviroment the item has been exposed to, the material it is made of (and the provenance of said material), etc... etc... all must be considered. It takes quite a bit analysis to turn that raw figure into a date. (Like the problem a friend of mine doing post graduate work in archeology told me - if the item has been exposed to the atmosphere in modern times, it may be contaminated with coal dust, soot, or automobile exhaust.)
Frank C. Hibben also discussed the process of radiocarbon dating. After outlining several problems associated with using this method, he stated that "[e]ven with these drawbacks and pitfalls...archaeologists and laboratory technicians began to hammer out the exact history of the earliest Americans. The dates badly out of line were disregarded."
This, again, falls into the "well, duh" category. Again, pretty much anyone who has ever studied radiocarbon dating and archeology, even amateurs, know that radiocarbon dating is just _one_ method of dating. You have to weigh and compare various dating methods to come up with an accurate date. (For example, if I dig something out and the stratigraphy says "1200's", and the style says "1200's", the the odds are - the thing is from the 1200's, no matter what the radiocarbon dating says.)
I'd love to hear *reasons* for why these people would be wrong (as opposed to attacks on their credentials).
It's not an attack to point out that someone who consistently champions pseudoscience [Ginenthal] is not exactly someone whose word on scientific topics should be taken without a boxcar sized grain of salt.
Why is 2010 such a "hard" deadline? Was it not created solely by politicians who wanted to divert resources to go to Mars?
No, it was created by the CAIB subsequent to the loss of Columbia.
As such, can it not be moved just as easily as it was created?
No, because the CAIB requires the vehicles be recertified to extend their lives beyond that date - a very expensive and difficult process.
That being said - another limit, currently, is contractural. NASA has only contracted for so many External Tanks, SRB refurbishments, etc... Unless Congress coughs up more money (and approves the delays in converting facilities to support Ares/Constellation - I.E. more money) it simply isn't going to happen.
It is, after all, three years away. If we can't move deadlines that far out, isn't there a chance we're overplanning, and leaving ourselves completely vulnerable to unexpected circumstances, exactly like this solar panel issue?
NASA routinely plans from 3-5 years out, to a decade or more. This is made necessary by the fact that planetary launch windows, if missed, may not recur for two years (Mars) or two _centuries_ (Pluto). Also, the hardware takes from months to years to assemble, on top of months to years of design and review effort. Training for a flight takes months. The Shuttle also has to be overhauled so often, a process taking months, so you have to plan ahead to make time available for that. Etc... Etc...
Just because you could not express your disagreement with others in a manner that others view as respectful (and as a result likely got yourself banned from Wikipedia) doesn't mean that these students will too. When people act like trolls, push their POVs over everyone else, and refuse to even debate the issue with others without engaging in massive revert-wars, they generally get banned, and then they go post their whines here on Slashdot.
Fascinating chain of assumptions you have there.
Even though there are cases in which other users and admins go too far, one has to learn that the most important skill of being a Wikipedian is to know when to stop arguing and calm the fuck down. Almost everyone who I see get banned for edit-warring is because they refuse to do this.
The most important skill for a Wikipedian is to "not rock the boat" rather than "good research and writing skills"?
I hope Colbert's candidacy and its high level of support serve a large clue-stick to the entrenched political parties. A large number of people are so sick and tired of politics as usual that they are willing to support anyone who is unusual.
Or, and much more likely, a large number of people are easily swayed by the media/entertainment sector - which Colbert is a highly visible member of. Equally likely, large number of people are semi-lemmings who will jump on whatever the latest 'net meme is.
Especially considering the 'high level of support' wasn't people actually doing anything except joining Facebook groups etc... (Which leads me to believe the 'net meme' theory is the more likely explanation.)
Getting on the ballot need to be a little more democratic.
Getting on the ballot is quite democratic - all you have to do is get off your fat ass and get involved with politics and your chosen party. Or to put it another way: How, _precisely_ is it undemocratic for the party to choose, by democratic methods, the candidate(s) that will represent it?
From the article, it is impossible to ascertain whether or not the equipment used to generate the random sequence has remained identical over the years. On that basis alone, this article is meaningless.
They might have requested anonymity so people don't ridicule themabout paying for the low UID. Well, actually, it doesn't matter why they requested anonymity. The fact of the matter is that they did. It's a little rude to point out their account when they explicitly wanted to keep it hidden.
With all the concern about the right to remain anonymous on/., I don't see why you would purposely go out of your way to lift that veil off of someone else.
It's pretty much standard Slashdot behavior after all. How many times have you seen someone's contact info posted with readers being encouraged to flood his mail and email boxes with correspondence - even though few if any Slashdot readers have any standing? Most of the prattle about rights on Slashdot is just hot air - rights apply to Slashdot readers and not to anyone else. (Especially if that anyone else is a corporation, unless the corporation in question is Google.)
Driving to achieve closeness or compatibility with Microsoft formats, except as something kept at arms length, is essentially suicide.
On the other hand, completely ignoring Microsoft formats isn't essentially suicide, it is suicide. Microsoft exists, and dominates the office application market, pretending it doesn't exist and that you can 'do your own thing' without taking it into account is utterly stupid.
I'm not sure I understand the point of the criticism. I'm merely highlighting that space flight is tough business and risky business. Perhaps you misunderstood or are reading too much into my post?
It is very easy to misread when you make statements like "The Soviet space program is as full of accidents or more so than our own", and then proceed to present such a laundry list of Soviet accidents (missing several and elevating others into the category that do not belong). It's even easier to misread when you then present such an erroneous list of American accidents.
One thing few people realize is there have been nearly as many close-calls in the US space program.
There haven't been anywhere near as many close calls in the US program as in the Soviet. (And your listing of close calls misses at least 2.)
Everyone knows about Apollo 13, but the first shuttle launch had a near burn-through due to tiles that fell off during launch.
False.
Another shuttle flight had an engine shutdown due to a short circuit that left it in a low orbit.
Not a close call, the crew was never in significant danger. The orbit, while low, was stable and well above atmospheric effects.
Apollo 12 was hit by lightning. One of the Gemini flights went out of control and tumbled violently, nearly killing Neil Armstrong and David Scott. The Mercury 4 capsule had a hatch blow prematurely on splash down and sank as Gus Grissom scrambled to escape.
Three real ones - one more than you missed on your list of Soviet/Russian ones. (Though there are a few that arguably don't belong on that list - your definition is somewhat elastic.)
Except that most supercomputers on the Top 500 list aren't defined as such because of their raw memory, or MFLOPS, etc... Supercomputers are different from the average PC/iPhone/whatever consumer device not quantatively - but qualatively. Not of degree, but of kind.
They generally have wider memory buses, lower memory and network latency, etc... etc... designed into them.
Note: This is a general comment, not particularly aimed at Ignorant Aardvark, just riffing off the points he raises.
How long are you willing to just sit around until someone else fixes something when you can do something about it yourself?
Is that not the whole point of the Wiki philosophy espoused by Wikipedia? If you see a problem, you are not only able but you are encouraged to go ahead and fix it. Is that not the whole point of the GNU Free Documentation License - to give anyone who chooses to do so the freedom to distribute and/or fork the material so licensed?
It is very interesting to see the response of folks when someone actually chooses to exercise these explicitly stated philosophies and rights. So far, here on Slashdot, it is almost universally negative. Which actually is pretty depressing.
We are lucky we live in the United States of America. We have a Constitution that guarantees that congress can make no law "abridging the freedom of speech". Errr....wait.....ummmmm. Well, I mean... except POLITICAL speech. I'm sure when they wrote the 1st amendment they didn't really mean political speech. I wonder why the supreme court just ignores this ?
Largely because the Court has long held that Freedom Of Speech isn't an unlimited license. From not 'yelling fire', to not being able to produce child pornography - the courts have held that reasonable restrictions can and must exist.
quote "... for a 10 hour mission to observe forest fires in California, scanning the terrain from 23-25,000 feet using a variety of sensors for visible and IR light. Able to remain aloft for up to 30 continuous hours..."
So what did it do for the remaining 20 hours? A beer run?
It wasn't aloft for thirty hours, it was aloft for ten. It is "capable of remaining aloft for thirty hours" not it "was aloft for thirty hours". Reading comprehension FTW.
Displaced SoCal citizens could have used that data, we could still use it today (Saturday).
To some degree I have a limited amount of sympathy for the citizens of Southern California. Like the residents of New Orleans, who live in a city vulnerable to flooding from hurricanes... The citizens of Southern California live in an area that burns. Fairly regularly.
This was certainly the case when I used vector processors. It is possible that the vector processor does not run an OS at all. It has been many years since I have worked on such a beast but when I did we ran a loader system with a standard OS which would cross compile code for the processor and load it almost onto the hardware (there was actually a small program we called a monitor to deal with I/O, etc, but no multi-tasking, security or anything). It would then run and the results were read back into the front-end computer.
What you called a 'monitor' is in fact an OS - bare bones and stripped to the absolute minimum, but an OS none the less.
The point is that the prize did not cover the costs of development and the development did not happen because of the prize.
Your first point is correct, but your second point is not. Without the prize, Burt never seeks a backer. Without a backer to pay for development, development never starts.
Here's the thing - this 'get the public interested' card has been played again and again - and it never works. The general public simply isn't interested in space travel, and except very briefly in the 1960's - never was. The public isn't stupid and sees stunts for what they are.
As for space not being in the nightly news - why should it be? Like Antarctic exploration, it has become routine. Routine stuff, especially stuff with low viewer interest never makes the news.
Just to add a little more, here...I've been told, though I've not had it confirmed ( I keep hoping to run across it somewhere) that Germany *had* to use hydrogen; the Allies, in part of the long pissing-contest that lead up to WW1, wouldn't let them have any helium.
Loss of the Hindenberg, May 3, 1937. WWI, 1914-1918
A little Googling about shows your other 'facts' to be equally suspect.
It makes me sad that almost 40 years later, they have to reinvent the technology from scratch.
We aren't reinventing the technology from scratch. (Nor do we need to.) This prize is about as relevant to an actual lander as an Estes model rocket from your local hobby store.
The hover times are calculated so that the Level 2 mission closely simulates the power needed to perform the real lunar mission.
The power isn't anywhere within an order of magnitude of what will be needed to perform a real lunar mission. The landers participating in the prize competition don't have a science payload, don't have the thermal control systems, don't have the power systems, etc..., etc... Nor do these vehicles have to be strong enough to take the stress of a rocket launch. (And that 25kg 'payload' is a joke.)
Yes, I know what the press release says. It's PR fluff.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether you like it or not - delivering advertising is a product.
One of the key elements of defending yourself against a charge of trademark infringement is showing that you operate in a different area of business. In this case, both domain owners operate on the internet and target internet users.
So, once you actually know a little about trademark law (as opposed to spewing bias and hearsay), it is not entirely clear that the poster is safely in the clear.
You want to be _rewarded_ for failing to keep your end of the bargain/contract up? I mean, there is such a thing as poor customer service - but get real.
The controversey and 'demonstrations' are mostly from people with an axe to grind - not people interested in the scientific process.
Now, take this quote as prime example:
My response? "Well, duh - what did you expect?" Pretty much anyone who has ever studied radiocarbon dating, even amateurs, know that the (raw) figure you get from the lab is damm near dimensionless. The enviroment the item has been exposed to, the material it is made of (and the provenance of said material), etc... etc... all must be considered. It takes quite a bit analysis to turn that raw figure into a date. (Like the problem a friend of mine doing post graduate work in archeology told me - if the item has been exposed to the atmosphere in modern times, it may be contaminated with coal dust, soot, or automobile exhaust.)
This, again, falls into the "well, duh" category. Again, pretty much anyone who has ever studied radiocarbon dating and archeology, even amateurs, know that radiocarbon dating is just _one_ method of dating. You have to weigh and compare various dating methods to come up with an accurate date. (For example, if I dig something out and the stratigraphy says "1200's", and the style says "1200's", the the odds are - the thing is from the 1200's, no matter what the radiocarbon dating says.)
It's not an attack to point out that someone who consistently champions pseudoscience [Ginenthal] is not exactly someone whose word on scientific topics should be taken without a boxcar sized grain of salt.
No, it was created by the CAIB subsequent to the loss of Columbia.
No, because the CAIB requires the vehicles be recertified to extend their lives beyond that date - a very expensive and difficult process.
That being said - another limit, currently, is contractural. NASA has only contracted for so many External Tanks, SRB refurbishments, etc... Unless Congress coughs up more money (and approves the delays in converting facilities to support Ares/Constellation - I.E. more money) it simply isn't going to happen.
NASA routinely plans from 3-5 years out, to a decade or more. This is made necessary by the fact that planetary launch windows, if missed, may not recur for two years (Mars) or two _centuries_ (Pluto). Also, the hardware takes from months to years to assemble, on top of months to years of design and review effort. Training for a flight takes months. The Shuttle also has to be overhauled so often, a process taking months, so you have to plan ahead to make time available for that. Etc... Etc...
Fascinating chain of assumptions you have there.
The most important skill for a Wikipedian is to "not rock the boat" rather than "good research and writing skills"?
Or, and much more likely, a large number of people are easily swayed by the media/entertainment sector - which Colbert is a highly visible member of. Equally likely, large number of people are semi-lemmings who will jump on whatever the latest 'net meme is.
Especially considering the 'high level of support' wasn't people actually doing anything except joining Facebook groups etc... (Which leads me to believe the 'net meme' theory is the more likely explanation.)
Getting on the ballot is quite democratic - all you have to do is get off your fat ass and get involved with politics and your chosen party. Or to put it another way: How, _precisely_ is it undemocratic for the party to choose, by democratic methods, the candidate(s) that will represent it?
From the article, it is impossible to ascertain whether or not the equipment used to generate the random sequence has remained identical over the years. On that basis alone, this article is meaningless.
Google is possibly in talks regarding phones using an OS speculated to exist?
Does Google need this kind of slashvertisement, or is it just a slow news day?
It's pretty much standard Slashdot behavior after all. How many times have you seen someone's contact info posted with readers being encouraged to flood his mail and email boxes with correspondence - even though few if any Slashdot readers have any standing? Most of the prattle about rights on Slashdot is just hot air - rights apply to Slashdot readers and not to anyone else. (Especially if that anyone else is a corporation, unless the corporation in question is Google.)
On the other hand, completely ignoring Microsoft formats isn't essentially suicide, it is suicide. Microsoft exists, and dominates the office application market, pretending it doesn't exist and that you can 'do your own thing' without taking it into account is utterly stupid.
It is very easy to misread when you make statements like "The Soviet space program is as full of accidents or more so than our own", and then proceed to present such a laundry list of Soviet accidents (missing several and elevating others into the category that do not belong). It's even easier to misread when you then present such an erroneous list of American accidents.
There haven't been anywhere near as many close calls in the US program as in the Soviet. (And your listing of close calls misses at least 2.)
False.
Not a close call, the crew was never in significant danger. The orbit, while low, was stable and well above atmospheric effects.
Three real ones - one more than you missed on your list of Soviet/Russian ones. (Though there are a few that arguably don't belong on that list - your definition is somewhat elastic.)
Except that most supercomputers on the Top 500 list aren't defined as such because of their raw memory, or MFLOPS, etc... Supercomputers are different from the average PC/iPhone/whatever consumer device not quantatively - but qualatively. Not of degree, but of kind.
They generally have wider memory buses, lower memory and network latency, etc... etc... designed into them.
Is that not the whole point of the Wiki philosophy espoused by Wikipedia? If you see a problem, you are not only able but you are encouraged to go ahead and fix it. Is that not the whole point of the GNU Free Documentation License - to give anyone who chooses to do so the freedom to distribute and/or fork the material so licensed?
It is very interesting to see the response of folks when someone actually chooses to exercise these explicitly stated philosophies and rights. So far, here on Slashdot, it is almost universally negative. Which actually is pretty depressing.
Largely because the Court has long held that Freedom Of Speech isn't an unlimited license. From not 'yelling fire', to not being able to produce child pornography - the courts have held that reasonable restrictions can and must exist.
It wasn't aloft for thirty hours, it was aloft for ten. It is "capable of remaining aloft for thirty hours" not it "was aloft for thirty hours". Reading comprehension FTW.
To some degree I have a limited amount of sympathy for the citizens of Southern California. Like the residents of New Orleans, who live in a city vulnerable to flooding from hurricanes... The citizens of Southern California live in an area that burns. Fairly regularly.
What you called a 'monitor' is in fact an OS - bare bones and stripped to the absolute minimum, but an OS none the less.
Ah yes, when unable to reply to the issues at hand - hyberbole and handwaving are always a rational alternative.
Your first point is correct, but your second point is not. Without the prize, Burt never seeks a backer. Without a backer to pay for development, development never starts.
Wow. Just wow. That has to be one of the most nonsensical and logic free posts I've ever read.
Here's the thing - this 'get the public interested' card has been played again and again - and it never works. The general public simply isn't interested in space travel, and except very briefly in the 1960's - never was. The public isn't stupid and sees stunts for what they are.
As for space not being in the nightly news - why should it be? Like Antarctic exploration, it has become routine. Routine stuff, especially stuff with low viewer interest never makes the news.
Loss of the Hindenberg, May 3, 1937.
WWI, 1914-1918
A little Googling about shows your other 'facts' to be equally suspect.
We aren't reinventing the technology from scratch. (Nor do we need to.) This prize is about as relevant to an actual lander as an Estes model rocket from your local hobby store.
The power isn't anywhere within an order of magnitude of what will be needed to perform a real lunar mission. The landers participating in the prize competition don't have a science payload, don't have the thermal control systems, don't have the power systems, etc..., etc... Nor do these vehicles have to be strong enough to take the stress of a rocket launch. (And that 25kg 'payload' is a joke.)
Yes, I know what the press release says. It's PR fluff.