Good point. I have yet to find a windows replacement for "foreach f ( * ); mv $f $f.old; end" That's why Cygwin is usually one of the first things I install on a new windows machine.
Of course. There are still people who make buggy whips, too. Those jobs haven't completely disappeared, but they are not the secure lifetime trades they were decades or centuries ago.
Know anybody in the business of delivering milk or ice door-to-door? Know any fullers, coopers or blacksmiths? Those used to be considered solid jobs as well. Dynamic economies constantly create and destroy entire categories of jobs. Why be upset when manufacturing high-tech devices is no longer something that can be profitably done?
The model I'm talking about is where you go to the library website and download an e-book which expires from your computer/ipod/whatever in precisely two weeks and automatically "returns" to the library, which then emails the next person on the waiting list.
Clearly the number of potential readers has to increase if only because there are far fewer reasons for an e-book to be removed from circulation than a traditional book. It seems clear, also, that there should be less turnover time with e-books since downloading is more convenient, there's no need to request from a different branch, wait until the library is open, etc...
To me, the big First Sale problem isn't with libraries; it's with e-copies that I actually bought. I ought to be able to transfer my copy of a Kindle book to somebody else. That's where publishers are over-reaching.
Here's their concern: if you sell an ebook to a library, they will rent that book out perpetually. There's no risk of somebody spilling coffee on it. The pages don't fall out. You never wonder why two pages are sticking together. You don't get the guy who borrows it and then returns 2 months late. The book spends far less time sitting reserved "on the shelf" waiting for the next guy to pick it up. The book is never retired. The next person in line essentially gets a brand new book to read, as if he had downloaded the copy new onto his Kindle.
Think about this from the publisher's point-of-view: a sale of a hard-copy book to a library may mean that, say, 3 people who would have bought the book new now won't. But, a sale of an unrestricted electronic copy to a library may mean that 7 people now won't. That dramatically changes their decisions about pricing and which books to publish. [Numbers pulled out of a hat -- I'm sure the industry has a great idea what the real ones are.]
It's a bit more than that. Consumers don't just care about taste -- they care about how the product looks in the store and how it has survived the trip from the farm where it was grown. As a result, farms produce fruit that still looks good after spending the week on that truck. Heck, in some places, they are legally required to do this. (Google "Uglyripe Florida Restrictions" -- the Florida Tomato Committee banned the export of ugly, but great-tasting, tomatoes because they didn't want their look to tarnish the image of Florida tomatoes.) And, unfortunately, when you're deciding to grow produce varieties based on *that* characteristic, you're often not selecting based on taste. That's why locally-grown produce often tastes better -- the farm doesn't have to ship, so doesn't have to make that trade-off. Whole Foods often sells heirloom tomato varieties, but they're all locally grown.
Well, I'll be happy to separate the organic stuff if a farmer wants to pay me for it. But, if it's like those cans, somehow the government wants to charge me to take away those nearly-pure cans -- if they were a resource, as you claim, then people should be paying me to take them away, not vice-versa.
According to the EPA, they're the third largest source -- http://www.epa.gov/outreach/sources.html . And, that's primarily from old landfills that predated modern regulations requiring modern landfills to capture methane. Since today's garbage isn't going into those old landfills, it's not affecting that amount.
The planet is not going to shrivel up and die if people don't compost. We're just talking about reducing the amount of land dedicated to landfills, or the cost of building more incinerators, both of which are substantially about money.
Besides, think about how many jobs would be created if municipalities hired people to sort recycleables and compostables out of household trash. Not composting is a public service. (Yes, that is a joke, although some people may not recognize it.)
"from a denier like you" sounds like an insult to me -- the implication is that I don't think for myself.
If what you are saying actually happened, then I don't think you would need to turn to "Russia Today" for evidence -- you'd be able to find mainstream journalists who were kept out.
Per capita, New York City probably has more people who consider themselves journalists than any other place in the world. Many of them are "freelance" -- not associated with any outfit; just trying to sell stories. It doesn't surprise me that a few of these people got caught up in the sweep. But, show me some evidence of a deliberate intention to block press access -- the reporter form the ABC affiliate going down there with a camera crew, then being pushed back by the cops, for example.
Aaahh yes. An insult. Truly the highest form of arguing.
The Holocaust is widely accepted by every major news outlet; only the fringe folks disbelieve it. Here, only the fringe folks believe there was some conspiracy to keep the press out.
I disbelieve this for the same reason I disbelieve claims in the fringe press about aliens. Show me some substantial evidence and I'll believe it.
"Russia Today" is not what I'd consider to be a reputable news source. Show me CBS, NBC, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post or other reputable sources saying that helicopters and physical barriers were being used to keep the press out. Right now, all you have is some lady who looks like she was one of the protesters.
The purpose of a EULA is to protect the company from liability and, sometimes, that means including specific language -- the "implied warranty of merchantability," and "indemnification" for example are legalistic, but have specific meanings that are not easily translated into everyday english. On the other hand, lots of lawyers have gotten used to writing in legal jargon -- "In the event that" instead of "If," for example, overuse of words like "hereunder" and "thereunder," etc.... And that stuff sure doesn't belong in a document they expect laypeople to read.
In the US at least, EULAs are regularly enforced in court. If you are presented with a EULA and push a button that says "I Accept," then you have accepted, whether or not you actually read the EULA.
http://www.internetlibrary.com/publications/cwahe_art.cfm
It is duboius. They're using helicopters and they're using physical barriers. How do we know that they're doing it to "prevent news coverage" as opposed to simply implementing part of their plan to clean up the park? The morning news sure doesn't seem to be having any problems reporting it.
You're right that generally, trademark is all about whether consumers are confused. But, there's another part of trademark law that talks about diluting the mark, even when there isn't any confusion:
Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous mark that is distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall be entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the owner’s mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury.. . . “dilution by tarnishment” is association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that harms the reputation of the famous mark.
15 USC 1125(c).
The idea, in the hooters case, is that "Hooters" is famous enough -- it isn't just that it's a "Hooters(TM) brand restaurant"; it's that when you say "Hooters," everybody thinks of those restaurants, making it a "famous mark." So, when somebody comes along with "hooters.xxx," that now means that when you say "I went to hooters," some people may think that you mean "I was surfing a porn site." That has hurt the ability of the original "Hooters" name to be associated with the restaurant. And, under this law, that's actionable.
It's not whether the company has another domain name; it's whether the company has a trademark in the name and whether it can prevent somebody else from using the goodwill of that mark to market porn.
Claiming it's "privately owned" doesn't really answer the question -- what does that mean? You can claim some sort of ownership rights in, say, "hooters.xxx" just because ICANN says "you can sell.xxx domains"?
The better question is "why should private companies be allowed to sell a domain name that's based on a famous trademark" -- when you buy the ".xxx" gtld, do you buy the right to assign EVERY subdomain therein? Or do you only buy the rights to assign those subdomains that do not interfere with somebody else's rights?
And exactly HOW are you enslaved? By being allowed to go to work in leans and being given health plans and 401(k)s? If your job is so bad that you think you're actually a "slave," then find a different job. Even in this economy, there's good work for geeks who've kept themselves up-to-date. Heck, MOVE if you have to.
A collection of facts can be copyrighted, but the facts themselves cannot be. The copyright would extend only to whatever creativity it took to select and present the facts. So, for example, the white pages are not protected because it's just a list of all the names and numbers. But, if you had a directory of your favorite restaurants, then the directory itself is protected. (But, the facts in that directory are not protected.)
There is a third choice: the estimate is calculated to an unjustified precision. . . . and 63 cents? That sort of precision is destroyed if there's a flu bug running around your factory or if you have an abnormally cold winter or if there's a Hurricane anywhere in the world.
Who are all these groups and people who think THEY have the right to control the internet? What happened to the idea that the Internet was going to be self-governing?
The UN can't even manage its own budget.
So, first of all, the military GPS signal is encrypted, so sending false data is a bit difficult. Further, recognize that GPS works by recognizing small differences in propagation delay between multiple satellites, and uses those difference to figure out where the receiver is. If Kim Il Crazy Guy could, somehow, figure out the encryption, he might be able to mimic the delay, but the result would be that every military bird in N. Korea would think it's at the same coordinates.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. I have yet to find a windows replacement for "foreach f ( * ); mv $f $f.old; end" That's why Cygwin is usually one of the first things I install on a new windows machine.
Of course. There are still people who make buggy whips, too. Those jobs haven't completely disappeared, but they are not the secure lifetime trades they were decades or centuries ago.
Know anybody in the business of delivering milk or ice door-to-door? Know any fullers, coopers or blacksmiths? Those used to be considered solid jobs as well. Dynamic economies constantly create and destroy entire categories of jobs. Why be upset when manufacturing high-tech devices is no longer something that can be profitably done?
The model I'm talking about is where you go to the library website and download an e-book which expires from your computer/ipod/whatever in precisely two weeks and automatically "returns" to the library, which then emails the next person on the waiting list.
Clearly the number of potential readers has to increase if only because there are far fewer reasons for an e-book to be removed from circulation than a traditional book. It seems clear, also, that there should be less turnover time with e-books since downloading is more convenient, there's no need to request from a different branch, wait until the library is open, etc...
To me, the big First Sale problem isn't with libraries; it's with e-copies that I actually bought. I ought to be able to transfer my copy of a Kindle book to somebody else. That's where publishers are over-reaching.
Here's their concern: if you sell an ebook to a library, they will rent that book out perpetually. There's no risk of somebody spilling coffee on it. The pages don't fall out. You never wonder why two pages are sticking together. You don't get the guy who borrows it and then returns 2 months late. The book spends far less time sitting reserved "on the shelf" waiting for the next guy to pick it up. The book is never retired. The next person in line essentially gets a brand new book to read, as if he had downloaded the copy new onto his Kindle.
Think about this from the publisher's point-of-view: a sale of a hard-copy book to a library may mean that, say, 3 people who would have bought the book new now won't. But, a sale of an unrestricted electronic copy to a library may mean that 7 people now won't. That dramatically changes their decisions about pricing and which books to publish. [Numbers pulled out of a hat -- I'm sure the industry has a great idea what the real ones are.]
It's a bit more than that. Consumers don't just care about taste -- they care about how the product looks in the store and how it has survived the trip from the farm where it was grown. As a result, farms produce fruit that still looks good after spending the week on that truck. Heck, in some places, they are legally required to do this. (Google "Uglyripe Florida Restrictions" -- the Florida Tomato Committee banned the export of ugly, but great-tasting, tomatoes because they didn't want their look to tarnish the image of Florida tomatoes.) And, unfortunately, when you're deciding to grow produce varieties based on *that* characteristic, you're often not selecting based on taste. That's why locally-grown produce often tastes better -- the farm doesn't have to ship, so doesn't have to make that trade-off. Whole Foods often sells heirloom tomato varieties, but they're all locally grown.
Well, I'll be happy to separate the organic stuff if a farmer wants to pay me for it. But, if it's like those cans, somehow the government wants to charge me to take away those nearly-pure cans -- if they were a resource, as you claim, then people should be paying me to take them away, not vice-versa.
According to the EPA, they're the third largest source -- http://www.epa.gov/outreach/sources.html . And, that's primarily from old landfills that predated modern regulations requiring modern landfills to capture methane. Since today's garbage isn't going into those old landfills, it's not affecting that amount.
The planet is not going to shrivel up and die if people don't compost. We're just talking about reducing the amount of land dedicated to landfills, or the cost of building more incinerators, both of which are substantially about money.
Besides, think about how many jobs would be created if municipalities hired people to sort recycleables and compostables out of household trash. Not composting is a public service. (Yes, that is a joke, although some people may not recognize it.)
"from a denier like you" sounds like an insult to me -- the implication is that I don't think for myself. If what you are saying actually happened, then I don't think you would need to turn to "Russia Today" for evidence -- you'd be able to find mainstream journalists who were kept out. Per capita, New York City probably has more people who consider themselves journalists than any other place in the world. Many of them are "freelance" -- not associated with any outfit; just trying to sell stories. It doesn't surprise me that a few of these people got caught up in the sweep. But, show me some evidence of a deliberate intention to block press access -- the reporter form the ABC affiliate going down there with a camera crew, then being pushed back by the cops, for example.
Aaahh yes. An insult. Truly the highest form of arguing. The Holocaust is widely accepted by every major news outlet; only the fringe folks disbelieve it. Here, only the fringe folks believe there was some conspiracy to keep the press out. I disbelieve this for the same reason I disbelieve claims in the fringe press about aliens. Show me some substantial evidence and I'll believe it.
"Russia Today" is not what I'd consider to be a reputable news source. Show me CBS, NBC, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post or other reputable sources saying that helicopters and physical barriers were being used to keep the press out. Right now, all you have is some lady who looks like she was one of the protesters.
The purpose of a EULA is to protect the company from liability and, sometimes, that means including specific language -- the "implied warranty of merchantability," and "indemnification" for example are legalistic, but have specific meanings that are not easily translated into everyday english. On the other hand, lots of lawyers have gotten used to writing in legal jargon -- "In the event that" instead of "If," for example, overuse of words like "hereunder" and "thereunder," etc.... And that stuff sure doesn't belong in a document they expect laypeople to read.
I posted about this subject a few weeks ago on my blog -- even included a set of sample terms written in fairly easy-to-read english.
In the US at least, EULAs are regularly enforced in court. If you are presented with a EULA and push a button that says "I Accept," then you have accepted, whether or not you actually read the EULA. http://www.internetlibrary.com/publications/cwahe_art.cfm
Again, how about some citations from reputable news sources.
It is duboius. They're using helicopters and they're using physical barriers. How do we know that they're doing it to "prevent news coverage" as opposed to simply implementing part of their plan to clean up the park? The morning news sure doesn't seem to be having any problems reporting it.
You're right that generally, trademark is all about whether consumers are confused. But, there's another part of trademark law that talks about diluting the mark, even when there isn't any confusion:
Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous mark that is distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall be entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the owner’s mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury. . . . “dilution by tarnishment” is association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that harms the reputation of the famous mark.
15 USC 1125(c).
The idea, in the hooters case, is that "Hooters" is famous enough -- it isn't just that it's a "Hooters(TM) brand restaurant"; it's that when you say "Hooters," everybody thinks of those restaurants, making it a "famous mark." So, when somebody comes along with "hooters.xxx," that now means that when you say "I went to hooters," some people may think that you mean "I was surfing a porn site." That has hurt the ability of the original "Hooters" name to be associated with the restaurant. And, under this law, that's actionable.
It's not whether the company has another domain name; it's whether the company has a trademark in the name and whether it can prevent somebody else from using the goodwill of that mark to market porn.
Claiming it's "privately owned" doesn't really answer the question -- what does that mean? You can claim some sort of ownership rights in, say, "hooters.xxx" just because ICANN says "you can sell .xxx domains"?
The better question is "why should private companies be allowed to sell a domain name that's based on a famous trademark" -- when you buy the ".xxx" gtld, do you buy the right to assign EVERY subdomain therein? Or do you only buy the rights to assign those subdomains that do not interfere with somebody else's rights?
And exactly HOW are you enslaved? By being allowed to go to work in leans and being given health plans and 401(k)s? If your job is so bad that you think you're actually a "slave," then find a different job. Even in this economy, there's good work for geeks who've kept themselves up-to-date. Heck, MOVE if you have to.
A collection of facts can be copyrighted, but the facts themselves cannot be. The copyright would extend only to whatever creativity it took to select and present the facts. So, for example, the white pages are not protected because it's just a list of all the names and numbers. But, if you had a directory of your favorite restaurants, then the directory itself is protected. (But, the facts in that directory are not protected.)
There is a third choice: the estimate is calculated to an unjustified precision. . . . and 63 cents? That sort of precision is destroyed if there's a flu bug running around your factory or if you have an abnormally cold winter or if there's a Hurricane anywhere in the world.
Yeah, I don't want the US government in charge either. Have we lost the "Keep your hands off my Internet" war?
Who are all these groups and people who think THEY have the right to control the internet? What happened to the idea that the Internet was going to be self-governing? The UN can't even manage its own budget.
This is only a proposed change to the law -- the law itself hasn't changed yet. So, the title is wrong.
So, first of all, the military GPS signal is encrypted, so sending false data is a bit difficult. Further, recognize that GPS works by recognizing small differences in propagation delay between multiple satellites, and uses those difference to figure out where the receiver is. If Kim Il Crazy Guy could, somehow, figure out the encryption, he might be able to mimic the delay, but the result would be that every military bird in N. Korea would think it's at the same coordinates.