But, but, it's an unregulated market!!! Evil, evil, evil!!! Soon there will be derivatives!!! And speculators!!! And high-frequency trading!!! The economies of nations will destroyed if this is not brought under government control now!!! (and taxed, of course)
> Perhaps if more people did, Facebook would clean up their act.
And the fact that few people do means that few people care. The fact that few people care means that there is no need for more laws (except, of course, as yet another excuse for bigger, more intrusive, and more centralized government).
> The ad providers would have to figure out that they were being given > personally-identifying referrer URLs...
In other words, they were being given this "personal" information by the user, not by Facebook. The referrer is recorded and handed over to the referred site by the browser, not by the referring site.
> the user's (public) profile to retreive any personal information.
No, to retrieve public information. It's a public profile, remember?
>...a little statement buried in their terms that states they can change the > terms anytime they want.
It's there, isn't it? And if you read the "TOS" you'd know about it. In any case, they cannot change the terms retroactively (not even if the TOS clains that they can). The terms that are in effect at the time you use the service are the ones that apply to that transaction.
> First alternative... >... > Second alternative... >...
Zeroeth alternative: don't use it if you don't like it, or at least don't post your secrets.
>...I am still concerned about the current younger generation getting > caught out with long term psycho analysis, known marketing > vulnerabilities, known subconscious triggers and permanent limitations upon future career opportunities.
Then tell them. If they choose to ignore you that's their right. If by "the current younger generation" you mean children, tell their parents.
With that said, there are other restrictions - you cannot trademark a common word (so no you can't trademark 'beer')
Ever heard of Apple Computer? You can get a trademark for BEER brand computers or shoes, just not for BEER brand beer.
You are right that she would not have a case under USA law, though, unless the accused infringer is using the mark to sell similar goods or services. Trademark law can get complicated, but as a general rule in order to infringe you must use the mark in a way that might cause the public to believe that they are getting the "legitimate" product when they are not.
Slashdot Mirror
> What's wrong with wanting to take care of your children?
Nothing. The objection is trying to fix it so that other people take care of your children.
> Some publisher is going to continue to profit from his work...
When the work goes into the public domain everyone can benefit from it. That includes "some publisher", but he won't have a monopoly.
> ...so why not let his family benefit, too?
He is free to leave his money to his family.
..that they are "standing up to aggression".
> Unless you live in a hatch somewhere, you are probably aware that Lost has
> ended.
Not really. But then, I know just enough about it to know that I don't need to know any more.
> Words are defined by usage
An excellent reason to discourage misuse.
> If you asked the vast majority of people whether the space shuttle is a
> satellite or not, they'd say "No! It's a space ship".
Which, while it is in orbit, is a type of satellite.
> There's no way that even half of the trucks being driven around Houston are
> used as trucks.
There are a lot of trucks in the world that are not being driven around Houston.
> I'm not sure I believe the USAF when it says it has absolutely no space
> weapons purpose, however.
It's rather small for a weapons platform.
> What if it's hot outside and my air conditioner is running?
Then your engine may choose to ignore the suggestion that it shut off.
> Only if I can leave it on override 100% of the time.
Go back and read the part about "participating vehicles".
> Are there any companies that don't have an enterprise grade Linux
> distribution, and ought to?
IBM, not that I know of any evidence that they are interested.
> That's just it, you're not. And you can't when you don't even know what you
> have. Hint: It's a lot more than you think.
Don't hint. Tell us.
> We are the ones who put up the barriers.
So take down these barriers you put up.
> I think we're still missing many key ingredients to make these (to me
> unfathomable) assumptions. So I still have hope.
But what are you actually doing about it? Get off your ass and invent antigravity!
But, but, it's an unregulated market!!! Evil, evil, evil!!! Soon there will be derivatives!!! And speculators!!! And high-frequency trading!!! The economies of nations will destroyed if this is not brought under government control now!!! (and taxed, of course)
> Which is total bs...
Yes, but only because progress cannot be quantified.
> ...you don't mislead your customers like that.
The customers for this product are PHBs. They want to be misled.
> Perhaps if more people did, Facebook would clean up their act.
And the fact that few people do means that few people care. The fact that few people care means that there is no need for more laws (except, of course, as yet another excuse for bigger, more intrusive, and more centralized government).
> The ad providers would have to figure out that they were being given
> personally-identifying referrer URLs...
In other words, they were being given this "personal" information by the user, not by Facebook. The referrer is recorded and handed over to the referred site by the browser, not by the referring site.
> the user's (public) profile to retreive any personal information.
No, to retrieve public information. It's a public profile, remember?
Public information? So why is this a problem?
> ...a little statement buried in their terms that states they can change the > terms anytime they want.
It's there, isn't it? And if you read the "TOS" you'd know about it. In any case, they cannot change the terms retroactively (not even if the TOS clains that they can). The terms that are in effect at the time you use the service are the ones that apply to that transaction.
> First alternative... ... ...
>
> Second alternative...
>
Zeroeth alternative: don't use it if you don't like it, or at least don't post your secrets.
> ...I am still concerned about the current younger generation getting
> caught out with long term psycho analysis, known marketing
> vulnerabilities, known subconscious triggers and permanent limitations upon future career opportunities.
Then tell them. If they choose to ignore you that's their right. If by "the current younger generation" you mean children, tell their parents.
> You can count on metrics being a problem.
Right. Give me goog old American feet and pounds any day.
Ever heard of Apple Computer? You can get a trademark for BEER brand computers or shoes, just not for BEER brand beer.
You are right that she would not have a case under USA law, though, unless the accused infringer is using the mark to sell similar goods or services. Trademark law can get complicated, but as a general rule in order to infringe you must use the mark in a way that might cause the public to believe that they are getting the "legitimate" product when they are not.
Or is it that both are using the mark to sell the same "service"?
n/t
More crap.
> I'm still unsure exactly what it is I'm supposed to be using Google Wave
> for.
The video makes that quite clear: creating a hideous garbled mess of crap.