What does 7 have that they need and don't have with XP? Does your company replace all the furniture every time Herman Miller comes out with a new line?
Seems to me that showing that the painting could have been plausibly based on any of several photos would strengthen the painter's case considerably. Doing so would indicate that what he copied was not the photographer's creative expression but mere scènes à faire.
> The issue is that Google is now willingly allowing Joe Schmuck, a competitor, to use > trademarks to their own benefit.
Which in the USA is legal as long as the mark is not used in a way that would confuse the public as to what product it is getting. A trademark is not a copyright.
>...it really does seem foolish to let people and corporations lock up those words just > because they couldn't make up something new.
The point is they are *not* locking up those words. Apple has the exclusive right to use the symbol APPLE to label its computers because it was the first to ever use the word that way. They have no right to restrict any other use of the symbol.
The data was being released in a somewhat informal fashion. There may not have been any classified stuff leaked in the past, but it could happen in the future if, for example, the system is upgraded and the quality of the released data suddenly changes. The general wants the data to be properly declassified to make sure that doesn't happen, but declassification is expensive and he doesn't have a budget for it. It's possible that the deal he has struck involves some other agency reimbursing his command for the cost of declassifying and publishing the data.
> For those that don't know the Confirm project, they spent about $180M and about 6 weeks > from the end date realized they were at least 18 months late.
Yes, but how did it differ from the average project?
> I have seen projects run into major problems necessitating extensive rewrites because of > fundamental mistakes in low level programming and design decisions that were taken by > developers, not a bunch of weaselly managers and marketing creeps.
An executive who doesn't notice until too late that his developers are screwing up is screwing up.
> Wasn't it said a while back that a plain photograph of a public domain image > automatically goes into public domain, unless it can be proven that the photograph > is, in some way, unique?
That is USA law. The NPG is in the UK. Fortunately, the guy they are threatening to sue is in the USA, as are the servers with the pictures.
Then he is safe. He had their permission for the initial download. Their complaint is about what he with those copies after he downloaded them, but he did that in the USA where UK courts have no jurisdiction and US courts say that what he did is legal.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the solution.
Well, Gopher, at least, is easy.
> ...you don't have data, you just have hand-waving.
We're discussing psychology here. Hand waving is already all we have.
Possibly because he fears that trying to explain them will cause a brain hemmorage.
> If 7 Manages everything it promises, im sure plenty will turn to 7 in the end
What does it promise that businesses need and don't have?
I think that the point is that it is historically low.
What does 7 have that they need and don't have with XP? Does your company replace all the furniture every time Herman Miller comes out with a new line?
The governments have a plan for that.
If you have soul you've already been hacked. By God.
The government made the loony laws.
> I still want to see it implemented in the next Linux kernel though.
This does not belong in the kernel.
> What this actually *might* be is a very, very delay-tolerant email setup... we have one
> of those... it's called "retry and exponential backoff".
It's called UUCP.
Seems to me that showing that the painting could have been plausibly based on any of several photos would strengthen the painter's case considerably. Doing so would indicate that what he copied was not the photographer's creative expression but mere scènes à faire.
The DMCA applies to neither fair use nor to this case.
Well, until the helium leaks out (helium always leaks out).
A disproportionate number, yes. But not all.
> From here, it looks like they are indeed encouraging flagrant trademark violations, in
> clear violation of FTC rules.
The FTC has no authority over trademarks.
> The issue is that Google is now willingly allowing Joe Schmuck, a competitor, to use
> trademarks to their own benefit.
Which in the USA is legal as long as the mark is not used in a way that would confuse the public as to what product it is getting. A trademark is not a copyright.
> ...it really does seem foolish to let people and corporations lock up those words just
> because they couldn't make up something new.
The point is they are *not* locking up those words. Apple has the exclusive right to use the symbol APPLE to label its computers because it was the first to ever use the word that way. They have no right to restrict any other use of the symbol.
Perhaps you should look at schools in India.
The data was being released in a somewhat informal fashion. There may not have been any classified stuff leaked in the past, but it could happen in the future if, for example, the system is upgraded and the quality of the released data suddenly changes. The general wants the data to be properly declassified to make sure that doesn't happen, but declassification is expensive and he doesn't have a budget for it. It's possible that the deal he has struck involves some other agency reimbursing his command for the cost of declassifying and publishing the data.
> For those that don't know the Confirm project, they spent about $180M and about 6 weeks
> from the end date realized they were at least 18 months late.
Yes, but how did it differ from the average project?
> I have seen projects run into major problems necessitating extensive rewrites because of
> fundamental mistakes in low level programming and design decisions that were taken by
> developers, not a bunch of weaselly managers and marketing creeps.
An executive who doesn't notice until too late that his developers are screwing up is screwing up.
> Wasn't it said a while back that a plain photograph of a public domain image
> automatically goes into public domain, unless it can be proven that the photograph
> is, in some way, unique?
That is USA law. The NPG is in the UK. Fortunately, the guy they are threatening to sue is in the USA, as are the servers with the pictures.
Then he is safe. He had their permission for the initial download. Their complaint is about what he with those copies after he downloaded them, but he did that in the USA where UK courts have no jurisdiction and US courts say that what he did is legal.