Maybe I'm the one misunderstanding this, but, seems everything hit the fan when KING tried to copyright the word "Candy" and force Ransom to pull his product or whatever, not because Ransom wanted to go after King. The instigating factor here is KING is trying to copyright extremely broad terms... CANDY, SAGA? Come on man, and then push out games who use those words even if they came out before their product. It's completely bullying and bullshit.
Broad words are trademarked all the time. Comically, I picked a random word, and found out it was trademarked by the company I currently work for... weird. Not calling this an excuse, just saying it happens and King is hardly the first.
Anyways the chain of events isn't entirely clear from what is available here. Sounds like King is just being a typical business, protecting their stuff. I feel bad for Ransom as it seems he got hosed. I'll just add this story to my list of reasons the system blows chunks. I have no idea how to really fix trademarks, patents and copyright systems... but the system definitely needs better financial aid for little guys so people like Ransom have a fighting chance without ruining their lives.
Though i still maintain the games are not confusing in any significant way.
> You honestly think an apple and a banana are the same shape? A gingerbread man and an amorphous blob? I don't get it.
> My point is where does Runsome get the authority to stop King, when AIM was using the trademarks before Runsome?
It doesn't matter where the right comes from, it is how trademark works. Runsome isn't trying to stop anything other than King stopping him from having his product available. The answer to your first question IS IN THE NARRATIVE YOU JUST TOLD.
You're a moron.
Not only are you an asshole, you're wrong. gj. Ignored.
I honestly do not believe any readers here were confused.
Why are you limiting the data set to just readers of Slashdot? That's exceptionally dishonest.
How is it dishonest? I'm talking about the responses here. Why would I care what reddit or digg or cnn or anybody else thinks if I'm talking about/. responses?
". shapes are wildly different"
no, they aren't. most of them a slightly different.
A square shiny candy vs. a candy valentine heart.
A butterscotch candy vs. a gingerbread man.
A candy apple vs. a banana.
A blue circle with "CS" in it vs. a blue candy with a ridge in the middle.
You honestly think an apple and a banana are the same shape? A gingerbread man and an amorphous blob? I don't get it.
Plus the font is identical.
A cursive font with all letters linked is "identical" to a printed font? The exclamation point alone is short & fat in Candy Crush, but tall and skinny in Candy Swipe. I don't understand where your "identical" affirmation is coming from here.
The argument is that King used his lawyers to make 'Candy' a trademark name and stop preexisting entities from using it.
And that is worse than using lawyers to stop a "future" entity from using a trademark that some other pre-existing entity that is not you, first used? My point is where does Runsome get the authority to stop King, when AIM was using the trademarks before Runsome? Sounds to me that its not a matter of using the trademarks first, but actually a matter of who complains first...
I do see a lot of hate for King and support for "the little guy". Why? I see two issues with Ransom's claim.
First, honestly when I look at the comparisons, I see no confusion. If King actually cloned Candy Swipe, they did so at such a high level as to not require any litigation. "A game about candy that uses a touch screen." Beyond that, what is the same? The colors are similar... shapes are wildly different. Count of the # of objects is different. The gameplay is different. Candy Crush has far more content. The list goes on.
So I'm curious... who here was actually confused by the games? Who here played Candy Crush for a while before realizing "omg, this isn't Candy Swipe"? I honestly do not believe any readers here were confused.
Second, look at Candy Crusher. Make a little comparison pdf of screenshots between the three games. Any claim Runsome makes on King's game can be done by AIM Productions on Runsome, continuing the chain of trademark confusion back a little further, making Runsome's entire claim bubkis. Runsome "cloned" AIM's Candy Crusher just as much as King "cloned" Candy Swipe.
Just because you lost an argument, doesn't mean you were bullied.
Motivation:
- Short subway trips are overpriced due to minimum prices
All this is assuming the cost of moving people 1 stop is the same regardless of the total number of stops in the trip. But if its like pretty much anything else, volume = cheaper. So short trips are not necessarily overpriced.
Take the stations for instance. Their cost to build & maintain can probably be correlated to the number of people that pass through daily. The more people you have passing through, the more security, sanitation, and raw square footage you need.
1 person moving 4 stops (AD) means there is 1 person at the A station, and 1 person at the D station.
3 people moving 1 stop (AB, BC, CD) means there is 1 person at the A station, 1 at the D station, and 2 going through B & C
Presumably this would mean higher overhead incurred by shorter trips, thus justifying the higher prices.
4) Laurelli never bypassed (or even provably encountered) any authentication mechanism whatsoever.
Except by his own admission, he did, and chose to ignore it (bottom of the article). So he saw a safe with something inside, and it was open. He looked around and saw a sign that said "Access to safe contents restricted to authorized personnel. Do not touch." He then decided something along the lines of "Oh I better grab everything before they notice and shut the door."
You don't need a real-world analogy though, you just need an understanding of the thought process behind the "crime": He had a reasonable belief that unrestricted access to the information was a mistake, but chose to ignore that in favor of his personal desires.
While profiting on other people's mistakes is a hallmark of capitalism, when dealing with society or the government, it is a dick move. To me, the fine seems to be an appropriate incentive to get people to think before they act.
Thing is. In the US you can be tried twice for the same crime. It all depends on how far the prosecutor (and you) want to push things. This is what various appeals courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court are.
nopee. the first court is the only court that hears matters of fact, i.e. evidence, witnesses, etc. all the appeals courts only hear matters of law, i.e. whatever. further, if the defendant wins a court case, the prosecutors can't appeal. So, no you can't be tried more than once.
I like taking pedant awards. Lets give it a shot.
The plain appeals process is a bad example perhaps, but there are other exceptions to double jeopardy that can result in multiple trials, convictions & punishments for the same crime: feds & states can prosecute separately & military court marshals being two I can think of. Of course they can also (not so) simply define your crime as multiple crimes (the act & conspiracy, for instance) and try you separately for each.
But then going back to appeals, especially due to misconduct on one side or the other, an appellate judge can toss out even acquittal verdicts, starting everything over, and letting the government get you again.
Defining double jeopardy is as entertaining as defining marriage. You're not violating anybody's rights, you're just clarifying them.
Yo dimwit, the discussion is about ICBM/IRBM active guidance hypersonic vehicles along the lines of the Pershing II, not your mama's pea shooter.
At the distances these are used, terminal guidance is essential which makes my comments germane and yours the sign that you have no frigging idea. Now go back to reddit you fuckwit.
Oh really, hence my surprise that you would say something like that and my attempt to get clarification to maybe start a discussion. Don't go on/. after your daddy fucks you. You're way too angry.
Hypervelocity missiles are good for "journalists" in order to sell paper but not so much against the US Navy.
Are you really saying blind supersonic ordinance doesn't present a threat to the US Navy?
If that's your take from what I wrote, I'd suggest remedial reding comprehension classes.
lol wow.
That is exactly what you wrote, substituting references to missiles specifically rather than ordnance in general. The only question is whether the first sentence is referring to subsonic or supersonic missiles being blind. Perhaps the 2nd sentence clears that up... but then you would have used a semicolon no doubt to join the thoughts. What would serve everybody better than being a prick would be to put your own remedial English skills to work rewording your post.
Please....the push is to be allowed a front seat at the money trough, nothing else matters.
While I admire your pessimism, I think you're a little off. The personality traits that help one last the 20-30 years in the military necessary to be promoted to a position to make those kinds of decisions do not normally include greed.
I'm more inclined to believe their drive lies with "blowing shit up", and "America! Fuck ya!".
Add to that the targeting dilemma where missiles at that speed are practically blind. Hypervelocity missiles are good for "journalists" in order to sell paper but not so much against the US Navy.
Wait, what?
Are you really saying blind supersonic ordinance doesn't present a threat to the US Navy?
Your only gain will be to lose all the good Slashdot users who are irritated. The moderators get paid either way, we the users get screwed by this, not dice.
Ok, so 'they' said that an increase in CO2 would equal an increase in global temperature, called global warming (Al Gore's famous and patently false hockey stick diagram). Now that we haven't observed an increase in global temperature (we've seen a cooling), 'they' can't now call it 'global cooling' because that would be painfully obvious that they are a bunch of ass-hats. Instead, they call it climate change. So which is it, does CO2 warm or cool? It's agendized propaganda, plain and simple.
How about before the coal and oil was coal and oil? Where was the carbon then? And how about just before then? Keep in mind, there's no proof that oil is dinosaurs.
Liberated CO2 is not a pollutant, or detrimental to our planet. The god damned SUN is the driver of weather on this planet, not CO2.
Last hired - first fired policies do nothing to protect quality teachers.
Not directly. They do so by providing job security, which is a perk to attract a larger candidate pool so only quality teachers are hired in the first place.
And policy that doesn't consider the teacher is a policy that has no interest in the educational quality being provided by a school.
The janitor policies don't do that either. Just because a policy doesn't support *every* goal, doesn't mean it is not effectively accomplishing the goal it was intended to accomplish.
The work environment that administrators continue to force teachers to work in with miserable pay do nothing to attract high quality educators. And the result is a miserable education system.
So, you want to get rid of the rigid hire/fire policies to give those same incompetent administrators more discretion? Awesome. What makes you think they're going to suddenly make good decisions after you give them more power?
Funny how businesses that attract competent talent don't require union protections to keep their employees around.
And the tenure process is rigorous and as full of hard work as any other promotion process at any company or organization
In what other industry can I get a sweet deal like that?
Every industry. You just have to have the talent to earn the promotions. In law your goal is partner. In other industries you'd be called a fellow, or whatever term they thought up.
It doesn't matter how talented or charming I am, my current position is effectively temporary. It's the same for pretty much everyone else too (except for teachers).
How many public school teachers have tenure? How many were given pink slips over the last 10 years? Please tell me again that teaching jobs are permanent.
From what little I've tracked down over the years, the political orientation of nonvoters and voters is about the same.
I find that hard to believe since age has such a large impact on party affiliation (young=democrat; old=republican), population size (more young people than old), and voter turnout (young people don't vote).
From this it seems to follow that the majority of non-voters are liberals and thus increasing turnout across the board would skew all elections in that direction.
Normal, mentally-healthy humans have a lot of empathy
That is exactly why it IS click bait. Especially from a for-profit "news" outlet like CNN. Especially when re-posted on a "news for nerds" for-profit news site.
Actually I think I just argued against myself. Ok, its not clickbait here... its just off-topic.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I'm the one misunderstanding this, but, seems everything hit the fan when KING tried to copyright the word "Candy" and force Ransom to pull his product or whatever, not because Ransom wanted to go after King. The instigating factor here is KING is trying to copyright extremely broad terms... CANDY, SAGA? Come on man, and then push out games who use those words even if they came out before their product. It's completely bullying and bullshit.
Broad words are trademarked all the time. Comically, I picked a random word, and found out it was trademarked by the company I currently work for... weird. Not calling this an excuse, just saying it happens and King is hardly the first.
Anyways the chain of events isn't entirely clear from what is available here. Sounds like King is just being a typical business, protecting their stuff. I feel bad for Ransom as it seems he got hosed. I'll just add this story to my list of reasons the system blows chunks. I have no idea how to really fix trademarks, patents and copyright systems... but the system definitely needs better financial aid for little guys so people like Ransom have a fighting chance without ruining their lives.
Though i still maintain the games are not confusing in any significant way.
> You honestly think an apple and a banana are the same shape? A gingerbread man and an amorphous blob? I don't get it.
> My point is where does Runsome get the authority to stop King, when AIM was using the trademarks before Runsome?
It doesn't matter where the right comes from, it is how trademark works. Runsome isn't trying to stop anything other than King stopping him from having his product available. The answer to your first question IS IN THE NARRATIVE YOU JUST TOLD.
You're a moron.
Not only are you an asshole, you're wrong. gj. Ignored.
I honestly do not believe any readers here were confused.
Why are you limiting the data set to just readers of Slashdot? That's exceptionally dishonest.
How is it dishonest? I'm talking about the responses here. Why would I care what reddit or digg or cnn or anybody else thinks if I'm talking about /. responses?
". shapes are wildly different" no, they aren't. most of them a slightly different.
A square shiny candy vs. a candy valentine heart.
A butterscotch candy vs. a gingerbread man.
A candy apple vs. a banana.
A blue circle with "CS" in it vs. a blue candy with a ridge in the middle.
You honestly think an apple and a banana are the same shape? A gingerbread man and an amorphous blob? I don't get it.
Plus the font is identical.
A cursive font with all letters linked is "identical" to a printed font? The exclamation point alone is short & fat in Candy Crush, but tall and skinny in Candy Swipe. I don't understand where your "identical" affirmation is coming from here.
The argument is that King used his lawyers to make 'Candy' a trademark name and stop preexisting entities from using it.
And that is worse than using lawyers to stop a "future" entity from using a trademark that some other pre-existing entity that is not you, first used? My point is where does Runsome get the authority to stop King, when AIM was using the trademarks before Runsome? Sounds to me that its not a matter of using the trademarks first, but actually a matter of who complains first...
AS for confusion: http://www.candyswipe.com/ccs....
Oh I read that. It is why Im not convinced.
First, honestly when I look at the comparisons, I see no confusion. If King actually cloned Candy Swipe, they did so at such a high level as to not require any litigation. "A game about candy that uses a touch screen." Beyond that, what is the same? The colors are similar... shapes are wildly different. Count of the # of objects is different. The gameplay is different. Candy Crush has far more content. The list goes on.
So I'm curious... who here was actually confused by the games? Who here played Candy Crush for a while before realizing "omg, this isn't Candy Swipe"? I honestly do not believe any readers here were confused.
Second, look at Candy Crusher. Make a little comparison pdf of screenshots between the three games. Any claim Runsome makes on King's game can be done by AIM Productions on Runsome, continuing the chain of trademark confusion back a little further, making Runsome's entire claim bubkis. Runsome "cloned" AIM's Candy Crusher just as much as King "cloned" Candy Swipe.
Just because you lost an argument, doesn't mean you were bullied.
Posting updates to stories without a timestamp of when it was updated... ew.
Motivation: - Short subway trips are overpriced due to minimum prices
All this is assuming the cost of moving people 1 stop is the same regardless of the total number of stops in the trip. But if its like pretty much anything else, volume = cheaper. So short trips are not necessarily overpriced.
Take the stations for instance. Their cost to build & maintain can probably be correlated to the number of people that pass through daily. The more people you have passing through, the more security, sanitation, and raw square footage you need.
1 person moving 4 stops (AD) means there is 1 person at the A station, and 1 person at the D station.
3 people moving 1 stop (AB, BC, CD) means there is 1 person at the A station, 1 at the D station, and 2 going through B & C
Presumably this would mean higher overhead incurred by shorter trips, thus justifying the higher prices.
4) Laurelli never bypassed (or even provably encountered) any authentication mechanism whatsoever.
Except by his own admission, he did, and chose to ignore it (bottom of the article). So he saw a safe with something inside, and it was open. He looked around and saw a sign that said "Access to safe contents restricted to authorized personnel. Do not touch." He then decided something along the lines of "Oh I better grab everything before they notice and shut the door."
You don't need a real-world analogy though, you just need an understanding of the thought process behind the "crime": He had a reasonable belief that unrestricted access to the information was a mistake, but chose to ignore that in favor of his personal desires.
While profiting on other people's mistakes is a hallmark of capitalism, when dealing with society or the government, it is a dick move. To me, the fine seems to be an appropriate incentive to get people to think before they act.
Thing is. In the US you can be tried twice for the same crime. It all depends on how far the prosecutor (and you) want to push things. This is what various appeals courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court are.
nopee. the first court is the only court that hears matters of fact, i.e. evidence, witnesses, etc. all the appeals courts only hear matters of law, i.e. whatever. further, if the defendant wins a court case, the prosecutors can't appeal. So, no you can't be tried more than once.
I like taking pedant awards. Lets give it a shot.
The plain appeals process is a bad example perhaps, but there are other exceptions to double jeopardy that can result in multiple trials, convictions & punishments for the same crime: feds & states can prosecute separately & military court marshals being two I can think of. Of course they can also (not so) simply define your crime as multiple crimes (the act & conspiracy, for instance) and try you separately for each.
But then going back to appeals, especially due to misconduct on one side or the other, an appellate judge can toss out even acquittal verdicts, starting everything over, and letting the government get you again.
Defining double jeopardy is as entertaining as defining marriage. You're not violating anybody's rights, you're just clarifying them.
Yo dimwit, the discussion is about ICBM/IRBM active guidance hypersonic vehicles along the lines of the Pershing II, not your mama's pea shooter. At the distances these are used, terminal guidance is essential which makes my comments germane and yours the sign that you have no frigging idea. Now go back to reddit you fuckwit.
Oh really, hence my surprise that you would say something like that and my attempt to get clarification to maybe start a discussion. Don't go on /. after your daddy fucks you. You're way too angry.
Hypervelocity missiles are good for "journalists" in order to sell paper but not so much against the US Navy.
Are you really saying blind supersonic ordinance doesn't present a threat to the US Navy?
If that's your take from what I wrote, I'd suggest remedial reding comprehension classes.
lol wow.
That is exactly what you wrote, substituting references to missiles specifically rather than ordnance in general. The only question is whether the first sentence is referring to subsonic or supersonic missiles being blind. Perhaps the 2nd sentence clears that up... but then you would have used a semicolon no doubt to join the thoughts. What would serve everybody better than being a prick would be to put your own remedial English skills to work rewording your post.
Nevermind. Just fuck off.
Please....the push is to be allowed a front seat at the money trough, nothing else matters.
While I admire your pessimism, I think you're a little off. The personality traits that help one last the 20-30 years in the military necessary to be promoted to a position to make those kinds of decisions do not normally include greed.
I'm more inclined to believe their drive lies with "blowing shit up", and "America! Fuck ya!".
Add to that the targeting dilemma where missiles at that speed are practically blind. Hypervelocity missiles are good for "journalists" in order to sell paper but not so much against the US Navy.
Wait, what?
Are you really saying blind supersonic ordinance doesn't present a threat to the US Navy?
No, son. The OTHER fold. A little further --
Oh, never mind.
Fat dudes?
Your only gain will be to lose all the good Slashdot users who are irritated. The moderators get paid either way, we the users get screwed by this, not dice.
Moderators get paid?!
Somebody owes me a check...
Nobody should need to go below the fold for a highly desirable feature.
I ALWAYS go "below the fold!" With my tongue. That's where the most desirable, uh, "feature" is.
You dig fat chicks eh? To each their own...
Always I'm out of mod points when I see something that actually makes me LOL.
Ok, so 'they' said that an increase in CO2 would equal an increase in global temperature, called global warming (Al Gore's famous and patently false hockey stick diagram). Now that we haven't observed an increase in global temperature (we've seen a cooling), 'they' can't now call it 'global cooling' because that would be painfully obvious that they are a bunch of ass-hats. Instead, they call it climate change. So which is it, does CO2 warm or cool? It's agendized propaganda, plain and simple. How about before the coal and oil was coal and oil? Where was the carbon then? And how about just before then? Keep in mind, there's no proof that oil is dinosaurs. Liberated CO2 is not a pollutant, or detrimental to our planet. The god damned SUN is the driver of weather on this planet, not CO2.
If assholes like you weren't ruining science, your comment would be laughable.
Last hired - first fired policies do nothing to protect quality teachers.
Not directly. They do so by providing job security, which is a perk to attract a larger candidate pool so only quality teachers are hired in the first place.
And policy that doesn't consider the teacher is a policy that has no interest in the educational quality being provided by a school.
The janitor policies don't do that either. Just because a policy doesn't support *every* goal, doesn't mean it is not effectively accomplishing the goal it was intended to accomplish.
The work environment that administrators continue to force teachers to work in with miserable pay do nothing to attract high quality educators. And the result is a miserable education system.
So, you want to get rid of the rigid hire/fire policies to give those same incompetent administrators more discretion? Awesome. What makes you think they're going to suddenly make good decisions after you give them more power?
Funny how businesses that attract competent talent don't require union protections to keep their employees around.
No unions? I don't think its even remotely funny.
And the tenure process is rigorous and as full of hard work as any other promotion process at any company or organization
In what other industry can I get a sweet deal like that?
Every industry. You just have to have the talent to earn the promotions. In law your goal is partner. In other industries you'd be called a fellow, or whatever term they thought up.
It doesn't matter how talented or charming I am, my current position is effectively temporary. It's the same for pretty much everyone else too (except for teachers).
How many public school teachers have tenure? How many were given pink slips over the last 10 years? Please tell me again that teaching jobs are permanent.
(Also, isn't this really a question for superuser.com or similar?)
Possibly ;-)
http://superuser.com/questions...
So adapt the script to de-dupe stories?
But then if we did that... what would we read on /.?
Will there ever be a President that I can respect?
I hope not, that would lull you into a false sense of security.
I might prefer that than our current false sense of obscurity.
From what little I've tracked down over the years, the political orientation of nonvoters and voters is about the same.
I find that hard to believe since age has such a large impact on party affiliation (young=democrat; old=republican), population size (more young people than old), and voter turnout (young people don't vote).
From this it seems to follow that the majority of non-voters are liberals and thus increasing turnout across the board would skew all elections in that direction.
No, this is not clickbait.
Normal, mentally-healthy humans have a lot of empathy
That is exactly why it IS click bait. Especially from a for-profit "news" outlet like CNN. Especially when re-posted on a "news for nerds" for-profit news site.
Actually I think I just argued against myself. Ok, its not clickbait here... its just off-topic.
But the private sector can always do it better! The Libertarians say so!
They can.
The problem is there are 7,000,000,000 different opinions on this planet about what "better" means, exactly.