As general law and contracts don't get to dictate to the controlling segments of the government which terms are acceptable as trademarks or patents, I don't really understand what they're trying to accomplish.
To me it sounds like writing into a building sales contract that the facility is to be sold on the understanding that it's sale is with the intent of operation as a bar. While that in itself might seem a reasonable conditional clause on a property sale, what Zuckerberg and his minions are trying to do is to use the sales contract itself to grant the liquor license.
This kind of legal shystering should result in some sort of charges for attempting to subvert US, Canadian, and international law regarding trademarks and patents. As a penalty, the trademark over "Facebook" itself should be rescinded just to teach the bastards a lesson on how not to manipulate the legal system.
Property is property. As long as Canada and the US buy into the concept of "intellectual" property, my web presence and accounts are protected by the same laws as the content of my home.
Sure, it's easier for someone to abuse their authority and badger an ISP or web service provider into giving up the info, but they know as well as I do that they're required to get a warrant.
Of course both the Canadian Conservatives and certain segments of the US government would LIKE to be able to spy without the pesky warrants, they've been blocked from doing so in Canada. I'm not so sure it's still the same stateside, though it SHOULD be if the Constitution is worth more than a piece of tissue paper.
My content is posted publicly, but many of my friends don't do the same.
So for me to give out my password to a prospective employee would only gain them the ability to spy on people who aren't even applying for the job!
So if you want my password, get a warrant. And if you can't get a warrant because you're not law enforcement, who the hell are you to be asking in the first place?
Exactly. You can't put a corporation in jail, but you can put the law-breaking decision makers there.
Incorporation protects the board of directors and management from financial losses and seizure of their personal assets. It does not protect them from prosecution for illegal activities or decisions made on behalf of the company.
...It features characters from Tolkien's stories on it's signs...
No, it features characters which are named after those in Tolkien's stories.
As the images are not taken from the movies, the fact that they share names is not a copyright violation of the movie images or characters.
Prior to the movies, I'm quite certain most people had their own ideas what the characters Tolkien described actually might have looked like. In my case, the only things that even resembled my imaginings in the movies were the Ents and the Eye of Mordor.
I may have been lucky, but I don't think so. Women are more prone to use subtle manipulation over brute force, at least with North American women. Some of the South American women I've met were more heavy handed, but after seeing the interactions with their spouses in their homes, I'm pretty sure that's cultural rather than innate behaviour.
In other words, my experience has been that women will go to the effort of convincing you to do something; men are more prone to try to just order you to do it.
I'd say about 1/4-1/3 of my supervisors and bosses have been women. Not a bad ratio, considering the dominance of men in the IT industries.
The main difference I've found between men and women as bosses over the years is I have never had a woman try to pull a power trip, leveraging the "authority" of their position to try to force me to do something they wanted.
Men, on the other hand, sometimes think that a title means they have power over me. How soon they learn...
I can see his point, but if the content is illegal enough to result in someone being imprisoned for looking at it, surely it's illegal enough to institute a block to prevent people from viewing it in the first place.
Censorship is bad, but arresting people for viewing material you think should be censored is a hell of a lot worse.
When people say that media is obsolete and downloads are going to replace it, they have no grasp on the reality of the situation. The vast majority of people I know do not stream their video -- they buy it. Because in Canada, when you buy media, you OWN the media. But if you pay for a download, you don't own schite.
Furthermore, although high speed access up to 10Mbit is available here, even 6.4Mbit downloads will cost you around $60/month and it takes hours or even DAYS to download a full 1080p video. So for many people (myself included), downloading a torrent to check out a 480p preview is one thing, but when we want to buy and keep a movie we like, we want the BluRay disk to have that physical OWNED copy and to save on the download time.
But then again, I've always been rather different in my attitude on the purpose of preview "piracy" than the typical freetard. I'm not trying to avoid purchases; I'm trying to decide what's worth purchasing.
Gas prices leap up on the slightest whim of the future's market rising, but they only go down very, very slowly.
As we know now, the whole "shortage" of the '70s and '80s was a lie when you consider shale extraction, so prices should be dropping drastically. But they won't, because there's a oligopoly propping up the prices.
Could someone explain to me why one of the most profitable industries in the world gets tax breaks and subsidies? Clearly with their multi-billion dollar profits, they don't NEED the subsidies and breaks to "encourage" them.
Re:Microsoft bought and rebranded Lattice C.
on
GCC Turns 25
·
· Score: 1
And that 1.0 release didn't do pointer arithmetic any better than Lattice did.
Which is to say, it didn't work.
But when we filed bug reports, MicroSoft said it would be fixed in the next release -- which we'd have to buy at full price.
So chalk one up to MicroSoft for conning me out of my rare student dollars to fund their early growth. They never did deliver a working compiler, and I never have forgiven them for ripping me off. And I never will -- I've always looked for the "hook" where MicroSoft is going to rip me off with each and every product they've released since then.
If your data is your life, you should have been doing backups to other locations, not just posting it to a server some where.
No sympathy here for anyone who "lost" data due to the takedown. Were I in the hosting provider's shoes, my response would be along the lines of:
A failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.
It's an old saying in the IT world, but a sanity-saver when dealing with incompetent users and departments who always put off their requirements to the last minute and who rarely have the budget to PAY for those requirements.
Amen to that. While I enjoyed my years of programming and using an Amiga, I have no desire to return to those days of assembly code and hardware manuals, trying to eek out every shred of performance from the hardware.
I wish they'd just let the old name rest in peace. I'm sick of vultures trying to scam people into thinking the crappy Linux distro variant of the month is going to be anything as new and innovative as the Amiga was in it's heyday.
It stinks like it would for Ford to try to bring back the "Model T" name. No one would be fooled except a few suckers. Maybe enough suckers to be worth ripping off, but not enough to "resurrect" a brand.
Wake me up when someone has the entanglement implemented.
Until then, it's just buzzwords and useless for the vast majority of problems that could be solved by a real quantum computer.
This may prove to be a viable accelerator node for the few cases where the particular algorithm that this box computes is needed, but I really can't see that as being a widespread problem requiring a solution of this expense.
I also believe a real quantum computer will prove significantly faster at solving even that one algorithm than this box will be.
This box is "quantum" in the same sense that fast-food ground grease is "meat".
I'm pretty certain I was playing H.264 content in VLC under Windows XP SP3 last year before the partition got infected, nuked, and reformatted for Linux space. So obviously there are H.264 codecs that can be installed.
If a user purchases or licenses or otherwise obtains a codec, of course it should be accessible! It doesn't have to be provided by Microsoft to be valid. Heck, most of the codecs I use aren't installed or available from Microsoft.
I don't understand the intent of the article other than to provide a knee-jerk chicken-little response to cloud processing and storage.
Not one of the items mentioned is unique to the cloud. It can happen to any data center with more than two nodes involved in a cluster.
But that's not surprising, because "the cloud" is just a distributed collection of cluster servers, the same as large multi-nationals have been running pretty much since their customer loads exceeded the ability of one server to span the global community.
Google should just change a few words and use the MPAA quote as a template:
The MPAA's proposed prosecution appears to be part of a systematic effort by the MPAA, itself a prosecutor in ongoing copyright infringement cases, to influence the development of the law to the MPAA's own advantage. The MPAA is acting as a partisan persecutor of Hotfile, making arguments that the MPAA has or could have made in its own support of a summary judgment. The parties here are well-represented and have the incentive and wherewithal to make all the arguments the court will need. Although the MPAA purports not to take a position regarding summary judgment here, the MPAA unmistakably seeks a ruling in favour of the plaintiffs. The MPAA's charges should be dismissed.
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe there's some sort of "author's guild" that can sue them for attempting to subvert THEIR "trademark". :P
As general law and contracts don't get to dictate to the controlling segments of the government which terms are acceptable as trademarks or patents, I don't really understand what they're trying to accomplish.
To me it sounds like writing into a building sales contract that the facility is to be sold on the understanding that it's sale is with the intent of operation as a bar. While that in itself might seem a reasonable conditional clause on a property sale, what Zuckerberg and his minions are trying to do is to use the sales contract itself to grant the liquor license.
This kind of legal shystering should result in some sort of charges for attempting to subvert US, Canadian, and international law regarding trademarks and patents. As a penalty, the trademark over "Facebook" itself should be rescinded just to teach the bastards a lesson on how not to manipulate the legal system.
Property is property. As long as Canada and the US buy into the concept of "intellectual" property, my web presence and accounts are protected by the same laws as the content of my home.
Sure, it's easier for someone to abuse their authority and badger an ISP or web service provider into giving up the info, but they know as well as I do that they're required to get a warrant.
Of course both the Canadian Conservatives and certain segments of the US government would LIKE to be able to spy without the pesky warrants, they've been blocked from doing so in Canada. I'm not so sure it's still the same stateside, though it SHOULD be if the Constitution is worth more than a piece of tissue paper.
I've been drug-screened a grand total of ZERO times in the US or Canada.
I expect to receive as many requests for my Facebook password as I have requests for drug tests.
Which is to say, none.
Because the companies I apply with treat their employees as people not slaves or cattle.
My content is posted publicly, but many of my friends don't do the same.
So for me to give out my password to a prospective employee would only gain them the ability to spy on people who aren't even applying for the job!
So if you want my password, get a warrant. And if you can't get a warrant because you're not law enforcement, who the hell are you to be asking in the first place?
Exactly. You can't put a corporation in jail, but you can put the law-breaking decision makers there.
Incorporation protects the board of directors and management from financial losses and seizure of their personal assets. It does not protect them from prosecution for illegal activities or decisions made on behalf of the company.
No, it features characters which are named after those in Tolkien's stories.
As the images are not taken from the movies, the fact that they share names is not a copyright violation of the movie images or characters.
Prior to the movies, I'm quite certain most people had their own ideas what the characters Tolkien described actually might have looked like. In my case, the only things that even resembled my imaginings in the movies were the Ents and the Eye of Mordor.
I may have been lucky, but I don't think so. Women are more prone to use subtle manipulation over brute force, at least with North American women. Some of the South American women I've met were more heavy handed, but after seeing the interactions with their spouses in their homes, I'm pretty sure that's cultural rather than innate behaviour.
In other words, my experience has been that women will go to the effort of convincing you to do something; men are more prone to try to just order you to do it.
I'd say about 1/4-1/3 of my supervisors and bosses have been women. Not a bad ratio, considering the dominance of men in the IT industries.
The main difference I've found between men and women as bosses over the years is I have never had a woman try to pull a power trip, leveraging the "authority" of their position to try to force me to do something they wanted.
Men, on the other hand, sometimes think that a title means they have power over me. How soon they learn...
I can see his point, but if the content is illegal enough to result in someone being imprisoned for looking at it, surely it's illegal enough to institute a block to prevent people from viewing it in the first place.
Censorship is bad, but arresting people for viewing material you think should be censored is a hell of a lot worse.
When people say that media is obsolete and downloads are going to replace it, they have no grasp on the reality of the situation. The vast majority of people I know do not stream their video -- they buy it. Because in Canada, when you buy media, you OWN the media. But if you pay for a download, you don't own schite.
Furthermore, although high speed access up to 10Mbit is available here, even 6.4Mbit downloads will cost you around $60/month and it takes hours or even DAYS to download a full 1080p video. So for many people (myself included), downloading a torrent to check out a 480p preview is one thing, but when we want to buy and keep a movie we like, we want the BluRay disk to have that physical OWNED copy and to save on the download time.
But then again, I've always been rather different in my attitude on the purpose of preview "piracy" than the typical freetard. I'm not trying to avoid purchases; I'm trying to decide what's worth purchasing.
In other words, the FDIC is the backup.
I'd say that's what the FDIC and Canadian equivalent are for.
Gas prices leap up on the slightest whim of the future's market rising, but they only go down very, very slowly.
As we know now, the whole "shortage" of the '70s and '80s was a lie when you consider shale extraction, so prices should be dropping drastically. But they won't, because there's a oligopoly propping up the prices.
Could someone explain to me why one of the most profitable industries in the world gets tax breaks and subsidies? Clearly with their multi-billion dollar profits, they don't NEED the subsidies and breaks to "encourage" them.
And that 1.0 release didn't do pointer arithmetic any better than Lattice did.
Which is to say, it didn't work.
But when we filed bug reports, MicroSoft said it would be fixed in the next release -- which we'd have to buy at full price.
So chalk one up to MicroSoft for conning me out of my rare student dollars to fund their early growth. They never did deliver a working compiler, and I never have forgiven them for ripping me off. And I never will -- I've always looked for the "hook" where MicroSoft is going to rip me off with each and every product they've released since then.
If your data is your life, you should have been doing backups to other locations, not just posting it to a server some where.
No sympathy here for anyone who "lost" data due to the takedown. Were I in the hosting provider's shoes, my response would be along the lines of:
It's an old saying in the IT world, but a sanity-saver when dealing with incompetent users and departments who always put off their requirements to the last minute and who rarely have the budget to PAY for those requirements.
Amen to that. While I enjoyed my years of programming and using an Amiga, I have no desire to return to those days of assembly code and hardware manuals, trying to eek out every shred of performance from the hardware.
I wish they'd just let the old name rest in peace. I'm sick of vultures trying to scam people into thinking the crappy Linux distro variant of the month is going to be anything as new and innovative as the Amiga was in it's heyday.
It stinks like it would for Ford to try to bring back the "Model T" name. No one would be fooled except a few suckers. Maybe enough suckers to be worth ripping off, but not enough to "resurrect" a brand.
I've seen a few people who seem hell bent on getting a full-body massage out of the idea.
No tatts here, but I admire the art work.
We're merging the PC and printer divisions because, they're, like, one product, you know?
They both plug in to the wall.
They both plug into the network.
So they're the same thing. :P
Wake me up when someone has the entanglement implemented.
Until then, it's just buzzwords and useless for the vast majority of problems that could be solved by a real quantum computer.
This may prove to be a viable accelerator node for the few cases where the particular algorithm that this box computes is needed, but I really can't see that as being a widespread problem requiring a solution of this expense.
I also believe a real quantum computer will prove significantly faster at solving even that one algorithm than this box will be.
This box is "quantum" in the same sense that fast-food ground grease is "meat".
I can see posting the warning message on violent video games. But on all video games?
Isn't that kind of like requiring an anti-smoking warning be stuck on all oranges when sold by corner stores that carry cigarettes?
I'm pretty certain I was playing H.264 content in VLC under Windows XP SP3 last year before the partition got infected, nuked, and reformatted for Linux space. So obviously there are H.264 codecs that can be installed.
If a user purchases or licenses or otherwise obtains a codec, of course it should be accessible! It doesn't have to be provided by Microsoft to be valid. Heck, most of the codecs I use aren't installed or available from Microsoft.
Making a joke at the expense of the MPAA/RIAA on Slashdot is trolling?
Wow. We must have some RIAA/MPAA supporters with accounts logged in today. :D
I don't understand the intent of the article other than to provide a knee-jerk chicken-little response to cloud processing and storage.
Not one of the items mentioned is unique to the cloud. It can happen to any data center with more than two nodes involved in a cluster.
But that's not surprising, because "the cloud" is just a distributed collection of cluster servers, the same as large multi-nationals have been running pretty much since their customer loads exceeded the ability of one server to span the global community.
Google should just change a few words and use the MPAA quote as a template: