I think this hits a little to close than "second or third derivative".
"We're dicks, but it is legal.", Ironically, I think such a move strengthens the Apple brand at the cost of some profit. The P.R. from this lawsuit might be worth more than any profit from Apple Computer attempting to sell clothes on its own. It might also be good for "Steve Jobs" clothing, as such a bold and in your face move fits the Apple motif they are trying to connect with. This whole thing could merely be a PR stunt intended to reinforce the image both companies are marketing.
I think the logo might be a bigger issue here. It implies a connection to Apple Computer.
Apple Computer's reputation suggests
that a partnership with a clothing manufacturer is a logical next step, and "Steve Jobs" with that "J" logo is a logical name for the brand.
A third party using that logo when making knock-offs would likely clearly be a third party making knock-offs. A court might let the logo slide. The name however, in combination with the logo, implies a connection to Apple Computer. The combination of name and logo might be enough to push a US court to reject a copyright.
That IS the official Apple Computer logo. Either those jeans are officially licensed, or are custom made. If not licensed and distributed, that would be in violation of copyright.
Those have nothing to do with "Apple Bottom" jeans, which do not use the Apple Computer logo, and are clearly distinguishable as a separate product.
The logo skirts "lying" to the consumer that they are an "Apple Authorized" clothing manufacturer for Apple Computer or at least Steve Jobs. At least that is how it would come across if they distributed the clothing in the USA, or to US tourists.
Sam Adams and the other founding fathers and former presidents are long dead. I doubt very many would actually believe that Samuel Adams started a brewery or had a beer recipe that has lasted til today.
Furthermore Sam Adams is a product by a company, not the company itself. Nor is it the company's only product.
Finally, "Steve Jobs" not only references the name, but links the name to Apple. Signifying a relationship or agreement with Apple.
American consumers have been exposed to a myriad of brand names which contain the same, or similar words, but are not related. The state of Georgia has a lot of companies called "Peachtree".
"Apple Computer" and "Apple Records" with their distinct logos are sufficiently distinct to avoid confusing the majority of consumers. At least until iTunes and the iPod, and Apple Computer's music industry presense.
"Steve Jobs" and its distinctive logo is clearly intended to invoke recognition of Steve Jobs. In the USA, it is strongly expected that such obvious and overt references would be the result of some deal or agreement of sorts. Apple's position in the market suggests that a clothing line, potentially called "Steve Jobs" could be an area where Apple could expand into and build their brand. Though, it is perhaps more valuable to have a separate italian brand, rather than just some marketing materials like most orher brands.
The courts decided the FCC had no authority to enforce "Net Neutrality" in 2015 without Title II, Verizon won the case. The FCC was advised to categorize ISPs as Title II, and they did so. Now that Title II has been repealed, the FCC no longer has any authority.
So Ajit Pai is correct. The "new" rules are in effect now. They are just now whatever the FTC has on file, and whatever little authority the FCC has left.
Lightning is no longer an extension. As of Thunderbird 57, which is based on the Firefox/Gecko 57 ESR code base, Lightning is integrated into Thunderbird itself.
The moon is not likely to be terraform-able. There is not likely to be much of a long term benefit to putting a man on the moon, unless the experiments conducted on ISS can be conducted in low gravity, or otherwise on the moon.
Building a base on the moon would delay us for decades, if not a century or two. And a mission to mars would only be slightly less risky from the limited knowledge gained from building a moon base as practice.
The moon has less gravity, which means softer landings. The moon has no atmosphere, which means nothing to damage or erode equipment. The moon is also quite likely devoid of numerous resources for a colony to be self-sustaining. Once established, how will the colony expand?
A touch screen requires focus. It may be intuitive, but it is very difficult to operate "blind folded", that is, it is difficult to operate without taking your eyes off the road.
Sounds like the circuitry added minimal mass to its shell, given its immense size. In addition, most of its circuitry was likely stored in extra-dimensionally. I am curious as to how the physics are supposed to work across these dimensions. How can something with so much extra mass connected to it be movable on this "side"?
Well, smaller more advanced computers add less mass to the load of a satellite, in addition to the greatly advanced computing power. This means that we are more capable of sending a space craft which can fly autonomously in a different solar system. Given the near decade a course correction from Earth would take.
The mass of one proton? Why would it need to unfold? Is it more structurally sound for travel in deep space? Or is it more "aerodynamic"?
Something with so little mass will be equivalent to a spider web. Space debris in the destination system would tear it to shreds. And would we be able to hit whatever web like substance results from this distance?
On the plus side, if we could build a "quantum spaceship" the size of one proton, it could survive entirely on solar power.
That is what I was wondering. Here on Earth we've got a lot of tight measurements of orbits and tech to accellerate the satellite.
However, once in Alpha Centari we're pretty much flying blind. There is going to be what, a 4-5 year lag between inputs? Would we even be able to send enough fuel to decellerate from 10% of lightspeed, and have anything left over to maneuver in system to gather data?
Throttling is reducing bandwidth regardless of how much is available. Basically it is creating "artificial congestion".
Prioritization doesn't reduce bandwidth per se, unless the network is heavily congested. And then rather than everybody's bandwidth being impacted, only low priority traffic gets impacted. Low priority previously meaning UDP, like YouTube or Netflix.
Depends on how the fee for "paid prioritization" is structured. If it is a flat rate, then every paying customer is on the white list, and it all evens out over the long run to be back where we were last year.
If the prioritization is based ont he amount of money, then each line on that whitelist is auctioned off to the highest bidder for a duration agreed upon.
This is exactly what I estimate. Unless the ISPs use it to build out the infrastructure to support higher bandwidth content, like 4k video streaming.
It is worth mentioning that bandwidth IS scarce in many areas of the USA. Cities have an abundance of bandwidth, but more rural areas don't. I can't even get internet at my house anymore. Fortunately, I am "grandfathered" in to my DSL.
If a municipal internet is not possible, then a monopoly is likely the alternative. Otherwise you are pressed to pay premiums to access a website hosted literally across the street, because it has to be routed through a peering arrangement out of state, which prioritizes other traffic above your local infrastructure.
Paid prioritization only enables foreign powers if there is no patriotism in the ISPs.
Otherwise local municipal broadband is the end result of "paid prioritization".
Though "Paid Prioritization" might work, if it is limited to blocks of time, say two hour intervals. This allows entertainment companies to buy blocks of time during "prime time", keeping business and educational costs down for SIP service, etc., during business and school hours. It should also enable a window of opportunity for minorities or other smaller groups to carve out niches in bandwidth being financially supported by major players.
I'm not a fan of governing by capitalism. I would rather we agreed upon what services need prioritization and then work to minimize the impact on non-priority services. So that paid fast lanes do not lead to the degredation of the internet provided, nor to the squeezing out of small business or minority groups for my own business interests.
I'd rather have a legal ground for being fair to all, than to have my hand forced into being selfish and self centered.
Lets not make a law overly complex by introducing legistlation that involves a lot of opinion. Keep "Net Neutrality" to the lower levels, and craft some free speech laws to govern the higher levels of the OSI model.
Yes they did. If the bandwidth was oversold to a significant degree, EVERYBODY suffered.
Now only those who do not pay for priotization will suffer. Which means it will take longer for issues to get resolved.
I also don't see where this will save me money. Before we shared the cost for the internet across everybody, and so i probably paid more than I should have. Now I'm going to have to pay extra for the services I do use, like VPN/RDP into the office for emergency use, or access to Slashdot.
So following a train of thought I just had. Fake news becomes harder to detect. "Paid prioritization" has an interesting feature of enabling the quarantining of localities.
If local businesses, government, or organizations suffer from the effects of "paid prioritization", a solution is to make it so those are within the local network, before hitting a major ISP pipeline. That way locals would have access, but anyone outside the local community wouldn't have access because "paid prioritization" would consume all available bandwidth across the national pipelines. Then some vague "other" or "they" get blamed for a site being inaccessible.
The results are two-fold. One, foreign powers wouldn't likely be granted paid prioritization to influence elections. Two, if there is any meddling or fake news, foreign or domestic, there wouldn't be a nation wide internet to corroborate or collaborate to identify and challenge the "fake news".
Slashdot Mirror
I think this hits a little to close than "second or third derivative".
"We're dicks, but it is legal.", Ironically, I think such a move strengthens the Apple brand at the cost of some profit. The P.R. from this lawsuit might be worth more than any profit from Apple Computer attempting to sell clothes on its own. It might also be good for "Steve Jobs" clothing, as such a bold and in your face move fits the Apple motif they are trying to connect with. This whole thing could merely be a PR stunt intended to reinforce the image both companies are marketing.
Apple fanboys?
I think the logo might be a bigger issue here. It implies a connection to Apple Computer.
Apple Computer's reputation suggests that a partnership with a clothing manufacturer is a logical next step, and "Steve Jobs" with that "J" logo is a logical name for the brand.
A third party using that logo when making knock-offs would likely clearly be a third party making knock-offs. A court might let the logo slide. The name however, in combination with the logo, implies a connection to Apple Computer. The combination of name and logo might be enough to push a US court to reject a copyright.
That IS the official Apple Computer logo. Either those jeans are officially licensed, or are custom made. If not licensed and distributed, that would be in violation of copyright.
Those have nothing to do with "Apple Bottom" jeans, which do not use the Apple Computer logo, and are clearly distinguishable as a separate product.
The logo skirts "lying" to the consumer that they are an "Apple Authorized" clothing manufacturer for Apple Computer or at least Steve Jobs. At least that is how it would come across if they distributed the clothing in the USA, or to US tourists.
Sam Adams and the other founding fathers and former presidents are long dead. I doubt very many would actually believe that Samuel Adams started a brewery or had a beer recipe that has lasted til today.
Furthermore Sam Adams is a product by a company, not the company itself. Nor is it the company's only product.
Finally, "Steve Jobs" not only references the name, but links the name to Apple. Signifying a relationship or agreement with Apple.
American consumers have been exposed to a myriad of brand names which contain the same, or similar words, but are not related. The state of Georgia has a lot of companies called "Peachtree".
"Apple Computer" and "Apple Records" with their distinct logos are sufficiently distinct to avoid confusing the majority of consumers. At least until iTunes and the iPod, and Apple Computer's music industry presense.
"Steve Jobs" and its distinctive logo is clearly intended to invoke recognition of Steve Jobs. In the USA, it is strongly expected that such obvious and overt references would be the result of some deal or agreement of sorts. Apple's position in the market suggests that a clothing line, potentially called "Steve Jobs" could be an area where Apple could expand into and build their brand. Though, it is perhaps more valuable to have a separate italian brand, rather than just some marketing materials like most orher brands.
The courts decided the FCC had no authority to enforce "Net Neutrality" in 2015 without Title II, Verizon won the case. The FCC was advised to categorize ISPs as Title II, and they did so. Now that Title II has been repealed, the FCC no longer has any authority.
So Ajit Pai is correct. The "new" rules are in effect now. They are just now whatever the FTC has on file, and whatever little authority the FCC has left.
Lightning is no longer an extension. As of Thunderbird 57, which is based on the Firefox/Gecko 57 ESR code base, Lightning is integrated into Thunderbird itself.
The moon is not likely to be terraform-able. There is not likely to be much of a long term benefit to putting a man on the moon, unless the experiments conducted on ISS can be conducted in low gravity, or otherwise on the moon.
Building a base on the moon would delay us for decades, if not a century or two. And a mission to mars would only be slightly less risky from the limited knowledge gained from building a moon base as practice.
The moon has less gravity, which means softer landings. The moon has no atmosphere, which means nothing to damage or erode equipment. The moon is also quite likely devoid of numerous resources for a colony to be self-sustaining. Once established, how will the colony expand?
A touch screen requires focus. It may be intuitive, but it is very difficult to operate "blind folded", that is, it is difficult to operate without taking your eyes off the road.
Sounds like the circuitry added minimal mass to its shell, given its immense size. In addition, most of its circuitry was likely stored in extra-dimensionally. I am curious as to how the physics are supposed to work across these dimensions. How can something with so much extra mass connected to it be movable on this "side"?
Well, smaller more advanced computers add less mass to the load of a satellite, in addition to the greatly advanced computing power. This means that we are more capable of sending a space craft which can fly autonomously in a different solar system. Given the near decade a course correction from Earth would take.
The mass of one proton? Why would it need to unfold? Is it more structurally sound for travel in deep space? Or is it more "aerodynamic"?
Something with so little mass will be equivalent to a spider web. Space debris in the destination system would tear it to shreds. And would we be able to hit whatever web like substance results from this distance?
On the plus side, if we could build a "quantum spaceship" the size of one proton, it could survive entirely on solar power.
That is what I was wondering. Here on Earth we've got a lot of tight measurements of orbits and tech to accellerate the satellite.
However, once in Alpha Centari we're pretty much flying blind. There is going to be what, a 4-5 year lag between inputs? Would we even be able to send enough fuel to decellerate from 10% of lightspeed, and have anything left over to maneuver in system to gather data?
Sounds like you're proposing building a fiber optic cable between solar systems.
Throttling is reducing bandwidth regardless of how much is available. Basically it is creating "artificial congestion".
Prioritization doesn't reduce bandwidth per se, unless the network is heavily congested. And then rather than everybody's bandwidth being impacted, only low priority traffic gets impacted. Low priority previously meaning UDP, like YouTube or Netflix.
Depends on how the fee for "paid prioritization" is structured. If it is a flat rate, then every paying customer is on the white list, and it all evens out over the long run to be back where we were last year.
If the prioritization is based ont he amount of money, then each line on that whitelist is auctioned off to the highest bidder for a duration agreed upon.
This is exactly what I estimate. Unless the ISPs use it to build out the infrastructure to support higher bandwidth content, like 4k video streaming.
It is worth mentioning that bandwidth IS scarce in many areas of the USA. Cities have an abundance of bandwidth, but more rural areas don't. I can't even get internet at my house anymore. Fortunately, I am "grandfathered" in to my DSL.
If a municipal internet is not possible, then a monopoly is likely the alternative. Otherwise you are pressed to pay premiums to access a website hosted literally across the street, because it has to be routed through a peering arrangement out of state, which prioritizes other traffic above your local infrastructure.
Paid prioritization only enables foreign powers if there is no patriotism in the ISPs.
Otherwise local municipal broadband is the end result of "paid prioritization".
Though "Paid Prioritization" might work, if it is limited to blocks of time, say two hour intervals. This allows entertainment companies to buy blocks of time during "prime time", keeping business and educational costs down for SIP service, etc., during business and school hours. It should also enable a window of opportunity for minorities or other smaller groups to carve out niches in bandwidth being financially supported by major players.
I'm not a fan of governing by capitalism. I would rather we agreed upon what services need prioritization and then work to minimize the impact on non-priority services. So that paid fast lanes do not lead to the degredation of the internet provided, nor to the squeezing out of small business or minority groups for my own business interests.
I'd rather have a legal ground for being fair to all, than to have my hand forced into being selfish and self centered.
Lets not make a law overly complex by introducing legistlation that involves a lot of opinion. Keep "Net Neutrality" to the lower levels, and craft some free speech laws to govern the higher levels of the OSI model.
Yes they did. If the bandwidth was oversold to a significant degree, EVERYBODY suffered.
Now only those who do not pay for priotization will suffer. Which means it will take longer for issues to get resolved.
I also don't see where this will save me money. Before we shared the cost for the internet across everybody, and so i probably paid more than I should have. Now I'm going to have to pay extra for the services I do use, like VPN/RDP into the office for emergency use, or access to Slashdot.
So following a train of thought I just had. Fake news becomes harder to detect. "Paid prioritization" has an interesting feature of enabling the quarantining of localities.
If local businesses, government, or organizations suffer from the effects of "paid prioritization", a solution is to make it so those are within the local network, before hitting a major ISP pipeline. That way locals would have access, but anyone outside the local community wouldn't have access because "paid prioritization" would consume all available bandwidth across the national pipelines. Then some vague "other" or "they" get blamed for a site being inaccessible.
The results are two-fold. One, foreign powers wouldn't likely be granted paid prioritization to influence elections. Two, if there is any meddling or fake news, foreign or domestic, there wouldn't be a nation wide internet to corroborate or collaborate to identify and challenge the "fake news".