Huge mistake by Apple; this is one of the few features that Palm hasn't (yet) confirmed for the Pre, and it's one that business users in particular want. Heck, Apple itself sells a Bluetooth keyboard! {ProfJonathan}
The Palm T|X is among the most flexible, portable, Wi-Fi enabled devices out there, and should fit your needs really well. If you can find one, of course. {ProfJonathan}
Where exactly does a Web site "do business"? Geolocation is far from perfect, and while Google may have facilities in Europe, essentially all Web sites are available there, so even your local pizzeria with a brochureware Web page is potentially subject to Italian prosecution just like Google. Or French. Or Saudi. Just ask Dow Jones, which was successfully sued in Australia under Australian law for defamation based upon an article on the Barrons.com Web site.
The Internet is without borders, but the law isn't. That's the real challenge here, and it's one that is becoming more and more problematic for companies of all sizes, in all industries, as they expand their online operations. {ProfJonathan}
As the poster of the original article, I'll point out that assuming that "plain text" is "the most protected form of speech going" is a very US-only attitude. Protected speech implies *something* protecting it, in the US' case the First Amendment to the Constitution, plus 200+ years of court opinions interpreting that amendment. There was *nothing* guaranteeing that US courts would define online content, whether plain text or video, as "speech" of any kind, nor that forum hosts would be immune from liability for such content posted by 3rd parties (witness the Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy case, which led Congress to adopting the very broad 47 USC 230 to both overturn Stratton Oakmont and help the nascent Internet industry thrive).
This current case, and the others like it, set up a potential countermovement away from allowing user-posted content including that which I'm typing right now, a countermovement that could, if it grows, stifle the value of the Internet as a many-to-many communications medium. {ProfJonathan}
It wasn't that Superman didn't press charges; it was that by the time Superman needed to testify against Luthor in court, he'd left the Earth (chasing, if the prequel comic is to be believed, a rumor of Krypton that was started by the self-same Lex Luthor for that very purpose). {ProfJonathan}
While IAAL and a law professor to boot, this isn't legal advice but general information.
Even if you don't take and use the code, you are facing some potential issues on a number of fronts:
1) Patent: Your (former) employer may have (or have filed for) a patent on the function and/or operation of the existing software. Even if you redesign from scratch, you could be infringing that patent once it is issued. Conversely, your ability to yourself obtain a patent on your new work (which adds to its potential commercial value) is probably limited or non-existent, given the "prior art" of your former employer's product.
2) Copyright: To the extent that your new product, independent code or otherwise, looks the same, you could face liability for copyright violations on the visuals of the old product. Beyond that, you would probably need to use "clean room" development techniques to create any new product, in order to be able to demonstrate that you did not utilize the old one in your work, since copyright infringement can be demonstrated by substantial similarity plus access; if your code too closely mirrors the old app, you could be deemed infringing even if you in fact rewrote it from scratch. "Clean room" methods help with that.
3) Beyond the non-compete (which may or may not be enforceable), you'll have to consider any non-disclosure agreements to which your team is subject, both from a contract perspective and to the extent your former employer brings a lawsuit alleging violation of its trade secrets (separate but related to intellectual property). Further, to the extent your work incorporates ideas arising out of projects done for your former employer's customers, there could be non-disclosures with those customers which you might be sued for violating.
Bottom line: if (or when) you get sued by your former employer, you will have to prove the negative, namely that you didn't steal any of its proprietary info. Beyond that effort, you may also be violating its general IP rights regardless of copying. {ProfJonathan}
As I've pointed out elsewhere, the Republicans still control Congress, by keeping it from passing anything substantive. They have 49 votes in the Senate, which makes anything the Democratic thin majority (49 + 2 independents, one of them Lieberman) does subject to filibuster (the Senate rules say 60 votes are needed to stop discussion), and the President has veto power, which can only be overridden by a 2/3 majority in both houses, so again Senate Republicans can keep any change from happening. Beyond that, regulations and oversight are the job of the Executive Branch through its agencies.
As for Pelosi, given that she (as Speaker of the House) would be third in line for the presidency should Bush and Cheney be impeached and lose their positions, I didn't blame her for saying it was off the table, as otherwise it would seem like a naked power grab by her. She hasn't, though, kept other Congresspeople from proposing impeachment. {ProfJonathan}
Agreed with regard to the block list risk (although most legitimate block lists do not charge for removal), since this would in fact be spam and not an error. If enough of the people on that list report the message as spam to a major ISP, or (even worse) at least one of the addresses turns out to be a honey pot for a block list like Spamhaus, your company will quickly (and legitimately) be "e-mail non grata." The legal risks are there but much smaller.
More to the point, people *really* hate spam. If a current customer gets the spammed messages, he/she may suddenly decide to tell a thousand of his/her closest friends what a bad business your company is. Reputation damage is *very* hard to fix. {ProfJonathan}
Remember, too, that libraries are big purchasers of books. If those of us who started with the Baen Free Library keep requesting (as I have) new titles in those series from our local libraries, the sales can mount up there too. {ProfJonathan}
As a lawyer and technology law professor, the short answer is that encryption is not yet consumer-friendly. To get it working properly, you need PKA set up at *every* law firm and for *every* client. Big firms might have the resources; small firms and companies and individuals (other than the type of individuals who read Slashdot) don't. It's just not there yet. {ProfJonathan}
"In the meantime, the only responsible thing to do is to vaccinate, as that definitely prevents many known diseases."
Actually, the more responsible thing to do is to vaccinate with mercury-free preparations, ask your provider to spread out the vaccines instead of bunching them all together in one shot, try generally to reduce the contaminants in your child's life, and continue your own education.
That we are now mandating vaccines for things like chicken pox, though, is not driven by medical necessity but by convenience, since having a kid home from school with chicken pox is annoying and can impact on wages. Thanks, but when it comes to my child's health, I'd prefer to make decisions based on health. {ProfJonathan}
Do not conflate the MMR theory with that of thimerosal as a cause of autism. The two are totally different: the former postulates that, for a subsection of the population, the immune system is overwhelmed by the sudden introduction of 3 viruses, causing damage to the intestinal tract and possible crossing of the blood-brain barrier and neurological damage. The latter theory postulates that, for a different subsection of the population, an inability to properly flush out toxic mercury leads to its accretion in the brain, also causing similar neurological damage. Different causes (although both potentially arising out of vaccination), same symptoms (symptoms which, not incidentally, resemble those of heavy metal poisoning), both very hard to test for (since they require both genetic predisposition and particular causes).
It's very hard to prove a negative, and since the mercury theory is just one of many possible contributing causes to the autism explosion (numbers not sufficiently explained by better diagnoses, since we would otherwise see the same percentage of undiagnosed adults in the general population with untreated autism spectrum disorders of similar severity, and we just don't), the fact that thimerosal has been eliminated but a continued rise is seen does *not* therefore disprove the thimerosal hypothesis. All it says is that, for the population tested, those specific individuals may have had their autism brought on by other factors besides thimerosal.
Whether or not the autism link is significant, I am personally thrilled (as a parent of one child on the spectrum and others who aren't) that we are eliminating mercury from injections given to our children--why put a known neurotoxin into their bloodstreams, particularly at such a young age? As for the MMR, the easiest approach (which we followed) was to find a pediatrician willing to seek out the vaccines in single form rather than bunched, to allow potentially sensitive children to get one at a time, absorb it, and then get the next. It also makes sense to actually test children for immunity rather than giving boosters blindly. {ProfJonathan}
(P.s. My son who is on the spectrum is a budding animator. See his stop motion, Flash and mashups here.)
Just keep in mind that this is not the final version of the bill that was sent to the President. I've linked to it a few comments above, but you can find it here. {ProfJonathan}
This isn't exactly correct, and I thought it might be helpful to clarify it.
With regard to the law, the version sent to the President for signature can be found here.
In fact, the law does not actually prohibit the sale of indcandescent bulbs by 2012. Rather, beginning in Section 312, the law sets efficiency standards, phasing in over time, that current incandescent bulbs cannot meet, but doesn't specify the type of bulb that should be used. Interestingly, it also includes the following provision in Section 321(h)(1) (found on page 95 of the document I linked to):
"REPORT ON MERCURY USE AND RELEASE.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in cooperation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall submit to Congress a report describing recommendations relating to the means by which the Federal Government may reduce or prevent the release of mercury during the manufacture, transportation, storage, or disposal of light bulbs."
USA Today's story does a good job of summarizing this issue. {ProfJonathan}
Of course I don't mean to exclude games with any reading--that's silly. I should probably have said, "games that don't require so much reading that she'll put them down in frustration rather than working through them." As it happens, my daughter's kindergarten was less academically-focused than some, so they didn't push reading then, so her challenges weren't as apparent.
I have no worries about her intelligence; she may in fact have some minor reading disabilities (although she's picking up reading Hebrew, which is totally phonetic, quite well) and is getting some help in school. The issue here is, in the short-term, keeping the grandparents' present from being a useless brick. I have no doubt she'll pick up many words from the games, just as her brother did (and just as I did from reading comics at an early age), and ours is a *very* reading-focused household.
As for those of you who bragged about reading early, well, so did I. Congratulations. {ProfJonathan}
Yes, we did (and do) read to her throughout, and yes, she does have some reading challenges for which she's getting help, although she's extremely bright and social. My oldest son taught himself to read before he was 2, but then again, he was hyperlexic and on the autistic spectrum. Our middle son started to read in first grade, and in fact was encouraged by Pokemon on his Gameboy to work on that.
Incorrect, at least in the US. Trademarks work more or less like copyright; they are automatic upon use of the mark to trade goods or services (service marks).
No. In fact (with a nod to Strongbad), answer equals very no.
Copyright protection is automatic upon creation under U.S. federal law (although *enforcement* of that protection in court requires registration); trademarks do not work this way. While one may claim a common law trademark and notify others (through the use of a TM or SM) that the user considers the mark a trademark, the enforceability is extremely limited. For federal trademark protection, one must not only apply for registration, but have it granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, after a long process and a fair amount of back and forth with the examiner. Registrations will also only be issued to marks that are currently in use in commerce--one may start the registration process before the mark is in use (an "intent to use" application), but it won't be issued unless one gives the examiner proof of use (e.g. labels, packaging). (States may have analogous processes.) Even once a mark is registered, it only gives the holder a right within the particular class of goods or services for which it was issued.
Getting back to the OP question, registering a domain name does not give trademark rights. The converse is *somewhat* true; owning a trademark can give some priority over the owner of a domain name incorporating that mark, under certain circumstances generally involving bad faith (under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 USC Section 1125(d), which doesn't actually require a *registered* trademark, or the ICANN UDRP). The alleged trademark holder would have to demonstrate either use of the domain name as a trademark, or some kind of registration. {ProfJonathan}
You are mischaracterizing what I wrote. I said that the Administration promoted torture, which it did (although I probably should have linked to this Bybee memo to Gonzales instead of the other one, which was my error). As for Gonzales, you did not quote the full language; before the part about commissary privileges, he wrote, "The nature of the new war [on terrorism] places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians, and the need to try terrorists for war crimes such as wantonly killing civilians. In my judgment, this new paradign renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners...." What could that mean other than that he felt formerly prohibited methods of interrogation, meaning torture, were now allowable?
The need to absolutely renounce torture as a methodology is not grounded in law but in common sense. Not only doesn't it work as a means of getting reliable information (just ask Porter Goss), but it removes any moral arguments to having Americans (both soldiers and civilians) tortured in return. Even Gonzales' memo points out that "[t]he United States could not invoke the [Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war] if enemy forces threatened to mistreat or mistreated U.S. or colation [sic] forces captured during operations in Afghanistan, or if they denied Red Cross access or other POW privileges." For the White House counsel to advocate this is bad enough. When that same official becomes the Attorney General, the *symbol* of justice and respect for law, it goes beyond the pale.
As for Guantanamo, I don't think we should have a facility like that at all. If these people are criminals, try them with the full strictures of our military or civilian legal systems. If they are not, release them. If we think they're terrorists, release them and follow them. If they have been in our custody more than a few weeks or months, any information they have is stale and useless anyway.
Ours is a nation founded on principles of law rather than royal caprice, of fundamental rights of all people rather than those we like (or who are like us). Remember? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The rest of that Declaration is worth reading as well, particularly when it enumerates the offenses of the king. "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:" Warrantless wiretaps, anyone? "He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation." Hmm, contractors managing the interrogation at Abu Ghraib and serving among our troops in Iraq? And as for Guantanamo, how about this pair? "For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences."
This is not America, or at least, not the America to which we should be aspiring. Secret prisons, indefinite confinement without trial or even charge, wiretapping citizens without warrants, finding "legal" justification for torture, invasions of non-belligerent nations? That's Stalin's U.S.S.R., not the country whose Constitution our president, vice president, attorney general and elected officials swear to uphold. {Prof. Jonathan}
You incorrectly stated that the Attorney General argues the Administration's cases before the Supreme Court; as a general matter, as I pointed out, that's not the job of the AG, but the Solicitor General.
As for integrity vs. political, it is certainly political and probably illegal when the Attorney General and his staff, in consultation with the President's political chief, direct U.S. Attorneys to bring cases of alleged corruption only against Democrats just before an election, and fire those who don't toe the party line. That doesn't even address the Administration's promotion of torture while Gonzales was White House counsel, and his own calling the Geneva Convention's protections "obsolete" and "quaint".
As an attorney, a law professor and a citizen, I was appalled at the selection of Gonzales as Attorney General, and appalled at how he has served in that role. I can only hope that, for the integrity of our justice system, his successor will be both more qualified and take his oath more seriously. {Prof. Jonathan}
"The AG's job is to represent the federal government's side in the supreme court and meanwhile give legal advice to the other cabinet positions and the executive offices."
Not exactly. It is the Solicitor General who represents the government's position in the Supreme Court. The Attorney General is the "the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government." Seems like a position whose holder should be very scrupulous about following as well as enforcing the law and maintaining the integrity of the Department of Justice, doesn't it? {Prof. Jonathan}
Different result, not "better result." Rutan's Spaceship One is good for one valuable task (human suborbital flights); SpaceX's rockets for a totally different one (cargo lifting orbital flights). Both were formerly the sole province of the governments, so both add to the possibility of private exploration of space. {Prof. Jonathan}
My point is that a lot of little niche markets make up one honkin' big one, and whether or not Apple is encouraging 3rd party development, if every app has to pass through Apple's screening process and be distributed (read: priced and sold) through Apple's own structure, it will significantly discourage niche products.
As a long-time PalmOS user, I look to Palm for both negative and positive examples. Palm's success was built not on the PIM applications, but on 3rd party tools, and while Palm offered certification for software programs, it didn't require certification in order for programs to run. Not only did that drive innovation by 3rd parties, but many of those 3rd party developments put pressure on Palm to extend the basic OS accordingly. Tapped drop-down menus, fullscreen Graffiti entry, running apps off SD cards, full backup (not just PIM apps) and hard button reassignment all began as 3rd party innovations, and were later adopted by the PalmOS. At the same time, though, Palm's uncertainty about whether it was a hardware, software, or OS company has led to stultification of the underlying PalmOS, to the point where the iPhone has a real opportunity not only to get Treo users but non-smartphone users like me (I use a T|X) to cross over, if it's done properly by Apple.
I'm not counting Apple out by any means, nor am I assuming that 3rd party developers won't be able to create homebrew apps that will load and run on the iPhone, Apple-certified or not. That said, I hope that Apple is looking at the PDA rather than cellphone market for inspiration. Otherwise, this Newton 2007 may rot unpicked. {Prof. Jonathan}
I read the NYT article, and this is really not a new issue, is it? The iPod has had this issue, as did Apple's previous foray into cellphones (the ROKR and now the RAZR). The bigger challenge the iPhone faces is that, according to Steve Jobs, 3rd party developers won't be able to write programs for the iPhone without Apple's blessing and distribution channels. That's a product killer, given that the most popular smartphones already on the market (especially those running PalmOS and Windows Mobile) are tremendously extensible via 3rd party offerings. It's also a huge mistake. Having a phone that plays music isn't a revolution; it's a necessity these days. Heck, the phones that are being given away by the carriers can all play MP3s at least. Rather, anyone spending as much as Apple wants for the iPhone (even before locking in a data plan from Cingular) is going to want to do whatever he or she can imagine with the iPhone in all aspects of life, not just music or telephoning. That will require 3rd party developers. Apple should embrace 3rd party development, since it will sell many more iPhones, rather than the current strategy.
Personally, I was pondering how to make the business case for an iPhone at work until I read about the current 3rd party app limitation. As someone who's used the PalmOS for 10 years, I am *not* going back to one-vendor sourced apps. {Prof. Jonathan Ezor, PalmAddict Associate Writer}
Slashdot Mirror
Huge mistake by Apple; this is one of the few features that Palm hasn't (yet) confirmed for the Pre, and it's one that business users in particular want. Heck, Apple itself sells a Bluetooth keyboard! {ProfJonathan}
The Palm T|X is among the most flexible, portable, Wi-Fi enabled devices out there, and should fit your needs really well. If you can find one, of course. {ProfJonathan}
Where exactly does a Web site "do business"? Geolocation is far from perfect, and while Google may have facilities in Europe, essentially all Web sites are available there, so even your local pizzeria with a brochureware Web page is potentially subject to Italian prosecution just like Google. Or French. Or Saudi. Just ask Dow Jones, which was successfully sued in Australia under Australian law for defamation based upon an article on the Barrons.com Web site.
The Internet is without borders, but the law isn't. That's the real challenge here, and it's one that is becoming more and more problematic for companies of all sizes, in all industries, as they expand their online operations. {ProfJonathan}
As the poster of the original article, I'll point out that assuming that "plain text" is "the most protected form of speech going" is a very US-only attitude. Protected speech implies *something* protecting it, in the US' case the First Amendment to the Constitution, plus 200+ years of court opinions interpreting that amendment. There was *nothing* guaranteeing that US courts would define online content, whether plain text or video, as "speech" of any kind, nor that forum hosts would be immune from liability for such content posted by 3rd parties (witness the Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy case, which led Congress to adopting the very broad 47 USC 230 to both overturn Stratton Oakmont and help the nascent Internet industry thrive).
This current case, and the others like it, set up a potential countermovement away from allowing user-posted content including that which I'm typing right now, a countermovement that could, if it grows, stifle the value of the Internet as a many-to-many communications medium. {ProfJonathan}
It wasn't that Superman didn't press charges; it was that by the time Superman needed to testify against Luthor in court, he'd left the Earth (chasing, if the prequel comic is to be believed, a rumor of Krypton that was started by the self-same Lex Luthor for that very purpose). {ProfJonathan}
While IAAL and a law professor to boot, this isn't legal advice but general information .
Even if you don't take and use the code, you are facing some potential issues on a number of fronts:
1) Patent: Your (former) employer may have (or have filed for) a patent on the function and/or operation of the existing software. Even if you redesign from scratch, you could be infringing that patent once it is issued. Conversely, your ability to yourself obtain a patent on your new work (which adds to its potential commercial value) is probably limited or non-existent, given the "prior art" of your former employer's product.
2) Copyright: To the extent that your new product, independent code or otherwise, looks the same, you could face liability for copyright violations on the visuals of the old product. Beyond that, you would probably need to use "clean room" development techniques to create any new product, in order to be able to demonstrate that you did not utilize the old one in your work, since copyright infringement can be demonstrated by substantial similarity plus access; if your code too closely mirrors the old app, you could be deemed infringing even if you in fact rewrote it from scratch. "Clean room" methods help with that.
3) Beyond the non-compete (which may or may not be enforceable), you'll have to consider any non-disclosure agreements to which your team is subject, both from a contract perspective and to the extent your former employer brings a lawsuit alleging violation of its trade secrets (separate but related to intellectual property). Further, to the extent your work incorporates ideas arising out of projects done for your former employer's customers, there could be non-disclosures with those customers which you might be sued for violating.
Bottom line: if (or when) you get sued by your former employer, you will have to prove the negative, namely that you didn't steal any of its proprietary info. Beyond that effort, you may also be violating its general IP rights regardless of copying. {ProfJonathan}
As I've pointed out elsewhere, the Republicans still control Congress, by keeping it from passing anything substantive. They have 49 votes in the Senate, which makes anything the Democratic thin majority (49 + 2 independents, one of them Lieberman) does subject to filibuster (the Senate rules say 60 votes are needed to stop discussion), and the President has veto power, which can only be overridden by a 2/3 majority in both houses, so again Senate Republicans can keep any change from happening. Beyond that, regulations and oversight are the job of the Executive Branch through its agencies.
As for Pelosi, given that she (as Speaker of the House) would be third in line for the presidency should Bush and Cheney be impeached and lose their positions, I didn't blame her for saying it was off the table, as otherwise it would seem like a naked power grab by her. She hasn't, though, kept other Congresspeople from proposing impeachment. {ProfJonathan}
Agreed with regard to the block list risk (although most legitimate block lists do not charge for removal), since this would in fact be spam and not an error. If enough of the people on that list report the message as spam to a major ISP, or (even worse) at least one of the addresses turns out to be a honey pot for a block list like Spamhaus, your company will quickly (and legitimately) be "e-mail non grata." The legal risks are there but much smaller.
More to the point, people *really* hate spam. If a current customer gets the spammed messages, he/she may suddenly decide to tell a thousand of his/her closest friends what a bad business your company is. Reputation damage is *very* hard to fix. {ProfJonathan}
Remember, too, that libraries are big purchasers of books. If those of us who started with the Baen Free Library keep requesting (as I have) new titles in those series from our local libraries, the sales can mount up there too. {ProfJonathan}
As a lawyer and technology law professor, the short answer is that encryption is not yet consumer-friendly. To get it working properly, you need PKA set up at *every* law firm and for *every* client. Big firms might have the resources; small firms and companies and individuals (other than the type of individuals who read Slashdot) don't. It's just not there yet. {ProfJonathan}
"In the meantime, the only responsible thing to do is to vaccinate, as that definitely prevents many known diseases."
Actually, the more responsible thing to do is to vaccinate with mercury-free preparations, ask your provider to spread out the vaccines instead of bunching them all together in one shot, try generally to reduce the contaminants in your child's life, and continue your own education.
That we are now mandating vaccines for things like chicken pox, though, is not driven by medical necessity but by convenience, since having a kid home from school with chicken pox is annoying and can impact on wages. Thanks, but when it comes to my child's health, I'd prefer to make decisions based on health. {ProfJonathan}
Then we're both crazy. Well said. {ProfJonathan}
Do not conflate the MMR theory with that of thimerosal as a cause of autism. The two are totally different: the former postulates that, for a subsection of the population, the immune system is overwhelmed by the sudden introduction of 3 viruses, causing damage to the intestinal tract and possible crossing of the blood-brain barrier and neurological damage. The latter theory postulates that, for a different subsection of the population, an inability to properly flush out toxic mercury leads to its accretion in the brain, also causing similar neurological damage. Different causes (although both potentially arising out of vaccination), same symptoms (symptoms which, not incidentally, resemble those of heavy metal poisoning), both very hard to test for (since they require both genetic predisposition and particular causes).
It's very hard to prove a negative, and since the mercury theory is just one of many possible contributing causes to the autism explosion (numbers not sufficiently explained by better diagnoses, since we would otherwise see the same percentage of undiagnosed adults in the general population with untreated autism spectrum disorders of similar severity, and we just don't), the fact that thimerosal has been eliminated but a continued rise is seen does *not* therefore disprove the thimerosal hypothesis. All it says is that, for the population tested, those specific individuals may have had their autism brought on by other factors besides thimerosal.
Whether or not the autism link is significant, I am personally thrilled (as a parent of one child on the spectrum and others who aren't) that we are eliminating mercury from injections given to our children--why put a known neurotoxin into their bloodstreams, particularly at such a young age? As for the MMR, the easiest approach (which we followed) was to find a pediatrician willing to seek out the vaccines in single form rather than bunched, to allow potentially sensitive children to get one at a time, absorb it, and then get the next. It also makes sense to actually test children for immunity rather than giving boosters blindly. {ProfJonathan}
(P.s. My son who is on the spectrum is a budding animator. See his stop motion, Flash and mashups here.)
Just keep in mind that this is not the final version of the bill that was sent to the President. I've linked to it a few comments above, but you can find it here. {ProfJonathan}
This isn't exactly correct, and I thought it might be helpful to clarify it.
With regard to the law, the version sent to the President for signature can be found here.
In fact, the law does not actually prohibit the sale of indcandescent bulbs by 2012. Rather, beginning in Section 312, the law sets efficiency standards, phasing in over time, that current incandescent bulbs cannot meet, but doesn't specify the type of bulb that should be used. Interestingly, it also includes the following provision in Section 321(h)(1) (found on page 95 of the document I linked to):
"REPORT ON MERCURY USE AND RELEASE.--Not later than
1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary,
in cooperation with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, shall submit to Congress a report describing
recommendations relating to the means by which the Federal
Government may reduce or prevent the release of mercury
during the manufacture, transportation, storage, or disposal
of light bulbs."
USA Today's story does a good job of summarizing this issue. {ProfJonathan}
Of course I don't mean to exclude games with any reading--that's silly. I should probably have said, "games that don't require so much reading that she'll put them down in frustration rather than working through them." As it happens, my daughter's kindergarten was less academically-focused than some, so they didn't push reading then, so her challenges weren't as apparent.
I have no worries about her intelligence; she may in fact have some minor reading disabilities (although she's picking up reading Hebrew, which is totally phonetic, quite well) and is getting some help in school. The issue here is, in the short-term, keeping the grandparents' present from being a useless brick. I have no doubt she'll pick up many words from the games, just as her brother did (and just as I did from reading comics at an early age), and ours is a *very* reading-focused household.
As for those of you who bragged about reading early, well, so did I. Congratulations. {ProfJonathan}
Yes, we did (and do) read to her throughout, and yes, she does have some reading challenges for which she's getting help, although she's extremely bright and social. My oldest son taught himself to read before he was 2, but then again, he was hyperlexic and on the autistic spectrum. Our middle son started to read in first grade, and in fact was encouraged by Pokemon on his Gameboy to work on that.
Now about those games....? {ProfJonathan}
No. In fact (with a nod to Strongbad), answer equals very no.
Copyright protection is automatic upon creation under U.S. federal law (although *enforcement* of that protection in court requires registration); trademarks do not work this way. While one may claim a common law trademark and notify others (through the use of a TM or SM) that the user considers the mark a trademark, the enforceability is extremely limited. For federal trademark protection, one must not only apply for registration, but have it granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, after a long process and a fair amount of back and forth with the examiner. Registrations will also only be issued to marks that are currently in use in commerce--one may start the registration process before the mark is in use (an "intent to use" application), but it won't be issued unless one gives the examiner proof of use (e.g. labels, packaging). (States may have analogous processes.) Even once a mark is registered, it only gives the holder a right within the particular class of goods or services for which it was issued.
Getting back to the OP question, registering a domain name does not give trademark rights. The converse is *somewhat* true; owning a trademark can give some priority over the owner of a domain name incorporating that mark, under certain circumstances generally involving bad faith (under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 USC Section 1125(d), which doesn't actually require a *registered* trademark, or the ICANN UDRP). The alleged trademark holder would have to demonstrate either use of the domain name as a trademark, or some kind of registration. {ProfJonathan}
True, and civility appreciated. {J}
You are mischaracterizing what I wrote. I said that the Administration promoted torture, which it did (although I probably should have linked to this Bybee memo to Gonzales instead of the other one, which was my error). As for Gonzales, you did not quote the full language; before the part about commissary privileges, he wrote, "The nature of the new war [on terrorism] places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians, and the need to try terrorists for war crimes such as wantonly killing civilians. In my judgment, this new paradign renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners...." What could that mean other than that he felt formerly prohibited methods of interrogation, meaning torture, were now allowable?
The need to absolutely renounce torture as a methodology is not grounded in law but in common sense. Not only doesn't it work as a means of getting reliable information (just ask Porter Goss), but it removes any moral arguments to having Americans (both soldiers and civilians) tortured in return. Even Gonzales' memo points out that "[t]he United States could not invoke the [Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war] if enemy forces threatened to mistreat or mistreated U.S. or colation [sic] forces captured during operations in Afghanistan, or if they denied Red Cross access or other POW privileges." For the White House counsel to advocate this is bad enough. When that same official becomes the Attorney General, the *symbol* of justice and respect for law, it goes beyond the pale.
As for Guantanamo, I don't think we should have a facility like that at all. If these people are criminals, try them with the full strictures of our military or civilian legal systems. If they are not, release them. If we think they're terrorists, release them and follow them. If they have been in our custody more than a few weeks or months, any information they have is stale and useless anyway.
Ours is a nation founded on principles of law rather than royal caprice, of fundamental rights of all people rather than those we like (or who are like us). Remember? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The rest of that Declaration is worth reading as well, particularly when it enumerates the offenses of the king. "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:" Warrantless wiretaps, anyone? "He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation." Hmm, contractors managing the interrogation at Abu Ghraib and serving among our troops in Iraq? And as for Guantanamo, how about this pair? "For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences."
This is not America, or at least, not the America to which we should be aspiring. Secret prisons, indefinite confinement without trial or even charge, wiretapping citizens without warrants, finding "legal" justification for torture, invasions of non-belligerent nations? That's Stalin's U.S.S.R., not the country whose Constitution our president, vice president, attorney general and elected officials swear to uphold. {Prof. Jonathan}
You incorrectly stated that the Attorney General argues the Administration's cases before the Supreme Court; as a general matter, as I pointed out, that's not the job of the AG, but the Solicitor General.
As for integrity vs. political, it is certainly political and probably illegal when the Attorney General and his staff, in consultation with the President's political chief, direct U.S. Attorneys to bring cases of alleged corruption only against Democrats just before an election, and fire those who don't toe the party line. That doesn't even address the Administration's promotion of torture while Gonzales was White House counsel, and his own calling the Geneva Convention's protections "obsolete" and "quaint".
As an attorney, a law professor and a citizen, I was appalled at the selection of Gonzales as Attorney General, and appalled at how he has served in that role. I can only hope that, for the integrity of our justice system, his successor will be both more qualified and take his oath more seriously. {Prof. Jonathan}
"The AG's job is to represent the federal government's side in the supreme court and meanwhile give legal advice to the other cabinet positions and the executive offices."
Not exactly. It is the Solicitor General who represents the government's position in the Supreme Court. The Attorney General is the "the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government." Seems like a position whose holder should be very scrupulous about following as well as enforcing the law and maintaining the integrity of the Department of Justice, doesn't it? {Prof. Jonathan}
Different result, not "better result." Rutan's Spaceship One is good for one valuable task (human suborbital flights); SpaceX's rockets for a totally different one (cargo lifting orbital flights). Both were formerly the sole province of the governments, so both add to the possibility of private exploration of space. {Prof. Jonathan}
My point is that a lot of little niche markets make up one honkin' big one, and whether or not Apple is encouraging 3rd party development, if every app has to pass through Apple's screening process and be distributed (read: priced and sold) through Apple's own structure, it will significantly discourage niche products.
As a long-time PalmOS user, I look to Palm for both negative and positive examples. Palm's success was built not on the PIM applications, but on 3rd party tools, and while Palm offered certification for software programs, it didn't require certification in order for programs to run. Not only did that drive innovation by 3rd parties, but many of those 3rd party developments put pressure on Palm to extend the basic OS accordingly. Tapped drop-down menus, fullscreen Graffiti entry, running apps off SD cards, full backup (not just PIM apps) and hard button reassignment all began as 3rd party innovations, and were later adopted by the PalmOS. At the same time, though, Palm's uncertainty about whether it was a hardware, software, or OS company has led to stultification of the underlying PalmOS, to the point where the iPhone has a real opportunity not only to get Treo users but non-smartphone users like me (I use a T|X) to cross over, if it's done properly by Apple.
I'm not counting Apple out by any means, nor am I assuming that 3rd party developers won't be able to create homebrew apps that will load and run on the iPhone, Apple-certified or not. That said, I hope that Apple is looking at the PDA rather than cellphone market for inspiration. Otherwise, this Newton 2007 may rot unpicked. {Prof. Jonathan}
I read the NYT article, and this is really not a new issue, is it? The iPod has had this issue, as did Apple's previous foray into cellphones (the ROKR and now the RAZR). The bigger challenge the iPhone faces is that, according to Steve Jobs, 3rd party developers won't be able to write programs for the iPhone without Apple's blessing and distribution channels. That's a product killer, given that the most popular smartphones already on the market (especially those running PalmOS and Windows Mobile) are tremendously extensible via 3rd party offerings. It's also a huge mistake. Having a phone that plays music isn't a revolution; it's a necessity these days. Heck, the phones that are being given away by the carriers can all play MP3s at least. Rather, anyone spending as much as Apple wants for the iPhone (even before locking in a data plan from Cingular) is going to want to do whatever he or she can imagine with the iPhone in all aspects of life, not just music or telephoning. That will require 3rd party developers. Apple should embrace 3rd party development, since it will sell many more iPhones, rather than the current strategy.
Personally, I was pondering how to make the business case for an iPhone at work until I read about the current 3rd party app limitation. As someone who's used the PalmOS for 10 years, I am *not* going back to one-vendor sourced apps. {Prof. Jonathan Ezor, PalmAddict Associate Writer}