covertly scoring passengers on age / nationality / sex / manner of ticket purchase / travel history / watchlist names and other factors.
Yes, and you think al Qaeda et al wouldn't expect that and use people who did not fall in this "high risk" group? You'd be spending most of your effort vetting the exact passengers who would never be chosen for a real attack and wavign through those who were in the real risk group. Any kind of ethnic profiling creates a corresponding loophole.
They'll make a difference because they authenticate that the person holding the passport
What's the point of that? How many times does it have to be pointed out that the 911 hijackers used clean, apparently legit, passports. Suicide bombers tend not to have criminal records. They can board the planes under their own names.
I'm not sure whether to be horrified or amused by the idea that:
passengers would be categorized based on the results of a government risk assessment that is put into a chip in a passenger's passport or other identification. An eye scan would then match the passenger to the passport.
Low-risk passengers would walk through a tunnel with their carry-on luggage in just a few minutes -- much quicker than the current average security screening of 35 minutes, IATA said. High-risk passengers would be directed to walk through the tunnel that performs a full body scan while searching for items like explosives.
Just security theatre. Has a "high risk" passenger ever actually been found to be carrying a bomb or whatever/ It's basically ethnic profiling. Whites and Chinese will go through the quick low-risk lane, brown people will go through the more invasive high risk lane. Makes people FEEL safer, achieves nothing as far as security is concerned. Is it not completely obvious that the terrorists observe this and will use people who are "low risk"? You can't predict who they are. You can either 1) treat EVERYONE as a high risk or 2) choose people at random (not just all the men whose first name is "Mohammed") and check them. Any method that allows people to duck security will be used to subvert it.
Also all this would really do is encourage me to not open e-mail until I think I am ready to deal with them.
Or write a tool that would generate a few dozen emails to apparently fill up your mailbox when you wanted to get someone off your back. Or just subscribe to a bunch of mailing lists.
"lets people choose to send mail when it's best for you,' he says."
It's EMAIL, not IM, not a phone call. You send it when you want. The recipient reads it and replies when he gets around to it. How does "when it's best for you" make any sense in this context? The only vaguely sensible use I can think is if you suspect an email box has been bombed; or he just isn't checking his email at all. But if it's time sensitive, use the phone don't screw around with this.
Re:Kevin Bacon has played many roles in his career
on
X-Men: First Class
·
· Score: 1
I personally don't give a rat's ass about what a bunch of stuffy film elitists think about a film.
If you're referring to the Academy, it's not elitist film critics, it's people working in the industry. So it's more to do with personality and popularity than simple quality.
It's always (well, in the last few decades) seen as a celebration of the person's achievements.They should just say that their criterion is now "The person who most changed the world for the better" since that's what they have effectively been doing for most of the time. Which would be fine, but they're dishonest in saying it's simply "most important" because it's clearly not true.
I would say that the Time Person of the Year is worth more than the Peace Prize, just because they're more honest: they give it to people who've had a great impact on the world, not necessarily a positive impact.
Except in 2001 when they omitted giving it to bin Laden, who certainly did change the world. They earlier gave it to Hitler, so it wasn't just for "nice guys". But they were gutless and gave it to Giuliani. So, not so honest.
French life style + War; bad combination. Unless they are invading to plant vineyards, and make better coffee, or milk our cows to make some cheese, I don't think we have anything to get excited about.
That's not true. The paperwork that came with my trademark made it very clear I am to protect my trademark and basically treat it like gold. Anything that implies you don't value your brand and makes it harder to defend yourself when you object to someone wanting a similar trademark or the same trademark but in a different but similar market.
"Protecting" your trademark means not allowing it to be used INAPPROPRIATELY, such as referring to similar products,. Not calling an IPad an iPad.
Just as Google wouldn't want questionable porno sites using their trademarks in a promotion to give away Android phones.
A company "not wanting" you to do something and them having the legal right to prevent you are two very different things.
If trademark law gave companies such power, they could prevent anyone criticising their products, giving them unfavourable reviews, etc.
Anyway, there may indeed be limits on how the porno site could advertise in this case, but not to stop them doing the promotion at all if they were careful.
o the bank can say "Free tablet computer!" but could not use the "iPad" trademark in conjunction
Bullshit. Sorry, but so many people imagine that a company has powers far beyond what any law gives. Apple can dictate what its distributors do, they have contracts with them. Not a random person or company who just buys them and wants to give them away. Using the word "iPad" to describe an actual iPad is in no way illegal.
And those adverts are going to have to include photos and descriptions of the product on them - it's not going to be terribly effective to announce "Win a tablet computer with a line drawing of an apple with a chunk taken out of it on the back!" and no photographs of the product itself.
As soon as you do that, you're using Apple's trademark.
So what? Trademark laws prevent you from passing off your own products as Apple products. They don't prevent you identifying Apple products.That's what the intended and lawful use is.
They can stop you using their trademarks in advertising the giveaway. All of Apple's products have trademarked names. So in running a promotion to benefit your company, you could say you're going to give away a tablet from a fruit company. But you can't put on your marketing materials that you're giving away an Apple iPad. Otherwise Apple does indeed have grounds to sue you.
Bullshit.Owning a trademark doesn't give you the right to prevent anyone using a word, only using it to sell a product that is NOT an iPad.
Re:not just a reboot, also a new distribution mode
on
DC Reboots Universe
·
· Score: 1
os the DC's are not nearly as "Movie Friendly" as the Marvels - I'm guessing...
Yeah, who'd ever go to see a "Batman" or "Superman", or "Green Lantern" movie or TV show? Bunch of losers.
Correct, it wasn't, at least not from Google. It relied on fooling users into logging in to counterfeit sites. So if you're implying Google failed to protect users' data, that's not the case. If people give up their passwords, it's their own fault.
Because the WHO didn't make a big deal about adding those to the list. This is another mostly useless organization throwing FUD around
The WHO didn't make a fuss or spread FUD. They just released a report that basically said "inconclusive". It was the media, including Slashdot: "Are cell phones going to be the new tobacco") that did that.
Physicist Bob Parks often writes about this, E.g.:
Here's the conversation I have several times a day with total strangers: Caller: do you use a wired earphone? BP: No. Caller: would it be too much trouble? BP: No. Caller: Wouldn't you be safer? BP: No. Caller: How do you know? BP: Quantum physics; all cancers are caused by mutant strands of DNA. Electromagnetic radiation can't create mutant strands of DNA unless the frequency is at or higher than the blue limit of the visible spectrum the near-ultraviolet. The frequency of cell phone radiation is about 1 million times too low. Caller: Wow! When did this news break? BP: Albert Einstein let it out in 1905. Robert Millikan, considered to be the world's top physics experimentalist, spent a decade constructing an experiment to test it. It confirmed Einstein's theory perfectly. Caller: I'm shocked! Are you sure this is right? BP: Virtually the entire modern world rests on it. Caller: Why am I just hearing about this? BP: Because Sanjay didn't tell you. We all depend on the news media to keep us informed, and the news media all over the world let us down on this one. And we scientists should have been screaming louder.
Moffatt was joking when he said that. Unfortunately, Slashdot "editors" took it literally.
Probably the Doctor has encountered them "only" about 20 time, over the last 48 years (and almost 800 episodes).. At least a quick search through the list of episodes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doctor_Who_serials) finds 17 including the word "Dalek", and they usually got billing.
The Daleks, The Dalek Invasion of Earth, The Daleks' Master Plan, The Power of the Daleks, The Evil of the Daleks, Day of the Daleks, Planet of the Daleks, Death to the Daleks, Genesis of the Daleks, City of the Daleks, Destiny of the Daleks, Resurrection of the Daleks, Revelation of the Daleks, Remembrance of the Daleks, Dalek, Daleks in Manhattan, Victory of the Daleks. Plus a couple others, like "The Long Game" where they were acting in secret.
Of course, Moffatt will bring them back soon regardless.
There are enough idiots who label anyone who disagrees with them as "terrorists" that it's entirely too credible to think you meant that. Several other responses seem to agree with the sentiment, without any hint of irony.
What ever happened to people understanding context?
Yeah, like the most important fact that Slashdot omitted: The "US citizen" has dual Thai and American citizenship He undoubtedly entered Thailand on his Thai passport.
He has no leg to stand on legally.
If the US doesn't exert pressure, this guy is fucked.
Also you ironically miss the context of the post you're criticising. It makes perfect sense.
outside the borders of Thailand, nor did it involve citizens of Thailand. Any claims of jurisdiction in such a case are pure bullshit. For that matter, how was he supposed to know back then that something he did was against the law somewhere else in the world?
The guy was born in Thailand. He speaks Thai, he translated excerpts of a book banned in Thailand into Thai and published them in his blog. And the blog was obviously read in Thailand. He can't claim he didn't know what he was doing.
He'll probably get off after some intervention from the US govt.
some random Yank who said something mean four years ago
He's not simply an American, he was born in Thailand, and may have dual nationality. He wrote a blog that translated parts of a critical biography of the king (that is banned in Thailand). It's pretty open and shut "lese majeste".
He got himself on the shit list by doing that but they didn't try to extradite him, (the US wouldn't comply anyway) but once he returned voluntarily, he was screwed.
It's not the king himself who has a hard line on this, but the right wingers who use "protecting the monarch" as an excuse to crack down on the opposition.
Generally tourists who commit lese majeste do it out of ignorance, and are given a scare, locked up briefly, and then pardoned. This is bit more serious.
Slashdot Mirror
covertly scoring passengers on age / nationality / sex / manner of ticket purchase / travel history / watchlist names and other factors.
Yes, and you think al Qaeda et al wouldn't expect that and use people who did not fall in this "high risk" group? You'd be spending most of your effort vetting the exact passengers who would never be chosen for a real attack and wavign through those who were in the real risk group. Any kind of ethnic profiling creates a corresponding loophole.
They'll make a difference because they authenticate that the person holding the passport
What's the point of that? How many times does it have to be pointed out that the 911 hijackers used clean, apparently legit, passports. Suicide bombers tend not to have criminal records. They can board the planes under their own names.
I'm not sure whether to be horrified or amused by the idea that :
passengers would be categorized based on the results of a government risk assessment that is put into a chip in a passenger's passport or other identification. An eye scan would then match the passenger to the passport. Low-risk passengers would walk through a tunnel with their carry-on luggage in just a few minutes -- much quicker than the current average security screening of 35 minutes, IATA said. High-risk passengers would be directed to walk through the tunnel that performs a full body scan while searching for items like explosives.
Just security theatre. Has a "high risk" passenger ever actually been found to be carrying a bomb or whatever/ It's basically ethnic profiling. Whites and Chinese will go through the quick low-risk lane, brown people will go through the more invasive high risk lane. Makes people FEEL safer, achieves nothing as far as security is concerned. Is it not completely obvious that the terrorists observe this and will use people who are "low risk"? You can't predict who they are. You can either 1) treat EVERYONE as a high risk or 2) choose people at random (not just all the men whose first name is "Mohammed") and check them. Any method that allows people to duck security will be used to subvert it.
Also all this would really do is encourage me to not open e-mail until I think I am ready to deal with them.
Or write a tool that would generate a few dozen emails to apparently fill up your mailbox when you wanted to get someone off your back. Or just subscribe to a bunch of mailing lists.
It's EMAIL, not IM, not a phone call. You send it when you want. The recipient reads it and replies when he gets around to it. How does "when it's best for you" make any sense in this context? The only vaguely sensible use I can think is if you suspect an email box has been bombed; or he just isn't checking his email at all. But if it's time sensitive, use the phone don't screw around with this.
I personally don't give a rat's ass about what a bunch of stuffy film elitists think about a film.
If you're referring to the Academy, it's not elitist film critics, it's people working in the industry. So it's more to do with personality and popularity than simple quality.
It's always (well, in the last few decades) seen as a celebration of the person's achievements.They should just say that their criterion is now "The person who most changed the world for the better" since that's what they have effectively been doing for most of the time. Which would be fine, but they're dishonest in saying it's simply "most important" because it's clearly not true.
I would say that the Time Person of the Year is worth more than the Peace Prize, just because they're more honest: they give it to people who've had a great impact on the world, not necessarily a positive impact.
Except in 2001 when they omitted giving it to bin Laden, who certainly did change the world. They earlier gave it to Hitler, so it wasn't just for "nice guys". But they were gutless and gave it to Giuliani. So, not so honest.
French life style + War; bad combination. Unless they are invading to plant vineyards, and make better coffee, or milk our cows to make some cheese, I don't think we have anything to get excited about.
Obligatory: Napoleon.
Damn it! Doctor Who just started having stuff take place in corridors. It's dooooooomed!
Doctor Who has been running up and down corridors for the best part of 50 years now. http://www.shillpages.com/dw/story/d1/st--1b24.jpg
That's not true. The paperwork that came with my trademark made it very clear I am to protect my trademark and basically treat it like gold. Anything that implies you don't value your brand and makes it harder to defend yourself when you object to someone wanting a similar trademark or the same trademark but in a different but similar market.
"Protecting" your trademark means not allowing it to be used INAPPROPRIATELY, such as referring to similar products,. Not calling an IPad an iPad.
Just as Google wouldn't want questionable porno sites using their trademarks in a promotion to give away Android phones.
A company "not wanting" you to do something and them having the legal right to prevent you are two very different things.
If trademark law gave companies such power, they could prevent anyone criticising their products, giving them unfavourable reviews, etc.
Anyway, there may indeed be limits on how the porno site could advertise in this case, but not to stop them doing the promotion at all if they were careful.
o the bank can say "Free tablet computer!" but could not use the "iPad" trademark in conjunction
Bullshit. Sorry, but so many people imagine that a company has powers far beyond what any law gives. Apple can dictate what its distributors do, they have contracts with them. Not a random person or company who just buys them and wants to give them away. Using the word "iPad" to describe an actual iPad is in no way illegal.
And those adverts are going to have to include photos and descriptions of the product on them - it's not going to be terribly effective to announce "Win a tablet computer with a line drawing of an apple with a chunk taken out of it on the back!" and no photographs of the product itself. As soon as you do that, you're using Apple's trademark.
So what? Trademark laws prevent you from passing off your own products as Apple products. They don't prevent you identifying Apple products.That's what the intended and lawful use is.
Sony used trademark law to shutdown Lik-Sang
They were selling mod chips. No relevance.
Hmm I don't know. They could make it a violation of their copyright to distribute the item Bullshit.
Even if you've already paid for the device patents/copyright gives you the right to control how your invention is used.
More bullshit. Copyright prevents you COPYING. Not USING or SELLING the object you bought. .
They can stop you using their trademarks in advertising the giveaway. All of Apple's products have trademarked names. So in running a promotion to benefit your company, you could say you're going to give away a tablet from a fruit company. But you can't put on your marketing materials that you're giving away an Apple iPad. Otherwise Apple does indeed have grounds to sue you.
Bullshit.Owning a trademark doesn't give you the right to prevent anyone using a word, only using it to sell a product that is NOT an iPad.
os the DC's are not nearly as "Movie Friendly" as the Marvels - I'm guessing...
Yeah, who'd ever go to see a "Batman" or "Superman", or "Green Lantern" movie or TV show? Bunch of losers.
it isn't a data breach
Correct, it wasn't, at least not from Google. It relied on fooling users into logging in to counterfeit sites. So if you're implying Google failed to protect users' data, that's not the case. If people give up their passwords, it's their own fault.
But presumably he racked up a few victories during the Time War in the hiatus.
Because the WHO didn't make a big deal about adding those to the list. This is another mostly useless organization throwing FUD around
The WHO didn't make a fuss or spread FUD. They just released a report that basically said "inconclusive". It was the media, including Slashdot: "Are cell phones going to be the new tobacco") that did that.
Physicist Bob Parks often writes about this, E.g.:
Here's the conversation I have several times a day with total strangers: Caller: do you use a wired earphone? BP: No. Caller: would it be too much trouble? BP: No. Caller: Wouldn't you be safer? BP: No. Caller: How do you know? BP: Quantum physics; all cancers are caused by mutant strands of DNA. Electromagnetic radiation can't create mutant strands of DNA unless the frequency is at or higher than the blue limit of the visible spectrum the near-ultraviolet. The frequency of cell phone radiation is about 1 million times too low. Caller: Wow! When did this news break? BP: Albert Einstein let it out in 1905. Robert Millikan, considered to be the world's top physics experimentalist, spent a decade constructing an experiment to test it. It confirmed Einstein's theory perfectly. Caller: I'm shocked! Are you sure this is right? BP: Virtually the entire modern world rests on it. Caller: Why am I just hearing about this? BP: Because Sanjay didn't tell you. We all depend on the news media to keep us informed, and the news media all over the world let us down on this one. And we scientists should have been screaming louder.
Probably the Doctor has encountered them "only" about 20 time, over the last 48 years (and almost 800 episodes).. At least a quick search through the list of episodes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doctor_Who_serials) finds 17 including the word "Dalek", and they usually got billing.
The Daleks, The Dalek Invasion of Earth, The Daleks' Master Plan, The Power of the Daleks, The Evil of the Daleks, Day of the Daleks, Planet of the Daleks, Death to the Daleks, Genesis of the Daleks, City of the Daleks, Destiny of the Daleks, Resurrection of the Daleks, Revelation of the Daleks, Remembrance of the Daleks, Dalek, Daleks in Manhattan, Victory of the Daleks. Plus a couple others, like "The Long Game" where they were acting in secret.
Of course, Moffatt will bring them back soon regardless.
The original story was on the WSJ, which is attributed. I can't get excited about the injustice of not citing Fox for writing the summary.
There are enough idiots who label anyone who disagrees with them as "terrorists" that it's entirely too credible to think you meant that. Several other responses seem to agree with the sentiment, without any hint of irony.
Get some fucking perspective.
Terrorism is CREATING FEAR. Fear of death. Suicide bombers are terrorists. These guys are, at worst, vandals.
What ever happened to people understanding context?
Yeah, like the most important fact that Slashdot omitted: The "US citizen" has dual Thai and American citizenship He undoubtedly entered Thailand on his Thai passport.
He has no leg to stand on legally.
If the US doesn't exert pressure, this guy is fucked.
Also you ironically miss the context of the post you're criticising. It makes perfect sense.
outside the borders of Thailand, nor did it involve citizens of Thailand. Any claims of jurisdiction in such a case are pure bullshit. For that matter, how was he supposed to know back then that something he did was against the law somewhere else in the world?
The guy was born in Thailand. He speaks Thai, he translated excerpts of a book banned in Thailand into Thai and published them in his blog. And the blog was obviously read in Thailand. He can't claim he didn't know what he was doing.
He'll probably get off after some intervention from the US govt.
some random Yank who said something mean four years ago
He's not simply an American, he was born in Thailand, and may have dual nationality. He wrote a blog that translated parts of a critical biography of the king (that is banned in Thailand). It's pretty open and shut "lese majeste".
He got himself on the shit list by doing that but they didn't try to extradite him, (the US wouldn't comply anyway) but once he returned voluntarily, he was screwed.
It's not the king himself who has a hard line on this, but the right wingers who use "protecting the monarch" as an excuse to crack down on the opposition.
Generally tourists who commit lese majeste do it out of ignorance, and are given a scare, locked up briefly, and then pardoned. This is bit more serious.