There is no big deal here. Neither side has any case as I pointed out in another thread. If katie.com had a trademark then she may have a case against penguin for the name of the book. Of course, if that had been the case then they probably wouldn't have chosen that name in the first place.
Why wouldn't domain name be lumped under name. After all it is a domain name. And you are correct - a book name cannot be copyrighted. Go look for the book "The Day After Tommorow" by Allan Folsom. It has absolutely nothing to do with that awful movie.
Sorry but she would have no case either with her phone number or web address. No one ever sued Tommy Tutone for 867-5309 even though it caused quite a headache for owners of the number. I would also point out that unless you specifically pay to not have your number published there are millions of places to find your home number.
As for the website - there is noting private or personal about a web address. As KPMG will tell you you cannot reasonably expect people to not use your domain name - even if you have a trademark on it.
You can't copyright a domain name. I'm amazed that you bothered to read the part of the FAQ that said when you can copyright but not the part that says what can't be copyrighted:
Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
First of all it isn't penguin suing - it is Katie Tarbox's lawyer. Second you do not need to have a trademark to protect your domain name. Since katie.com the website existed long before katie.com the book there is no case here. No cybersquatting, no trademark violation, no copyright infringement, nothing.
If anything - the real katie can trademark the name now if she was doing some sort of business and then just say she first used the name in business in 1996. There is no case here. It is 100% bullying.
Actually I have an accounting degree so now coding for me in college (except one semester of basic - this was pre-VB days). Not sure I got the kid partying out of me yet, though. Not sure I want to. I just learned how to contol it.
You make a really good point, though. It really is a person by person thing. I know some people who never outgrew college, some who stayed in college for 10 years (and they aren't doctors or lawyers), and I also know some who started succesful businesses in their freshman year. In a way this at least gives somebody the option. As we always say on slashdot - choice is good.
I agree 100% with you which is why I like the 2 year idea. I learned more in 1 year in the real world that the previous 16 years of education. In 4 years of college I learned more about alcohol, college sports, and the fairer sex than I did about my future career.
I also think that taking classes like Anthropology, Atmosphere, and Music of Latin America did very little to prepare me for anything after college. The idea that college has to be 4 years is outdated. Get the degree you need in 2 years, gain experience, and take classes that interest you at the local CC for the rest of your life. That actually brings up a much better point. Classes I have taken after college seem to sink in much better.
The United States of America was never a Democracy and the founders made that very clear. It is a Constitution-based federal republic which means that we are ruled by laws created by elected officials. In a democracy every issue is decided by popular vote. Great article here
First, your first two links are to the same article. Second, your last link actually paints India in a bad light - not Gates. They would rather deny and hide the fact that AIDS is spreading in their country. Not sure how that reflects poorly on Gates.
I am not even sure where to start with the TRIPS stuff. He says that TRIPS locks in Gates computer monopoly (which must come as a surprise to the millions of Linux and Apple users) but gives no evidence to support the claim (and searching for TRIPS and gates turns up this same article 15,000 times). Then he makes the connection between that and the pharmaceutical companies by some great leap of faith. Finally, he says that we he gives is just pittance but it is more than anybody else gives and is actually closer to 14% of Gates net worth.
It's funny how you guys are all defending him by elaborating how to do what he says. My point wasn't that is was not possible to eventually determine a recipe but that it takes a lot more than what he says. Re-read his comment. He makes it seem like you taste something and write down a recipe. You might be able to pick out a few ingredients but unless it is some dish as simple as your sauce you might never get all of the ingredients. This is actually why the great BBQ-ers so feverently protect their rub recipes.
I am guessing that you don't cook much because baking and cooking are two different worlds. Baking has a lot of standard recipes and very precise measurements. Cooking is much more free form.
I agree that taking apart an engine, comparing the workings with other engines, etc. will teach you how an engine works but that is just a little more involved than opening the hood or reading a manual.
Software is actually a lot like cooking. You might be able to create something very similar to the original but without the origial recipe there is a good chance it won't be as good. Games are a great example. Think about how many RTS clones came after Dune II. Some were great - C&C, Warcraft, AOE, etc. but most were utter crap (too long to list).
Not sure what any of this has to do with Real and Apple, though. I really just didn't like how flippant he was with cooking and playing saxophone (two of my greatest joys).
I apologize if I am missing some subtle sarcasm in your post but: Want to work out a recipe? Just eat a sample and scribble down what you can taste in it.
If you can do that then you must have a pretty discerning palate. To be able to not only sense each ingredient but to determine the measurement of it would outdo the greatest of gourmands.
Want to see how a car engine works? Open the bonnet and have a look, or buy a service manual
Looking under the hood of a modern car would be pretty much worthless and a service manual wouldn't be much better. You may get an idea of how it works but not why it works.
Want to play like Charlie Parker?
You don't have to transcribe them yourself. People have done it a million times over. You can pick up the Charlie Parker Omnibook and get pretty faithful transcriptions. No matter how well you play them, though, you will never be playing like Charlie Parker. All of that incredible music came straight of the top of his head. There are few who could ever compare to the Bird (maybe Trane on tenor or Miles on trumpet) for improvisation. Add the fact that he was coked up most of the time and played on reeds like popsicle sticks and you have a god to most saxophone players (myself included).
And I am ready for the off-topic mod but I am posting without Bonus and have Karma to burn.
I am no big Gates or Microsoft fan but he does far more than anybody on that Forbes 500. His foundation gave the most grants in the US - $1.2 billion mostly to Global Health and Education (to contrast - Larry Ellison's (#5 on Forbes) Foundation gave $33 million mostly for aging and infectious disease - prevention I assume). There is really only so much that money can do, though. Think of a country like Sudan. $100 billion is not going to save that country's problems.
I am not saying that we should put Gates on a pedastal or build a monument to him but we should respect was he does try to do.
PS - He is not even close to being the richest man on the planet. If you think that the wealth of all of those Saudi oil Princes is even close to what Forbes reports you are looney.
Out of 10 contributors only 2 were definite republicans and 1 was split. Both of the Republicans are head of large corporations and are not directly involved with Hollywood. I think that along with the obvious liberal bent of celebrities proves without the slightest doubt that Hollywood is very much liberal. I can't understand how you can spin that information.
And Hollywood has always been defined by movies. Not sure what makes you think that its TV. Anyway - I am done for tonight.
Nice chatting with you. I think we can at least both agree that things will be at least a little better with Kerry in the White House come next January.
I agree on the distinction with the wealth. It really is hard to measure for both. I suppose if Kerry got divorced he probably wouldn't be worth jack wheras Bush's fortune is family. Like I said - I like Kerry - and I have no problem with the rich.
As for Hollywood - I'd reallly like to see a statistic.
Time Warner - Richard Parsons (Time Warner CEO) is definitely a Republican (and friendly with Powell) but Barry Meyer (head of WB Studios) and Robert Shaye and Michael Lynne (co-heads of New Line) actually gave to Kerry, Dean and Gephart
Disney - Eisner seems to give to both but mainly Republican
Universal - Ron Meyer is definitely a Democrat.
Fox - Murdoch is pretty obviously Republican but the head of Fox Studios (Angela Shapiro) is a Democrat.
As for Music:
Warner Music - Edgar Bronfman has given a lot to Friends of Hillary. I am pretty sure that makes him a Democrat.
Universal Music - Douglas Morris is a Democrat.
Sony/BMG - Rolf Schmidt-Holtz and Michael Smellie are either not American or didn't contribute to anybody. Andy Lack, who I am pretty sure is American, didn't contribute either.
Those are all hard facts based on their contributions in 2004. And I would hardly discount the value of the celebrities themselves. Bon Jovi raised $1 MM for Kerry last month.
*That site has a ton of other useful information but a lot of it is locked up.
other misconceptions, like "most of Hollywood and the music industry are [D]emocrats", and "Kerry is richer than Bush"
Not sure how facts can be misconceptions. Kerry is worth close to a billion dollars and that is even a soft estimate since his wife doesn't have to report her personal fortune. Bush's reported wealth is under $100 million. Even if he is hiding a ton of it it would be hard to touch Heinz.
And I can't even begin to understand the misconception in Hollywood and Music industry being democrats. With the exception of a couple of stars (Arnold for one) almost everyone of them is an outspoken liberal.
And my bashing of republicans was on a separate thread and got modded offtopic. You can see it in my history. Got mixed up on which thread was which. Also sorry about posting AC last time around. I always post without Karma Bonus and checked the wrong damn box.
I'm not sure how the discussion of copyright got to war but I would remind you that FDR was a Democrat as was Harry S. Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson (all war winners - WW2, WW1, Spanish-American (not as president however), and 1812, respectively). The only Republicans to win a war were Lincoln (and some say it was won in spite of him) and Bush Sr. (and he never finished the job in the first place which lead us to this war).
George Washington, of course, had no party and could kick the ass of any president since then. When a presidential candidate comes along that can lead barefoot, half-starving farmers against the one of the greatest military powers in the world then I will vote for him regardless of power.
The Sony Bono act was also referred to as the Mickey Mouse act since it was Disney who did the most lobbying for it. Sony Bono died before the act was passed. I also never said that ONLY democrats push copyright laws. Both parties are beholden to corporate special interests.
I am registered as a Republican and actually voted for Bush last time (I really hate Gore and his censorship hungry man-wife Tipper) but I can't in good conscience vote for him again. The war is one thing (I believe that eventually Saddam was going to be a threat again, if not his psychopath son) but what really drives me nuts is that he has not just blurred the line between church and state - he has completely obliterated it. With this comes overly stringent decency laws, trampling of gay rights, and the threatening of legalized abortion. As much as I think Kerry is a fake and a typical kennedy-esque bullshit politician I will not waste my vote on any other party and risk Bush winning again.
Slashdot Mirror
Please point out the appropriate law that this falls under. Katie.com is not a trademark and it is not clear whether it was ever used in business.
What's your point? I think you need to read this.
Never happened. That's just an urban legend.
There is no big deal here. Neither side has any case as I pointed out in another thread. If katie.com had a trademark then she may have a case against penguin for the name of the book. Of course, if that had been the case then they probably wouldn't have chosen that name in the first place.
Why wouldn't domain name be lumped under name. After all it is a domain name. And you are correct - a book name cannot be copyrighted. Go look for the book "The Day After Tommorow" by Allan Folsom. It has absolutely nothing to do with that awful movie.
Sorry but she would have no case either with her phone number or web address. No one ever sued Tommy Tutone for 867-5309 even though it caused quite a headache for owners of the number. I would also point out that unless you specifically pay to not have your number published there are millions of places to find your home number.
As for the website - there is noting private or personal about a web address. As KPMG will tell you you cannot reasonably expect people to not use your domain name - even if you have a trademark on it.
You can't copyright a domain name. I'm amazed that you bothered to read the part of the FAQ that said when you can copyright but not the part that says what can't be copyrighted:
Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
First of all it isn't penguin suing - it is Katie Tarbox's lawyer. Second you do not need to have a trademark to protect your domain name. Since katie.com the website existed long before katie.com the book there is no case here. No cybersquatting, no trademark violation, no copyright infringement, nothing.
If anything - the real katie can trademark the name now if she was doing some sort of business and then just say she first used the name in business in 1996. There is no case here. It is 100% bullying.
Actually I have an accounting degree so now coding for me in college (except one semester of basic - this was pre-VB days). Not sure I got the kid partying out of me yet, though. Not sure I want to. I just learned how to contol it.
You make a really good point, though. It really is a person by person thing. I know some people who never outgrew college, some who stayed in college for 10 years (and they aren't doctors or lawyers), and I also know some who started succesful businesses in their freshman year. In a way this at least gives somebody the option. As we always say on slashdot - choice is good.
I agree 100% with you which is why I like the 2 year idea. I learned more in 1 year in the real world that the previous 16 years of education. In 4 years of college I learned more about alcohol, college sports, and the fairer sex than I did about my future career.
I also think that taking classes like Anthropology, Atmosphere, and Music of Latin America did very little to prepare me for anything after college. The idea that college has to be 4 years is outdated. Get the degree you need in 2 years, gain experience, and take classes that interest you at the local CC for the rest of your life. That actually brings up a much better point. Classes I have taken after college seem to sink in much better.
The United States of America was never a Democracy and the founders made that very clear. It is a Constitution-based federal republic which means that we are ruled by laws created by elected officials. In a democracy every issue is decided by popular vote. Great article here
First, your first two links are to the same article. Second, your last link actually paints India in a bad light - not Gates. They would rather deny and hide the fact that AIDS is spreading in their country. Not sure how that reflects poorly on Gates.
I am not even sure where to start with the TRIPS stuff. He says that TRIPS locks in Gates computer monopoly (which must come as a surprise to the millions of Linux and Apple users) but gives no evidence to support the claim (and searching for TRIPS and gates turns up this same article 15,000 times). Then he makes the connection between that and the pharmaceutical companies by some great leap of faith. Finally, he says that we he gives is just pittance but it is more than anybody else gives and is actually closer to 14% of Gates net worth.
It's funny how you guys are all defending him by elaborating how to do what he says. My point wasn't that is was not possible to eventually determine a recipe but that it takes a lot more than what he says. Re-read his comment. He makes it seem like you taste something and write down a recipe. You might be able to pick out a few ingredients but unless it is some dish as simple as your sauce you might never get all of the ingredients. This is actually why the great BBQ-ers so feverently protect their rub recipes.
I am guessing that you don't cook much because baking and cooking are two different worlds. Baking has a lot of standard recipes and very precise measurements. Cooking is much more free form.
I agree that taking apart an engine, comparing the workings with other engines, etc. will teach you how an engine works but that is just a little more involved than opening the hood or reading a manual.
Software is actually a lot like cooking. You might be able to create something very similar to the original but without the origial recipe there is a good chance it won't be as good. Games are a great example. Think about how many RTS clones came after Dune II. Some were great - C&C, Warcraft, AOE, etc. but most were utter crap (too long to list).
Not sure what any of this has to do with Real and Apple, though. I really just didn't like how flippant he was with cooking and playing saxophone (two of my greatest joys).
Didn't miss his point. I just decided to attack his analogies. I acknowledged at the end of my post that I was going off-topic.
Some people can actually follow more than one train of thought at a time (and are capable of writing more than one line of text).
I apologize if I am missing some subtle sarcasm in your post but:
Want to work out a recipe? Just eat a sample and scribble down what you can taste in it.
If you can do that then you must have a pretty discerning palate. To be able to not only sense each ingredient but to determine the measurement of it would outdo the greatest of gourmands.
Want to see how a car engine works? Open the bonnet and have a look, or buy a service manual
Looking under the hood of a modern car would be pretty much worthless and a service manual wouldn't be much better. You may get an idea of how it works but not why it works.
Want to play like Charlie Parker?
You don't have to transcribe them yourself. People have done it a million times over. You can pick up the Charlie Parker Omnibook and get pretty faithful transcriptions. No matter how well you play them, though, you will never be playing like Charlie Parker. All of that incredible music came straight of the top of his head. There are few who could ever compare to the Bird (maybe Trane on tenor or Miles on trumpet) for improvisation. Add the fact that he was coked up most of the time and played on reeds like popsicle sticks and you have a god to most saxophone players (myself included).
And I am ready for the off-topic mod but I am posting without Bonus and have Karma to burn.
I am no big Gates or Microsoft fan but he does far more than anybody on that Forbes 500. His foundation gave the most grants in the US - $1.2 billion mostly to Global Health and Education (to contrast - Larry Ellison's (#5 on Forbes) Foundation gave $33 million mostly for aging and infectious disease - prevention I assume). There is really only so much that money can do, though. Think of a country like Sudan. $100 billion is not going to save that country's problems.
I am not saying that we should put Gates on a pedastal or build a monument to him but we should respect was he does try to do.
PS - He is not even close to being the richest man on the planet. If you think that the wealth of all of those Saudi oil Princes is even close to what Forbes reports you are looney.
Out of 10 contributors only 2 were definite republicans and 1 was split. Both of the Republicans are head of large corporations and are not directly involved with Hollywood. I think that along with the obvious liberal bent of celebrities proves without the slightest doubt that Hollywood is very much liberal. I can't understand how you can spin that information.
And Hollywood has always been defined by movies. Not sure what makes you think that its TV. Anyway - I am done for tonight.
Nice chatting with you. I think we can at least both agree that things will be at least a little better with Kerry in the White House come next January.
I agree on the distinction with the wealth. It really is hard to measure for both. I suppose if Kerry got divorced he probably wouldn't be worth jack wheras Bush's fortune is family. Like I said - I like Kerry - and I have no problem with the rich.
As for Hollywood - I'd reallly like to see a statistic.
Time Warner - Richard Parsons (Time Warner CEO) is definitely a Republican (and friendly with Powell) but Barry Meyer (head of WB Studios) and Robert Shaye and Michael Lynne (co-heads of New Line) actually gave to Kerry, Dean and Gephart
Disney - Eisner seems to give to both but mainly Republican
Universal - Ron Meyer is definitely a Democrat.
Fox - Murdoch is pretty obviously Republican but the head of Fox Studios (Angela Shapiro) is a Democrat.
As for Music:
Warner Music - Edgar Bronfman has given a lot to Friends of Hillary. I am pretty sure that makes him a Democrat.
Universal Music - Douglas Morris is a Democrat.
Sony/BMG - Rolf Schmidt-Holtz and Michael Smellie are either not American or didn't contribute to anybody. Andy Lack, who I am pretty sure is American, didn't contribute either.
Those are all hard facts based on their contributions in 2004. And I would hardly discount the value of the celebrities themselves. Bon Jovi raised $1 MM for Kerry last month.
*That site has a ton of other useful information but a lot of it is locked up.
other misconceptions, like "most of Hollywood and the music industry are [D]emocrats", and "Kerry is richer than Bush"
Not sure how facts can be misconceptions. Kerry is worth close to a billion dollars and that is even a soft estimate since his wife doesn't have to report her personal fortune. Bush's reported wealth is under $100 million. Even if he is hiding a ton of it it would be hard to touch Heinz.
And I can't even begin to understand the misconception in Hollywood and Music industry being democrats. With the exception of a couple of stars (Arnold for one) almost everyone of them is an outspoken liberal.
And my bashing of republicans was on a separate thread and got modded offtopic. You can see it in my history. Got mixed up on which thread was which. Also sorry about posting AC last time around. I always post without Karma Bonus and checked the wrong damn box.
I believe I addressed this several times in the threads above. No reason to repeat myself here.
I'm not sure how the discussion of copyright got to war but I would remind you that FDR was a Democrat as was Harry S. Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson (all war winners - WW2, WW1, Spanish-American (not as president however), and 1812, respectively). The only Republicans to win a war were Lincoln (and some say it was won in spite of him) and Bush Sr. (and he never finished the job in the first place which lead us to this war).
George Washington, of course, had no party and could kick the ass of any president since then. When a presidential candidate comes along that can lead barefoot, half-starving farmers against the one of the greatest military powers in the world then I will vote for him regardless of power.
Then why put democratic in asteriks and specifically mention the republican party. Seems to me that he definitely intended the democratic party.
And calling somebody a fool is not typically a way to make your point seems more valid.
The Sony Bono act was also referred to as the Mickey Mouse act since it was Disney who did the most lobbying for it. Sony Bono died before the act was passed. I also never said that ONLY democrats push copyright laws. Both parties are beholden to corporate special interests.
I am registered as a Republican and actually voted for Bush last time (I really hate Gore and his censorship hungry man-wife Tipper) but I can't in good conscience vote for him again. The war is one thing (I believe that eventually Saddam was going to be a threat again, if not his psychopath son) but what really drives me nuts is that he has not just blurred the line between church and state - he has completely obliterated it. With this comes overly stringent decency laws, trampling of gay rights, and the threatening of legalized abortion. As much as I think Kerry is a fake and a typical kennedy-esque bullshit politician I will not waste my vote on any other party and risk Bush winning again.