Sorry, kids, but you won't change that undeniable reality no matter how many spite-mods you pile on. Reminds me of a lawsuit I was just reading about, now that I think about it.
Everything rolls out in batches now. Where did you get the idea that simultaneity is a wanted condition?
I have absolutely no idea where I got the idea that anyone would want to notify everyone in the nation about a nationwide "dire threat" as quickly as humanly possible. You can't be serious.
Up to 30 minutes to distribute to hundreds of millions is excellent scalability.
Says who? Compared to what? Under what set of assumptions? You can't be serious.
Given that we're several generations down the road both in design and bandwidth, it would be extremely disappointing if "cellular texting systems" (and I presume by that you mean something like SMS) are the mechanism being used for something like this. Did you have a definitive source you forgot to paste in?
It could take up to 30 minutes for the alerts to be transmitted to all devices.
Two questions:
1. Have we flushed broadcast messages THAT far down the architectural memory hole? 2. Who in the world designed a system for this sort of purpose with that sort of potential latency?
Definition of "middle class" used by researchers is ability to spend at least 11$ per day per person.
You may have stopped reading a touch early after you hit that sensational sounding statistic. Here's what they say their definition actually represents across countries/cultures:
Our “middle class” classification was first developed in 2010 and has been used by many researchers. While acknowledging that the middle class does not have a precise definition that can be globally applied, the threshold we use in this work has the following characteristics: those in the middle class have some discretionary income that can be used to buy consumer durables like motorcycles, refrigerators, or washing machines. They can afford to go to movies or indulge in other forms of entertainment. They may take vacations. And they are reasonably confident that they and their family can weather an economic shock—like illness or a spell of unemployment—without falling back into extreme poverty.
I may be misunderstanding this, but there has to be a better front end for those of us who aren't geeks
I don't think you are. I tried it out sans TFM, on the theory that it's going to have to be pretty damn intuitive for much of the world to bother. Just creating a blank document in a private space (and then finding it again) required way too much trial and error (including manually typing in a URL at one point), and the privacy/sharing interface doesn't seem to allow for any customization of groups/roles much less an obvious way to actually assign users to them. It's a long way from showtime.
The SEC backed down from insisting on removing his as CEO.
But did force his removal as chairman and the appointment of two independent directors, which probably now makes it a realistic possibility that the board itself could remove him as CEO if he doesn't get his act together.
It's more nuanced than that, of course. Here, GBP Inc. already had a trademark on "TITLETOWN," and the trademark-related analysis was based on that trademark and not the one on "TITLETOWNTECH," which as the opinion notes, hadn't yet been issued. The latter registration was important, though, to establishing proper diligence on GBP's part and lack of good faith of the squatter. Reading through the opinion probably would help clear up a lot of high-level questions like this -- I promise it won't bite.
My last post (and the WIPO panel opinion, if you could bother yourself to read it), lays out the timeline. There's not a shred of evidence such a "business" ever existed beyond the shell website parked at the disputed domain name, and they registered it barely a month before the GBP announcement.
Maybe try swapping the invective for some intellectual curiosity next time.
How is it cyber squatting? If they registered "GreenBayPackersTech" they might have an argument but "Titletown" does not belong exclusive to Green Bay. Many different sports teams can claim that nickname.
The WIPO panel decision goes into this in great length. TL;DR: GBP Inc. filed a trademark registration for "TitletownTech" the day before they announced the expansion initiative. The domain name was created about a month before that. The timing in combination with the attempted shakedown suggests they registered in response to a leak.
As an initial matter, the Panel finds of no relevance Respondent's reference to other businesses that use "TITLETOWN" in their names, given that it is unclear from the record whether any of these businesses use the TITLETOWN Trademark as a trademark and whether any of these businesses have a license from Complainant to use the TITLETOWN Trademark. Further, even if some of these businesses use the TITLETOWN Trademark as a trademark without a license from Complainant to do so, third-party uses of a trademark are no defense to bad faith under the Policy. See, e.g., The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, WIPO Case No. D2002-0834; and Custom Bilt Metals v. Conquest Consulting, WIPO Case No. D2004-0023.
The Panel is struck by at least two important facts, each of which is an indicator of bad faith: First, the Disputed Domain Name was registered on September 18, 2017, only one month before Complainant announced the TitletownTech technology and innovation center and filed its application to register the TITLETOWNTECH Trademark. Although it is unclear whether Respondent had advance knowledge of this application, the timing is suspicious. See, e.g., Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Technology, Inc. v. Paul James, WIPO Case No. D2014-1847 ("a close time correlation" between the registration date of disputed domain names and a related announcement by a complainant "cannot reasonably be considered to be coincidental or serendipitous); and Bancolombia S.A. v. Elpidia Finance Corporation, WIPO Case No. D2000-0545 ("[a]bsent 'miraculous coincidences', the Panel considers that the Respondent moved fast to register a domain name identical of confusingly similar to the service mark of the Complainant, after the Respondent acquired notice of the fact that the Complainant would be using the trade- and corporate name in which the Complainant had rights").
Second, Respondent's offer to sell the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant for USD 750,000 plus, among other things, eight lifetime Green Bay Packers box seats, is clearly "for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name," which is evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy – a paragraph that includes no exception for an offer that a respondent, as here, later claims "was not meant as a serious counteroffer." Allowing a respondent to excuse such an offer in this manner would undermine the relevance of this paragraph of the Policy.
In any event, "[p]anels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith." WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. Here, the Panel finds that the TITLETOWN Trademark is famous or widely known given Complainant's use of the trademark for more than 50 years and its protection by at least eight federal trademark registrations.
Did they get their domain registration fees back at least?
They got an offer far in excess of their domain registration fees.
They got greedy and threw the dice.
If a cybersquatter can just take a free roll at the big bucks and still get a guaranteed minimum if they lose, economically rational cybersquatters will do exactly that and the overall cybersquatting "tax" will go up.
Your feelings about that outcome will doubtless vary depending on your feelings about cybersquatting in general.
Slashdot article is wrong. It's only against Musk, not Tesla [pacermonitor.com].
Problem is, and as clearly stated in the complaint you linked, one of the remedies the SEC is seeking is "that Defendant be prohibited from acting as an officer or director of any issuer that has a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78l] or that is required to file reports pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78o(d)]."
In other words, Musk wouldn't be able to be a director/officer of Tesla anymore.
That could be one itsy bitsy reason why Tesla stock is tanking.
The researchers also found that if User A, whom we’ll call Anna, shares her contacts with Facebook, including a previously unknown phone number for User B, whom we’ll call Ben, advertisers will be able to target Ben with an ad using that phone number, which I call “shadow contact information,” about a month later. Ben can’t access his shadow contact information, because that would violate Anna’s privacy, according to Facebook, so he can’t see it or delete it, and he can’t keep advertisers from using it either.
The lead author on the paper, Giridhari Venkatadri, said this was the most surprising finding, that Facebook was targeted ads using information “that was not directly provided by the user, or even revealed to the user.”
So informing me that someone else has revealed a piece of my personal information to Facebook (and particularly one that I've not revealed to Facebook myself) is somehow a violation of the other person's privacy?
You're likely to get a more educated jury pool in San Francisco, where that trial was held, than in a lot of other parts of the country, but even with that jurors usually don't have the background to really be able to evaluate the science. Both sides in a case like this generally put up scientific experts that come to exact opposite conclusions on things like causality, so jurors often have to base their decision on higher-level factors like who they think is more credible and what outcome they think is more fair.
Normally big companies don't bother responding to scientific studies. The fact that they did in this case, attempting a character assassination to boot, suggests they are scared.
It's almost as though they were just hit for a $289 million jury verdict in the first of thousands of Roundup-gave-me-cancer lawsuits, and understand studies like this will be trial lawyer red meat in the follow-on cases. There's been a ton of research lately on the relationship between the microbiome (which this study suggests Roundup impairs) and cancer.
Slashdot Mirror
He was 41 and a marathon runner. He was probably killed off by his ChiCom overlords.
Most definitely suspicious -- middle-aged marathon runners never die of sudden heart attacks.
Sorry, kids, but you won't change that undeniable reality no matter how many spite-mods you pile on. Reminds me of a lawsuit I was just reading about, now that I think about it.
'nuff said.
Everything rolls out in batches now. Where did you get the idea that simultaneity is a wanted condition?
I have absolutely no idea where I got the idea that anyone would want to notify everyone in the nation about a nationwide "dire threat" as quickly as humanly possible. You can't be serious.
Up to 30 minutes to distribute to hundreds of millions is excellent scalability.
Says who? Compared to what? Under what set of assumptions? You can't be serious.
Quantity has a quality all its own.
Yup, you're not serious.
Given that we're several generations down the road both in design and bandwidth, it would be extremely disappointing if "cellular texting systems" (and I presume by that you mean something like SMS) are the mechanism being used for something like this. Did you have a definitive source you forgot to paste in?
It could take up to 30 minutes for the alerts to be transmitted to all devices.
Two questions:
1. Have we flushed broadcast messages THAT far down the architectural memory hole?
2. Who in the world designed a system for this sort of purpose with that sort of potential latency?
Definition of "middle class" used by researchers is ability to spend at least 11$ per day per person.
You may have stopped reading a touch early after you hit that sensational sounding statistic. Here's what they say their definition actually represents across countries/cultures:
Our “middle class” classification was first developed in 2010 and has been used by many researchers. While acknowledging that the middle class does not have a precise definition that can be globally applied, the threshold we use in this work has the following characteristics: those in the middle class have some discretionary income that can be used to buy consumer durables like motorcycles, refrigerators, or washing machines. They can afford to go to movies or indulge in other forms of entertainment. They may take vacations. And they are reasonably confident that they and their family can weather an economic shock—like illness or a spell of unemployment—without falling back into extreme poverty.
I may be misunderstanding this, but there has to be a better front end for those of us who aren't geeks
I don't think you are. I tried it out sans TFM, on the theory that it's going to have to be pretty damn intuitive for much of the world to bother. Just creating a blank document in a private space (and then finding it again) required way too much trial and error (including manually typing in a URL at one point), and the privacy/sharing interface doesn't seem to allow for any customization of groups/roles much less an obvious way to actually assign users to them. It's a long way from showtime.
Watching someone type is one of the most boring things imaginable, no matter who you are.
That really depends on who it is and what else they're doing as they type.
The SEC backed down from insisting on removing his as CEO.
But did force his removal as chairman and the appointment of two independent directors, which probably now makes it a realistic possibility that the board itself could remove him as CEO if he doesn't get his act together.
It's more nuanced than that, of course. Here, GBP Inc. already had a trademark on "TITLETOWN," and the trademark-related analysis was based on that trademark and not the one on "TITLETOWNTECH," which as the opinion notes, hadn't yet been issued. The latter registration was important, though, to establishing proper diligence on GBP's part and lack of good faith of the squatter. Reading through the opinion probably would help clear up a lot of high-level questions like this -- I promise it won't bite.
I take it the ad hominem is in lieu of any specific disagreements with the facts and opinions laid out in the decision.
Apparently you don't believe in capitalism or the free market, do you?
I think the more apt corollary here is "never try to extort someone for more than the cost to have you killed."
My last post (and the WIPO panel opinion, if you could bother yourself to read it), lays out the timeline. There's not a shred of evidence such a "business" ever existed beyond the shell website parked at the disputed domain name, and they registered it barely a month before the GBP announcement.
Maybe try swapping the invective for some intellectual curiosity next time.
How is it cyber squatting? If they registered "GreenBayPackersTech" they might have an argument but "Titletown" does not belong exclusive to Green Bay. Many different sports teams can claim that nickname.
The WIPO panel decision goes into this in great length. TL;DR: GBP Inc. filed a trademark registration for "TitletownTech" the day before they announced the expansion initiative. The domain name was created about a month before that. The timing in combination with the attempted shakedown suggests they registered in response to a leak.
As an initial matter, the Panel finds of no relevance Respondent's reference to other businesses that use "TITLETOWN" in their names, given that it is unclear from the record whether any of these businesses use the TITLETOWN Trademark as a trademark and whether any of these businesses have a license from Complainant to use the TITLETOWN Trademark. Further, even if some of these businesses use the TITLETOWN Trademark as a trademark without a license from Complainant to do so, third-party uses of a trademark are no defense to bad faith under the Policy. See, e.g., The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, WIPO Case No. D2002-0834; and Custom Bilt Metals v. Conquest Consulting, WIPO Case No. D2004-0023.
The Panel is struck by at least two important facts, each of which is an indicator of bad faith: First, the Disputed Domain Name was registered on September 18, 2017, only one month before Complainant announced the TitletownTech technology and innovation center and filed its application to register the TITLETOWNTECH Trademark. Although it is unclear whether Respondent had advance knowledge of this application, the timing is suspicious. See, e.g., Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Technology, Inc. v. Paul James, WIPO Case No. D2014-1847 ("a close time correlation" between the registration date of disputed domain names and a related announcement by a complainant "cannot reasonably be considered to be coincidental or serendipitous); and Bancolombia S.A. v. Elpidia Finance Corporation, WIPO Case No. D2000-0545 ("[a]bsent 'miraculous coincidences', the Panel considers that the Respondent moved fast to register a domain name identical of confusingly similar to the service mark of the Complainant, after the Respondent acquired notice of the fact that the Complainant would be using the trade- and corporate name in which the Complainant had rights").
Second, Respondent's offer to sell the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant for USD 750,000 plus, among other things, eight lifetime Green Bay Packers box seats, is clearly "for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name," which is evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy – a paragraph that includes no exception for an offer that a respondent, as here, later claims "was not meant as a serious counteroffer." Allowing a respondent to excuse such an offer in this manner would undermine the relevance of this paragraph of the Policy.
In any event, "[p]anels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith." WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. Here, the Panel finds that the TITLETOWN Trademark is famous or widely known given Complainant's use of the trademark for more than 50 years and its protection by at least eight federal trademark registrations.
They asked for 8 lifetime Packers season tickets!
I think you may have forgotten to mention the $750k in cash, among other things.
Did they get their domain registration fees back at least?
They got an offer far in excess of their domain registration fees.
They got greedy and threw the dice.
If a cybersquatter can just take a free roll at the big bucks and still get a guaranteed minimum if they lose, economically rational cybersquatters will do exactly that and the overall cybersquatting "tax" will go up.
Your feelings about that outcome will doubtless vary depending on your feelings about cybersquatting in general.
Slashdot article is wrong. It's only against Musk, not Tesla [pacermonitor.com].
Problem is, and as clearly stated in the complaint you linked, one of the remedies the SEC is seeking is "that Defendant be prohibited from acting as an officer or director of any issuer that has a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78l] or that is required to file reports pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78o(d)]."
In other words, Musk wouldn't be able to be a director/officer of Tesla anymore.
That could be one itsy bitsy reason why Tesla stock is tanking.
I hope they get the maximum fine, currently 4% of global turnover if I'm not mistaken.
Yes, and the world has been waiting for a good test case to see how that theoretical penalty plays out in the real world. This would be a doozy.
FTFA:
The researchers also found that if User A, whom we’ll call Anna, shares her contacts with Facebook, including a previously unknown phone number for User B, whom we’ll call Ben, advertisers will be able to target Ben with an ad using that phone number, which I call “shadow contact information,” about a month later. Ben can’t access his shadow contact information, because that would violate Anna’s privacy, according to Facebook, so he can’t see it or delete it, and he can’t keep advertisers from using it either.
The lead author on the paper, Giridhari Venkatadri, said this was the most surprising finding, that Facebook was targeted ads using information “that was not directly provided by the user, or even revealed to the user.”
So informing me that someone else has revealed a piece of my personal information to Facebook (and particularly one that I've not revealed to Facebook myself) is somehow a violation of the other person's privacy?
Give me a break.
You're likely to get a more educated jury pool in San Francisco, where that trial was held, than in a lot of other parts of the country, but even with that jurors usually don't have the background to really be able to evaluate the science. Both sides in a case like this generally put up scientific experts that come to exact opposite conclusions on things like causality, so jurors often have to base their decision on higher-level factors like who they think is more credible and what outcome they think is more fair.
Do you feel THAT bad about it?
Oh. Sorry. Carry on with your sudden burst of moral preening from the comfort of your ivory tower.
Normally big companies don't bother responding to scientific studies. The fact that they did in this case, attempting a character assassination to boot, suggests they are scared.
It's almost as though they were just hit for a $289 million jury verdict in the first of thousands of Roundup-gave-me-cancer lawsuits, and understand studies like this will be trial lawyer red meat in the follow-on cases. There's been a ton of research lately on the relationship between the microbiome (which this study suggests Roundup impairs) and cancer.
to actually be usable as a... well, phone?
You can't change a spark plugs and without a software override code on these tractors.
Yes it is that bad.
Criminy if the mods aren't gullible today! They've probably changed about as many spark plugs as you have. Well done, bro.