Someone please violate this city's bogus copyright and get the laws on the internet.
That's exactly what they're currently working on doing. And it's not the laws that are copyrighted, it's one particular electronic presentation of those laws. The laws are still available for free at the public library, among other places.
Ignorance of law is not a defense in a court of law, yet people are subject to laws they cannot read in detail. Doesn't seem very nuanced. It seems a very straightforward violation of basic principles of civics.
They can read it in detail in paper form. They just can't have it on CD for free, and soon they'll have searchable online access for free.
Charging $200 for the CD isn't ideal, but nobody is hiding the laws from people.
Information is not copyrightable. A particular presentation of information is copyrightable.
They are not saying you can't learn the law for free. They are saying you can't have this particular presentation of the law for free.
Also, according to TFA, this is only a temporary situation while they work on getting the full law posted online for free. They're just trying to recover some of the $20,000 it's costing them to do this.
I'm not sure why you think selling something is a pre-requisite for being able to trademark its name. What is key is that you use the trademark on an ongoing basis and are the first to use it in a particular field.(Amongst other things). Even if you freely give something away you can still trademark its name; all a trademark does is identify a particular product and prevents others with similar products from trading on your good (or bad) name. Google, for example gives away many services for free yet can still own the rights to Google as a servicemark or trademark; depending on whether you consider search a service or a good.
I didn't say he had to be selling it, I said he had to be using it in a commercial capacity. Trademark applies to, well, trade. I might use a certain nickname on an ongoing basis in a particular field, but that doesn't mean I automatically get a trademark on that nickname. It would have to be a mark of trade in order for it to be trademarkable.
DMCA is not an issue, since this is a question of trademark, not copyright.
It seems to me that the only way McCabe could be legally forced to change the name is if trademark law applied, but if trademark law applied, then the mark would be his, since trademark law is "first to use", not "first to file".
Legal questions aside, if Google keeps using the name, then McCabe will have to change his name not for legal reasons, but practical ones.
Perhaps Mr. McCabe should have trademarked the name???
Simply using the name in a commercial capacity is enough to get an unregistered trademark. However, the problem is that he is not selling the Go! programming language. If it's not a commercial entity, then trademark doesn't apply.
Even without a registered trademark, I think they'd have a good case that Google is trying to pass off their new language as the original Go.
Actually, unregistered trademarks are valid, too. In North America, the trademark system is a "first to use" system, not a "first to file".
However, the original Go is not a commercial product, so there is no trademark issue. Google will likely consider changing the name just because it's stupid to create a new programming language and give it the same name as an existing one, but trademark won't enter into the discussion.
The Scientists have assured us that this thing is perfectly safe. But they didn't even anticipate debris falling into the cooling system? Somehow I'm not comforted by their brilliance.
From TFS: "...but the spike produced so much heat that had the beam been on, automatic failsafes would have shut down the machine."
In other words, they did anticipate this, and built in failsafes to address it.
Anyone who gets the chance to meta mod needs to fix this. Disagreeing with the parent does not make him a troll.
You must be new here.:)
Overall, I like the moderation system, but I think it should only allow positive moderation. Almost all negative moderation on this site is due to disagreeing with what's being said.
1. Leave a valuable possession on the ground 2. Promptly forget about it 3. And then drive over it with their car 4. ? 5. Profit !
You'd be amazed what a little alcohol can do. I know someone who did precisely what you described (well, there was no step 5), only the valuable possession in question was not a laptop, but a Gibson Les Paul.
What I don't get is why a joker like that - who is obviously intelligent - doesn't just find a legal way to get rich. It can't be that hard.
Maybe he doesn't want to.
Most people who are really good at doing something got to be that good because they enjoy doing it.
If he enjoyed doing something that is both profitable and legal, then he'd probably be just as rich with no legal problems. But he doesn't. He enjoys doing exactly what he is doing.
Maybe law is one of those special places where the dichotomy falls apart.
In my experience as a software developer, the truly socially inept stereotypical nerd is a serious minority. I would describe most of the people I've worked with as neither jocks nor nerds (although I've seen plenty of both), but rather as fairly "ordinary" people with a penchant for some nerdiness (usually among other things). Some are athletic, some musical, some have intense political leanings, some science-oriented, some artists, and most are a combination of those.
We know that the pulses were caused by an event that lasted 2.2 seconds, therefore we know that they left anywhere from 0 to 2.2 seconds apart. However, the point isn't to determine a simple boolean result to the question "did they arrive at the same time", the point is to invalidate the predictions of theories. The existing theories predicted that the arrival times of these pulses, having left at most 2.2 seconds apart, would be at a minimum significantly more than 0.9 seconds. However, they were not, therefore the theories' predictions are wrong, and thus the theories are invalid. The one theory that predicted that they would arrive at most 2.2 seconds apart remains — not proven, but still not disproven. That's how science works.
If a place smells like a moose just died in it, especially if its also visibly dirty, then I just sort of get the impression that it doesn't actually matter what I do in there. On the other hand, when a place is spotless, smells lemony fresh and everything appears in order then I'm not going to be the one to put my feet on the coffee table, no matter how tempting it might be. Smell ties into taste and is one of the more powerful senses we have, so it makes sense that it would play a large part in determining our impression of what is or isn't acceptable in a given location, every bit as much as it tells us what foods seem OK to eat.
But the interesting part about this study is that it wasn't measuring behaviour that would typically be linked to cleanliness (ie. putting your feet on the coffee table). It was looking into behaviour that should be consistent regardless what room you're in.
For example, people sitting in the "clean" room were more willing to volunteer for Habitat for Humanity. They were also more willing to donate money to the cause.
Also interesting is that participants didn't actually consciously notice the sent in the room.
Understanding your history doesn't imply you have to agree with the same course for the future.
What does that really mean? "I'm glad feminists got me to where I am today, now I wish things would go back to the way it was"? Or maybe "Feminists have benefited me, now they should just give up and stop fighting for others who are still oppressed because, hey, I'm free, and that's all that matters"? I really don't understand what you mean.
Being appreciative of her position now doesn't obligate her to agree with the rest of the political mumbo-jumbo of zealots that say all women should work and women who don't are somehow less of a woman because of it.**
**I'm aware not all feminists are zealots.
But the position you describe is really not the general sentiment of feminists, nor does it describe what modern feminists are fighting for. Are you talking about feminists? Or about zealots? Or creating a straw man?
Most anti-feminist sentiment comes down to "I'm opposed to man-hating bull-dyke feminists who think all women should be CEOs who have a man who cooks and cleans for them". Well, that's great that you're opposed to something that doesn't exist, except maybe in the "mind" of Rush Limbaugh (or whoever the hell is the hero of the right-wing these days), but what do you think about actual feminists? You know, the ones fighting for actual freedom (including the freedom to choose to be a housewife if that's what you really want) and equality?
Hum...do YOU realize that that originally, computer programmers were ALL women?
and, for quite some time this remained true.
The pendulum swings both ways, and, perhaps one day we will be back to an all female programming staff.
Yes, I do realize that. Of course, that wasn't so much a "pendulum swing" as it was an artifact of a world war that sent most of the country's men overseas, leaving the women to do most of the work that men would otherwise be doing back home.
Either pick some new issues or start working on changing cultures in other parts of the world, where women still *are* oppressed, instead of browbeating the women you worked to give rights to when they freely exercise those rights without seeming properly grateful.
Feminists are working to help women in the rest of the world, while recognizing that there are still problems in this part of the world. And as for the "browbeating", I can't speak for the handful of zealots, but generally feminism is about choice, and feminists generally respect those who freely choose "traditionally female" roles.
I've never understood this. You do realize, don't you, that without feminism, you wouldn't be a female programmer today? You'd either be a housewife, or a secretary looking for a husband so you can become a housewife.
There's nothing wrong with being either of those things, but since both are available to you now and you've chosen to be a programmer instead, I'm left to assume that you don't want to be either of those things. But without feminism, that wouldn't matter. Your gender would have chosen your path, not your personal desires.
By the way, I'm not a female, but definitely a feminist.
Missing the point of the entire debate is to attempt to equate or confuse marriage (a legal/religious institution) with natural rights (such as freedom and liberty). They are, and should be different.
The issue is equality in the eyes of society and the law.
Legal marriage and religious marriage are really two different things. They can be combined, but neither requires the other. This issue is entirely about legal marriage. One group is denying legal privileges that have a very real impact on everyday life to another group purely based on religious reasoning. There is no reason for the law to do that. That is inequality, and should be eliminated from the legal system.
To attempt to redefine what "marriage" means reeks of Orwellian think-speak.
Extending a legal privilege enjoyed by one group of people to another group of people in the interest of equality is not Orwellian think-speak. You call this redefining. I call it removing an arbitrary restriction, much like other arbitrary restrictions have been removed in the past, such as ones preventing interracial marriages.
Laws change all the time. No one is expecting you to change your life, or your marriage, or even your religious convictions, in any way whatsoever. No one is demanding that you think, speak, or act in any particular way. In fact, this has nothing to do with you at all, assuming you're not homosexual. What is so "Orwellian" about laws that have absolutely no impact on you in any way?
Slashdot Mirror
Someone please violate this city's bogus copyright and get the laws on the internet.
That's exactly what they're currently working on doing. And it's not the laws that are copyrighted, it's one particular electronic presentation of those laws. The laws are still available for free at the public library, among other places.
Ignorance of law is not a defense in a court of law, yet people are subject to laws they cannot read in detail. Doesn't seem very nuanced. It seems a very straightforward violation of basic principles of civics.
They can read it in detail in paper form. They just can't have it on CD for free, and soon they'll have searchable online access for free.
Charging $200 for the CD isn't ideal, but nobody is hiding the laws from people.
Information is not copyrightable. A particular presentation of information is copyrightable.
They are not saying you can't learn the law for free. They are saying you can't have this particular presentation of the law for free.
Also, according to TFA, this is only a temporary situation while they work on getting the full law posted online for free. They're just trying to recover some of the $20,000 it's costing them to do this.
He has a book for sale [lulu.com] on the programming language. That sounds like using the name in a commercial capacity to me.
The name of the book, yes. The name of the programming language, no. The book is the product, not the programming language.
I could write a book about you. That doesn't grant me the ability to trademark your name.
I'm not sure why you think selling something is a pre-requisite for being able to trademark its name. What is key is that you use the trademark on an ongoing basis and are the first to use it in a particular field.(Amongst other things). Even if you freely give something away you can still trademark its name; all a trademark does is identify a particular product and prevents others with similar products from trading on your good (or bad) name. Google, for example gives away many services for free yet can still own the rights to Google as a servicemark or trademark; depending on whether you consider search a service or a good.
I didn't say he had to be selling it, I said he had to be using it in a commercial capacity. Trademark applies to, well, trade. I might use a certain nickname on an ongoing basis in a particular field, but that doesn't mean I automatically get a trademark on that nickname. It would have to be a mark of trade in order for it to be trademarkable.
DMCA is not an issue, since this is a question of trademark, not copyright.
It seems to me that the only way McCabe could be legally forced to change the name is if trademark law applied, but if trademark law applied, then the mark would be his, since trademark law is "first to use", not "first to file".
Legal questions aside, if Google keeps using the name, then McCabe will have to change his name not for legal reasons, but practical ones.
Perhaps Mr. McCabe should have trademarked the name???
Simply using the name in a commercial capacity is enough to get an unregistered trademark. However, the problem is that he is not selling the Go! programming language. If it's not a commercial entity, then trademark doesn't apply.
Even without a registered trademark, I think they'd have a good case that Google is trying to pass off their new language as the original Go.
Actually, unregistered trademarks are valid, too. In North America, the trademark system is a "first to use" system, not a "first to file".
However, the original Go is not a commercial product, so there is no trademark issue. Google will likely consider changing the name just because it's stupid to create a new programming language and give it the same name as an existing one, but trademark won't enter into the discussion.
There's an amazing untold story there. I hope it stays that way.
Sorry.
The Scientists have assured us that this thing is perfectly safe. But they didn't even anticipate debris falling into the cooling system? Somehow I'm not comforted by their brilliance.
From TFS: "...but the spike produced so much heat that had the beam been on, automatic failsafes would have shut down the machine."
In other words, they did anticipate this, and built in failsafes to address it.
Anyone who gets the chance to meta mod needs to fix this. Disagreeing with the parent does not make him a troll.
You must be new here. :)
Overall, I like the moderation system, but I think it should only allow positive moderation. Almost all negative moderation on this site is due to disagreeing with what's being said.
I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would
1. Leave a valuable possession on the ground
2. Promptly forget about it
3. And then drive over it with their car
4. ?
5. Profit !
You'd be amazed what a little alcohol can do. I know someone who did precisely what you described (well, there was no step 5), only the valuable possession in question was not a laptop, but a Gibson Les Paul.
What I don't get is why a joker like that - who is obviously intelligent - doesn't just find a legal way to get rich. It can't be that hard.
Maybe he doesn't want to.
Most people who are really good at doing something got to be that good because they enjoy doing it.
If he enjoyed doing something that is both profitable and legal, then he'd probably be just as rich with no legal problems. But he doesn't. He enjoys doing exactly what he is doing.
Maybe law is one of those special places where the dichotomy falls apart.
In my experience as a software developer, the truly socially inept stereotypical nerd is a serious minority. I would describe most of the people I've worked with as neither jocks nor nerds (although I've seen plenty of both), but rather as fairly "ordinary" people with a penchant for some nerdiness (usually among other things). Some are athletic, some musical, some have intense political leanings, some science-oriented, some artists, and most are a combination of those.
We know that the pulses were caused by an event that lasted 2.2 seconds, therefore we know that they left anywhere from 0 to 2.2 seconds apart. However, the point isn't to determine a simple boolean result to the question "did they arrive at the same time", the point is to invalidate the predictions of theories. The existing theories predicted that the arrival times of these pulses, having left at most 2.2 seconds apart, would be at a minimum significantly more than 0.9 seconds. However, they were not, therefore the theories' predictions are wrong, and thus the theories are invalid. The one theory that predicted that they would arrive at most 2.2 seconds apart remains — not proven, but still not disproven. That's how science works.
If a place smells like a moose just died in it, especially if its also visibly dirty, then I just sort of get the impression that it doesn't actually matter what I do in there. On the other hand, when a place is spotless, smells lemony fresh and everything appears in order then I'm not going to be the one to put my feet on the coffee table, no matter how tempting it might be. Smell ties into taste and is one of the more powerful senses we have, so it makes sense that it would play a large part in determining our impression of what is or isn't acceptable in a given location, every bit as much as it tells us what foods seem OK to eat.
But the interesting part about this study is that it wasn't measuring behaviour that would typically be linked to cleanliness (ie. putting your feet on the coffee table). It was looking into behaviour that should be consistent regardless what room you're in.
For example, people sitting in the "clean" room were more willing to volunteer for Habitat for Humanity. They were also more willing to donate money to the cause.
Also interesting is that participants didn't actually consciously notice the sent in the room.
text-docoration:blink is optional and usually only implemented by the evil browsers already implementing
Is that why it's implemented in Firefox but not in IE?
Also:
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="QBASIC">IF $BROWSER = "IE" THEN GOTO 50</SCRIPT>
Understanding your history doesn't imply you have to agree with the same course for the future.
What does that really mean? "I'm glad feminists got me to where I am today, now I wish things would go back to the way it was"? Or maybe "Feminists have benefited me, now they should just give up and stop fighting for others who are still oppressed because, hey, I'm free, and that's all that matters"? I really don't understand what you mean.
Being appreciative of her position now doesn't obligate her to agree with the rest of the political mumbo-jumbo of zealots that say all women should work and women who don't are somehow less of a woman because of it.**
**I'm aware not all feminists are zealots.
But the position you describe is really not the general sentiment of feminists, nor does it describe what modern feminists are fighting for. Are you talking about feminists? Or about zealots? Or creating a straw man?
Most anti-feminist sentiment comes down to "I'm opposed to man-hating bull-dyke feminists who think all women should be CEOs who have a man who cooks and cleans for them". Well, that's great that you're opposed to something that doesn't exist, except maybe in the "mind" of Rush Limbaugh (or whoever the hell is the hero of the right-wing these days), but what do you think about actual feminists? You know, the ones fighting for actual freedom (including the freedom to choose to be a housewife if that's what you really want) and equality?
Hum...do YOU realize that that originally, computer programmers were ALL women?
and, for quite some time this remained true. The pendulum swings both ways, and, perhaps one day we will be back to an all female programming staff.
Yes, I do realize that. Of course, that wasn't so much a "pendulum swing" as it was an artifact of a world war that sent most of the country's men overseas, leaving the women to do most of the work that men would otherwise be doing back home.
And when will *you* realize that the war is over.
When it actually is. Everywhere.
Either pick some new issues or start working on changing cultures in other parts of the world, where women still *are* oppressed, instead of browbeating the women you worked to give rights to when they freely exercise those rights without seeming properly grateful.
Feminists are working to help women in the rest of the world, while recognizing that there are still problems in this part of the world. And as for the "browbeating", I can't speak for the handful of zealots, but generally feminism is about choice, and feminists generally respect those who freely choose "traditionally female" roles.
Female. Not feminist.
...
I'm a female programmer...
I've never understood this. You do realize, don't you, that without feminism, you wouldn't be a female programmer today? You'd either be a housewife, or a secretary looking for a husband so you can become a housewife.
There's nothing wrong with being either of those things, but since both are available to you now and you've chosen to be a programmer instead, I'm left to assume that you don't want to be either of those things. But without feminism, that wouldn't matter. Your gender would have chosen your path, not your personal desires.
By the way, I'm not a female, but definitely a feminist.
My cardboard boxes are free. Of course, they can't be used to show off how intellectual I am.
Of course they can. A messy room filled with towering stacks of cardboard boxes labeled "books" just screams "eccentric genius".
i'm not paying $250 to buy books
That's not really that much. I spent more than that on my bookshelves, and they're not even portable.
Missing the point of the entire debate is to attempt to equate or confuse marriage (a legal/religious institution) with natural rights (such as freedom and liberty). They are, and should be different.
The issue is equality in the eyes of society and the law.
Legal marriage and religious marriage are really two different things. They can be combined, but neither requires the other. This issue is entirely about legal marriage. One group is denying legal privileges that have a very real impact on everyday life to another group purely based on religious reasoning. There is no reason for the law to do that. That is inequality, and should be eliminated from the legal system.
To attempt to redefine what "marriage" means reeks of Orwellian think-speak.
Extending a legal privilege enjoyed by one group of people to another group of people in the interest of equality is not Orwellian think-speak. You call this redefining. I call it removing an arbitrary restriction, much like other arbitrary restrictions have been removed in the past, such as ones preventing interracial marriages.
Laws change all the time. No one is expecting you to change your life, or your marriage, or even your religious convictions, in any way whatsoever. No one is demanding that you think, speak, or act in any particular way. In fact, this has nothing to do with you at all, assuming you're not homosexual. What is so "Orwellian" about laws that have absolutely no impact on you in any way?