For a given value of portable I guess - the article says they're in the vicinity of 8 tonnes. You'd need additional (fixed) infrastructure just to be able to load/unload them from the engines - factor in shipping costs and turnaround time, and I'm not sure even Chinese labour costs are going to compensate for all of that.
We wouldn't do it for electric cars because we'd have to cover an order-of-magnitude more ground for a vehicle that doesn't travel on rails.
I guess it might be worthwhile for new lines (do we still build these? My state hasn't opened a new rail station in my lifetime) but I can't imagine any cost savings in retro-fitting existing lines. I imagine the maintenance cost for batteries would be, at best, not better than that of the overheads.
That's his point. Given that trains can only run on tracks, and that either the rails or the overhead lines already provide power, what is the advantage of having a heavy, inefficient means of storing power on the vehicle itself?
I don't know who Carl and Mike are, but honey has quite a few medicinal uses, including as an antiseptic. They mostly involve slathering it on your skin rather than eating it, though.
Huh? The rich people (i.e. the people cashing out the stock options) did get taxed. Facebook, the corporate entity, didn't get taxed. Or rather, it did, it's deductions just out-weighed it's tax burden, plus it carried forward accumulated deductions from previous years.
How much of that time is idling in traffic? Electric cars should have a very low draw when idle. It's not so much the duration of your trip that matters but the distance. If you're driving an hour to and from work at the speed limit, then you're not within Melbourne's city limits, you're coming in from the suburbs.
They make games and sell them to people. Open-sourcing their engine is valuable because, if it generates sufficient interest, they get continual reports on bugs, compatibility issues and the like from sources other than people bitching about their game that doesn't work on their obscure device, saving the company's reputation.
Having a widely-adopted framework for games might also lead phone manufacturers to test against that (if it gets big enough, which is doubtful), further increasing their compatibility, and give them publicity and a good rep. Really, unless there was some huge competitive advantage in their framework, it's a case of win-win - or at least win-dontlose.
They applied for it in 2000 - it wasn't granted til 2008. I even referenced that in my post. Four years to bring a product to market isn't a particularly huge time. The iPhone wasn't even a glimmer in Apple's eye in 2000.
People are going to be buying these iPhones under the impression they are the product Apple produces. This is exactly what trademarks are intended to prevent
You're right - Apple should never have been able to market the iPhone in Brazil when there was an application pending on that trademark (on a side note - eight years to process a trademark application? Yikes!). The thing is, there was probably nothing to be done about it. The government wouldn't have taken issue with it, and any complaints Gradiente might have made would probably have been laughed away as trolling if they'd made them before their product was ready.
No, but it could have, if Linksys had taken their action all the way. Instead, they presumably got a tidy sum in the settlement. Decent win for them, I'd say. Nothing like a bit of rent-seeking to keep the wallet happy.
The company registered the trademark before Apple even thought about launching the iPhone, and produced the physical product to go with it. Good on them. If Apple really cared about the Brazilian market, they would have checked up on trademarks as part of due diligence before branding - it's not like Apple hasn't had bad experiences with trademark issues before.
So no, the fact that an attacker compromised a system doesn't always mean someone dropped the ball. Sometimes it does, but not always and not necessarily.
No, it always does. Unless there is some physical property of the universe that means that this particular hole in this system just cannot be closed, someone made a mistake. Whether that mistake was in the engineering or the specification, or if that mistake can be readily forgiven depends on a whole host of other things - including how much time and resources were allocated to the project, what the specifications were, whether security was knowingly being traded off for other factors, etc.
LordLucless, you haven't answered the question "what is the libertarian take on cybersquatting". All you've said is that, supposing that a monopoly already exists which issues contracts against cybersquatting, then contracts will naturally rule against cybersquatting. Well, that's obvious.
Libertarians aren't some homogenous group, and even if they were, I'm not their spokesperson. I can't give you the Libertarian take on cybersquatting, because it doesn't exist.
In my OP I anticipated your answer. I specifically asked that, if you're going to follow your route then -- given one ICANN which makes anti-cybersquatting contracts, and another ICANN2 which doesn't, what free market mechanism do you think will make one of them dominant?
Assuming that their anti-cybersquatting provisions are the only issues that distinguish the two, then I imagine either end-user satisfaction (not continually hitting ad-speweing squatting sites) and lower costs (not having to deal with legal disputes arising from court cases over trademarks and such like) would advantage the anti-squatting side, and higher income (from selling stuff to all the squatters) would be on the pro-squatting side. Which of those would end up winning out, I have no idea. There'd also be the potential for boycotts (I imagine they would be mostly against the pro-squatters), but given consumer apathy, I imagine that'd only be a minor factor.
So please, to any libertarians -- can you give me a purely libertarian explanation of why cybersquatting is wrong?
Let's say there's a private entity controlling domain names. Lets call them ICANT. For whatever reason, they've garnered sufficient trust that all the world's DNS servers point to them, and have an effective monopoly on domain registrations.
People register domain names. ICANT has a series of rules about who can register what domain names - no extended ASCII characters, no profanity, no using other people or businesses names, no using the domain name for a criminal enterprise, etc. These are all private rules enacted as a contract between the private ICANT and the customer. People who violate those rules are subject to having their domain rescinded. Complaints are handled by an organ of ICANT.
If you buy a domain name that relates to someone else's name, that person complains, and the complaints arm of ICANT investigates. They come to the conclusion that you bought the domain name in violation of their terms, and rescind your registration. They then offer the complainant the opportunity to register the reclaimed domain.
There you go. Cybersquatting bad, all relying on private companies and contract agreements.
First you need to know if that is what they were paid to do or not. What was the intended level of security and did they meet that requirement? "Oh noes, a hacker broke in and made a fake announcement!" Was preventing that part of the original requirements?
Then the person who wrote the requirements should get hit with the hammer. An attacker compromised your system - sometime, somewhere, someone dropped the ball.
Break into a system meant for emergency use only and the hammer will come down.
Fine. But it should come down equally as hard, if not more so, on those who accepted public money to build a secure system and failed to do so. Anything else is scapegoating.
Later studies suggested the panic was less widespread than newspapers had indicated at the time. During this period, many newspaper publishers were concerned that radio, a new medium, would render them obsolete. In that time of yellow journalism, print journalists took the opportunity to suggest that radio was dangerous by embellishing the story of the panic that ensued
This is an obvious prank, and is unlikely to cause any harm, except to embarrass those who ought to be embarrassed. It would have been much more harmful to send an alert about a more believable disaster. Can you imagine the panic if the hoax had been about rising floodwater, or an incoming storm or hurricane?
This hack has the benefit of exposing a weakness before it could be maliciously exploited, in probably the only way that guarantees action will be taken. As we've seen, being a good white-hat and reporting the potential security is likely to result in you being prosecuted, and the fault being swept under the carpet.
How does he eat fast food without getting overloaded on carbs? Around here, fast food is pretty much chips (fries for you Americans), burgers, pizza and battered meat - all carbs-heavy.
Yup. Solomon's love really had a nose like the tower of Lebanon. You think your wife takes a long time putting on her makeup; at least she doesn't have to call a team of masons in to help her.
Slashdot Mirror
White House Petition To Get Staff Flunky To Reiterate That Cell Phone Unlocking Remains Illegal Needs 11,000 Signatures
Really, part of the fault lies with javascript, though. I generally like javascript, but implicit globals - bad idea.
For a given value of portable I guess - the article says they're in the vicinity of 8 tonnes. You'd need additional (fixed) infrastructure just to be able to load/unload them from the engines - factor in shipping costs and turnaround time, and I'm not sure even Chinese labour costs are going to compensate for all of that.
We wouldn't do it for electric cars because we'd have to cover an order-of-magnitude more ground for a vehicle that doesn't travel on rails.
I guess it might be worthwhile for new lines (do we still build these? My state hasn't opened a new rail station in my lifetime) but I can't imagine any cost savings in retro-fitting existing lines. I imagine the maintenance cost for batteries would be, at best, not better than that of the overheads.
That's his point. Given that trains can only run on tracks, and that either the rails or the overhead lines already provide power, what is the advantage of having a heavy, inefficient means of storing power on the vehicle itself?
I don't know who Carl and Mike are, but honey has quite a few medicinal uses, including as an antiseptic. They mostly involve slathering it on your skin rather than eating it, though.
He muddled two idioms together - "peanuts" and "small change" I guess.
Huh? The rich people (i.e. the people cashing out the stock options) did get taxed. Facebook, the corporate entity, didn't get taxed. Or rather, it did, it's deductions just out-weighed it's tax burden, plus it carried forward accumulated deductions from previous years.
How much of that time is idling in traffic? Electric cars should have a very low draw when idle. It's not so much the duration of your trip that matters but the distance. If you're driving an hour to and from work at the speed limit, then you're not within Melbourne's city limits, you're coming in from the suburbs.
KHTML/Safari/Chrome/Opera
Eh? While KHTML is a common root, Safari and Chrome aren't exactly the same render engine, and Opera's entirely different.
They make games and sell them to people. Open-sourcing their engine is valuable because, if it generates sufficient interest, they get continual reports on bugs, compatibility issues and the like from sources other than people bitching about their game that doesn't work on their obscure device, saving the company's reputation.
Having a widely-adopted framework for games might also lead phone manufacturers to test against that (if it gets big enough, which is doubtful), further increasing their compatibility, and give them publicity and a good rep. Really, unless there was some huge competitive advantage in their framework, it's a case of win-win - or at least win-dontlose.
They applied for it in 2000 - it wasn't granted til 2008. I even referenced that in my post. Four years to bring a product to market isn't a particularly huge time. The iPhone wasn't even a glimmer in Apple's eye in 2000.
Take your own advice:
The company registered the trademark before Apple even thought about launching the iPhone
Gradiente, made an application for G Gradiente iphone in 2000 and it was approved in 2008
and produced the physical product to go with it
The Manaus-headquartered company now sells its Android-powered iPhone Neo One for 599 reals
People are going to be buying these iPhones under the impression they are the product Apple produces. This is exactly what trademarks are intended to prevent
You're right - Apple should never have been able to market the iPhone in Brazil when there was an application pending on that trademark (on a side note - eight years to process a trademark application? Yikes!). The thing is, there was probably nothing to be done about it. The government wouldn't have taken issue with it, and any complaints Gradiente might have made would probably have been laughed away as trolling if they'd made them before their product was ready.
No, but it could have, if Linksys had taken their action all the way. Instead, they presumably got a tidy sum in the settlement. Decent win for them, I'd say. Nothing like a bit of rent-seeking to keep the wallet happy.
The company registered the trademark before Apple even thought about launching the iPhone, and produced the physical product to go with it. Good on them. If Apple really cared about the Brazilian market, they would have checked up on trademarks as part of due diligence before branding - it's not like Apple hasn't had bad experiences with trademark issues before.
So no, the fact that an attacker compromised a system doesn't always mean someone dropped the ball. Sometimes it does, but not always and not necessarily.
No, it always does. Unless there is some physical property of the universe that means that this particular hole in this system just cannot be closed, someone made a mistake. Whether that mistake was in the engineering or the specification, or if that mistake can be readily forgiven depends on a whole host of other things - including how much time and resources were allocated to the project, what the specifications were, whether security was knowingly being traded off for other factors, etc.
LordLucless, you haven't answered the question "what is the libertarian take on cybersquatting". All you've said is that, supposing that a monopoly already exists which issues contracts against cybersquatting, then contracts will naturally rule against cybersquatting. Well, that's obvious.
Libertarians aren't some homogenous group, and even if they were, I'm not their spokesperson. I can't give you the Libertarian take on cybersquatting, because it doesn't exist.
In my OP I anticipated your answer. I specifically asked that, if you're going to follow your route then -- given one ICANN which makes anti-cybersquatting contracts, and another ICANN2 which doesn't, what free market mechanism do you think will make one of them dominant?
Assuming that their anti-cybersquatting provisions are the only issues that distinguish the two, then I imagine either end-user satisfaction (not continually hitting ad-speweing squatting sites) and lower costs (not having to deal with legal disputes arising from court cases over trademarks and such like) would advantage the anti-squatting side, and higher income (from selling stuff to all the squatters) would be on the pro-squatting side. Which of those would end up winning out, I have no idea. There'd also be the potential for boycotts (I imagine they would be mostly against the pro-squatters), but given consumer apathy, I imagine that'd only be a minor factor.
So please, to any libertarians -- can you give me a purely libertarian explanation of why cybersquatting is wrong?
Let's say there's a private entity controlling domain names. Lets call them ICANT. For whatever reason, they've garnered sufficient trust that all the world's DNS servers point to them, and have an effective monopoly on domain registrations.
People register domain names. ICANT has a series of rules about who can register what domain names - no extended ASCII characters, no profanity, no using other people or businesses names, no using the domain name for a criminal enterprise, etc. These are all private rules enacted as a contract between the private ICANT and the customer. People who violate those rules are subject to having their domain rescinded. Complaints are handled by an organ of ICANT.
If you buy a domain name that relates to someone else's name, that person complains, and the complaints arm of ICANT investigates. They come to the conclusion that you bought the domain name in violation of their terms, and rescind your registration. They then offer the complainant the opportunity to register the reclaimed domain.
There you go. Cybersquatting bad, all relying on private companies and contract agreements.
First you need to know if that is what they were paid to do or not. What was the intended level of security and did they meet that requirement? "Oh noes, a hacker broke in and made a fake announcement!" Was preventing that part of the original requirements?
Then the person who wrote the requirements should get hit with the hammer. An attacker compromised your system - sometime, somewhere, someone dropped the ball.
Break into a system meant for emergency use only and the hammer will come down.
Fine. But it should come down equally as hard, if not more so, on those who accepted public money to build a secure system and failed to do so. Anything else is scapegoating.
Later studies suggested the panic was less widespread than newspapers had indicated at the time. During this period, many newspaper publishers were concerned that radio, a new medium, would render them obsolete. In that time of yellow journalism, print journalists took the opportunity to suggest that radio was dangerous by embellishing the story of the panic that ensued
The parallels almost write themselves...
On the contrary.
This is an obvious prank, and is unlikely to cause any harm, except to embarrass those who ought to be embarrassed. It would have been much more harmful to send an alert about a more believable disaster. Can you imagine the panic if the hoax had been about rising floodwater, or an incoming storm or hurricane?
This hack has the benefit of exposing a weakness before it could be maliciously exploited, in probably the only way that guarantees action will be taken. As we've seen, being a good white-hat and reporting the potential security is likely to result in you being prosecuted, and the fault being swept under the carpet.
How does he eat fast food without getting overloaded on carbs? Around here, fast food is pretty much chips (fries for you Americans), burgers, pizza and battered meat - all carbs-heavy.
Yup. Solomon's love really had a nose like the tower of Lebanon. You think your wife takes a long time putting on her makeup; at least she doesn't have to call a team of masons in to help her.