I'll admit I wasn't sure on those, but it wouldn't surprise me if Ford had tried.
And another thought had occured to me since I made the post above: Ford might be claiming that the calendar looks like Ford made it, in which case trademarks would come into play: If the club is using Ford's trademarks to refer to their own product (the calendar), then the club has problems.
Just a comment: Trademark != Copyright. Allowed uses differ significantly.
Anyone can reproduce a trademark, without limit or exception, as long as one condition is met: It's use always refers to the trademark holder's product exclusively. You can show the Ford or Mustang logo all you want, as long as you are using the to refer to Ford Motor Company and it's Mustang automobile. Using them to refer to any other product, service, or company is however forbidden.
Copyrights are more general: You are not allowed to copy the image/text/etc. in question without permsission.
Now, in this case, it wouldn't surprise me if Ford had both a trademark and a copyright registered on the Mustang logo (and probably a copyright on the shape of the car itself, as well as...), but that's another issue.
True, though the systems I've seen that operated this way had another light (flashing strobe, all directions) to indicate that an emergency vechicle was coming.
No system is perfect, of course. I like the red-all-ways because it is closest to what you want: Nobody move but the emergency vechiles, everyone else get out of the way.
Some places have a more inteligent system: The signal turns the light Red (in all directions), and the emergency vechicles just go through the red lights.
Works just as well, and less suceptable to hacks. (Not impossible of course, but less chance of people doing it for their own benifit.)
Having recently gotten a speeding ticket from one of those cameras...
The ticket was specifically worded not to be issued to the driver. It was to the owner of the car, regardless of whether they were driving. This did have some implications otherwise: It therefore didn't result in 'points' being added to my record.
So, back to the computer situation, they could just say that you are responsible for that bandwidth, and should have blocked it if the traffic wasn't from you. Don't know which would hold up in court, but there at least is a reply.
An SSL certificate is fairly cheap to purchase, just by one and operate a man-in-the-middle for all SSL connections. A few tech-savvy might notice, but most won't.
Of course, you can get lasers in at least three colors, probably more. And it's significantly hard to filter out just one wavelength, without filtering neghboring wavelengths as well. Which would mean in this case they would want to filter out green. The color of treetops, and grass, and overall a significant portion of the Earth's surface.
And of course, following that logic, you'd want to filter out the other main colors that lasers come in. Red are extremely common, and blue are just starting to get on the market. So we'll filter both of those out.
You know what would be a good filter at this point? Polished steel. It'd reflect that laser right away, and convently blocks all the colors mentioned.
Why do they claim that "As of now there is no theoretical explanation for why the fluid has the effects it does on laser light" when there's clearly a theory about why this happens right in TFA? Or is there some other definition used in the Scientific community for a "theoretical explanation" that I'm not aware of? Yes: One where the math has been shown to work.
Currently they have ideas, but haven't proven the math. If the math can't be made to work, either the underlying theory is wrong, or something else is happening.
Probably not: you need to keep a magnetic field of an exact strength around it to hold the light. So you still need batteries or some such to maintain the field. (You'd want an atrificial field so you can choose the wavelengths of light to capture, and because it is easier to remove uniformly.)
There is probably also a maximum amount of energy you can store per unit volume, though I'd guess they don't have that worked out yet.
Given a case that sounds legal, and enough money disparity between the two parties, the richer party can usually just call 'expert witnesses' all day long until people start to believe them. Since the other side can't afford their own witnesses, they will have trouble defending themselves.
Exactly: We are already at the max size for our current skeletal design, as anyone over 6-4 (about 190 centimeters for those of you who use a logical measurement system) should be able to tell you. To grow any taller we'd need further extension of our ribcage (or something) to support our lower torso better.
Anyone past that height currently either has back problems, or keeps themselves in decent shape so that their mucles can take some of the load in moderate high-stress situations, like falling over when you trip.
The average woman in the USA isn't likely to dress in a highly provocitive manner either, for similar reasons.
I'm not going to argue point by point whether the war was a good idea or not. In this one case, based on what I know from people on the ground, the war has reduced the freedoms enjoyed by the average citizen. Beyond that I don't feel the need to argue at this time. I only wished to correct one single data point.
Then you will get a ballot in Latin, under the current system. (Though you probably should ask ahead of time, so they can find someone to translate it for you.) What is wrong with that?
The USA does not discriminate on who can participate in their government based on language, race, sex, or creed. (Probably some others as well.) If you want to participate, and you are a citizen with no other reason why you cannot participate, you will be allowed to.
Changing that will take changing the law (at least), and that will require someone to vote it in. Propose it. You might get enough support to pass it, though I doubt it.
Not to be a troll, but there are a number of hurdles people are supposed to hop over to become US citizens. Maybe a usable knowledge of the most common language (english) should be one of them?
Maybe. And maybe at some point it will be. But at this point in time the USA has no official language, and therefore can not force people to use a specific language for government participation.
True, any election can be stolen, given enough money and insiders. But the risk via paper (especially computer-assisted paper, where the computer prints what you've chosen via touchscreen, so the ballots themselves are uniform in quality) is much lower, better understood, and we have better defenses against it. At the very least any tampering in that cases leaves evidence: votes tampered with, damaged, or just plain missing. A recount if nothing else will uncover that evidence.
This is not the case with the electronic systems commonly being considered, that leave no evidence behind of what the voters actually voted for.
The nature of the citations made him re-read it, and realize he'd made factual errors. Those errors were being used to support the arguments of the people citing the paper. So he retracted it to remove those errors from circulation.
Basically they are slightly smaller and lighter in weight. That's about it.
There are lots of better fonts than the 'standard' web fonts. The web font are standard because everyone has them, and so they can be relied upon. When these fonts are freely avalible and routinely installed on 90+% of computers they might be acceptable to use instead of what's currently in use. Until then the point is that everyone has the 'standards'.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, as a replacement for the PowerBook G4: What's wrong with the Macbooks? Or the Macbook Pros?
Yes, this new laptop isn't designed as a desktop replacement. It's not meant to be. They already sold those.
I'll admit I wasn't sure on those, but it wouldn't surprise me if Ford had tried.
And another thought had occured to me since I made the post above: Ford might be claiming that the calendar looks like Ford made it, in which case trademarks would come into play: If the club is using Ford's trademarks to refer to their own product (the calendar), then the club has problems.
Just a comment: Trademark != Copyright. Allowed uses differ significantly.
Anyone can reproduce a trademark, without limit or exception, as long as one condition is met: It's use always refers to the trademark holder's product exclusively. You can show the Ford or Mustang logo all you want, as long as you are using the to refer to Ford Motor Company and it's Mustang automobile. Using them to refer to any other product, service, or company is however forbidden.
Copyrights are more general: You are not allowed to copy the image/text/etc. in question without permsission.
Now, in this case, it wouldn't surprise me if Ford had both a trademark and a copyright registered on the Mustang logo (and probably a copyright on the shape of the car itself, as well as...), but that's another issue.
True, though the systems I've seen that operated this way had another light (flashing strobe, all directions) to indicate that an emergency vechicle was coming.
No system is perfect, of course. I like the red-all-ways because it is closest to what you want: Nobody move but the emergency vechiles, everyone else get out of the way.
Some places have a more inteligent system: The signal turns the light Red (in all directions), and the emergency vechicles just go through the red lights.
Works just as well, and less suceptable to hacks. (Not impossible of course, but less chance of people doing it for their own benifit.)
Undetected? I don't think it would be undetected. Just unnoticed by 90+% of web users, which is plenty...
Having recently gotten a speeding ticket from one of those cameras...
The ticket was specifically worded not to be issued to the driver. It was to the owner of the car, regardless of whether they were driving. This did have some implications otherwise: It therefore didn't result in 'points' being added to my record.
So, back to the computer situation, they could just say that you are responsible for that bandwidth, and should have blocked it if the traffic wasn't from you. Don't know which would hold up in court, but there at least is a reply.
An SSL certificate is fairly cheap to purchase, just by one and operate a man-in-the-middle for all SSL connections. A few tech-savvy might notice, but most won't.
Sounds like a good idea. I say we call the option file 'robots.txt' or something like that.
Sure.
Of course, you can get lasers in at least three colors, probably more. And it's significantly hard to filter out just one wavelength, without filtering neghboring wavelengths as well. Which would mean in this case they would want to filter out green. The color of treetops, and grass, and overall a significant portion of the Earth's surface.
And of course, following that logic, you'd want to filter out the other main colors that lasers come in. Red are extremely common, and blue are just starting to get on the market. So we'll filter both of those out.
You know what would be a good filter at this point? Polished steel. It'd reflect that laser right away, and convently blocks all the colors mentioned.
You were smart enough to know that it was bad advice.
;)
In the future you'll even be smart enough to head the warning label.
At least the name is truth in advertising.
Currently they have ideas, but haven't proven the math. If the math can't be made to work, either the underlying theory is wrong, or something else is happening.
Probably not: you need to keep a magnetic field of an exact strength around it to hold the light. So you still need batteries or some such to maintain the field. (You'd want an atrificial field so you can choose the wavelengths of light to capture, and because it is easier to remove uniformly.)
There is probably also a maximum amount of energy you can store per unit volume, though I'd guess they don't have that worked out yet.
High-priced bullshitters.
Given a case that sounds legal, and enough money disparity between the two parties, the richer party can usually just call 'expert witnesses' all day long until people start to believe them. Since the other side can't afford their own witnesses, they will have trouble defending themselves.
Exactly: We are already at the max size for our current skeletal design, as anyone over 6-4 (about 190 centimeters for those of you who use a logical measurement system) should be able to tell you. To grow any taller we'd need further extension of our ribcage (or something) to support our lower torso better.
Anyone past that height currently either has back problems, or keeps themselves in decent shape so that their mucles can take some of the load in moderate high-stress situations, like falling over when you trip.
The average woman in the USA isn't likely to dress in a highly provocitive manner either, for similar reasons.
I'm not going to argue point by point whether the war was a good idea or not. In this one case, based on what I know from people on the ground, the war has reduced the freedoms enjoyed by the average citizen. Beyond that I don't feel the need to argue at this time. I only wished to correct one single data point.
Actually, under Saddam women were allowed to work and wear whatever they wanted. Now they can't, for fear of the extremists.
Then you will get a ballot in Latin, under the current system. (Though you probably should ask ahead of time, so they can find someone to translate it for you.) What is wrong with that?
The USA does not discriminate on who can participate in their government based on language, race, sex, or creed. (Probably some others as well.) If you want to participate, and you are a citizen with no other reason why you cannot participate, you will be allowed to.
Changing that will take changing the law (at least), and that will require someone to vote it in. Propose it. You might get enough support to pass it, though I doubt it.
Maybe. And maybe at some point it will be. But at this point in time the USA has no official language, and therefore can not force people to use a specific language for government participation.
True, any election can be stolen, given enough money and insiders. But the risk via paper (especially computer-assisted paper, where the computer prints what you've chosen via touchscreen, so the ballots themselves are uniform in quality) is much lower, better understood, and we have better defenses against it. At the very least any tampering in that cases leaves evidence: votes tampered with, damaged, or just plain missing. A recount if nothing else will uncover that evidence.
This is not the case with the electronic systems commonly being considered, that leave no evidence behind of what the voters actually voted for.
Maybe all the students in the dorm could each claim they were the guilty party? ("I'm Sparticus!")
The RIAA would just take that as admission of guilt and sue each one of them seperately for their lifetime total income + damages.
Read the article: Their citing it made him rexamine it, and spot factual errors he hadn't caught 52 years ago.
The nature of the citations made him re-read it, and realize he'd made factual errors. Those errors were being used to support the arguments of the people citing the paper. So he retracted it to remove those errors from circulation.
Basically they are slightly smaller and lighter in weight. That's about it.
There are lots of better fonts than the 'standard' web fonts. The web font are standard because everyone has them, and so they can be relied upon. When these fonts are freely avalible and routinely installed on 90+% of computers they might be acceptable to use instead of what's currently in use. Until then the point is that everyone has the 'standards'.