If Hormel loses, we will no longer know if we are getting the genuine SPAM, or an imitator, when we go the supermarket.
That's hype. In the arena of food products, the SPAM mark will still be valid and enforceable.
To quote The Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School:
So, for example, the use of an identical mark on the same product would clearly constitute infringement. If I manufacture and sell computers using the mark "Apple," my use of that mark will likely cause confusion among consumers, since they may be misled into thinking that the computers are made by Apple Computer, Inc. Using a very similar mark on the same product may also give rise to a claim of infringement, if the marks are close enough in sound, appearance, or meaning so as to cause confusion. So, for example, "Applet" computers may be off-limits; perhaps also "Apricot." On the other end of the spectrum, using the same term on a completely unrelated product will not likely give rise to an infringement claim. Thus, Apple Computer and Apple Records can peacefully co-exist, since consumers are not likely to think that the computers are being made by the record company, or vice versa.
The first boldfaced bit covers your end-of-the-world hyperbole case. The second boldfaced bit is the actual case: The same trade name applied to distinct and unrelated products will probably not be infringement, which is borne out in the specific lawsut TFA was about.
ObDisclaimer: IANAL, but I bet the clever chaps at Harvard Law School are.
The correct definition of privacy is "You divulge all the details of your life to the government, and the government protects it for you. From everyone. Except itself, of course. But you have nothing to fear from your government. After all, we're here to help you."
Unfortunately for the author's hyperbole, tattoos of copyrighted art on one's person fall under fair use.
Well, thanks for clearing that up.
I had no idea that a functional majority of the Supreme Court of the United State (A) had issued a writ of certiorari in an appellate case involving copyright and fair use; (B) has chosen to collectively blog on Slashdot under a single pseudonym "bconway"; and (C) has decided to publish a definitive opinion on the scope of fair use in personal body art under the aforementioned pseudonym in the aforementioned Slashdot. As opposed to, say, The United States Reports, which is the oh-so-last-century "official" recording mechanism for SCOTUS decisions.
I personally think you're right. But since Section 107 of US Code Title 17 doesn't call out "personal body embellishment" as one of the explicit examples of fair use, it's a judgment call. Not your judgment, not my judgment, but a court's judgment. And, if the appeal process runs far enough, the Supreme Court's judgment.
ObDisclaimer: IANAL, but neither are most of y'all.
Better to admit to once having been a fool than to continue to fight when even you know that you're wrong.
Not really; you're neglecting a huge part of the psychology that makes snake oil work.
"You've proven nothing to me as long as I can refuse to admit being wrong."
The game's not over when objective reality says it's over; it's over only when the self-deluded stops deluding himself or herself, and that's a pretty tall hurdle to get over. Particularly if personal ego or public "face" is involved.
Oh, you mean America's MOST USEFUL FRIENDS, the Saudis?
There, fixed it for you.
The U.S.'s dealings with most of the world are purely utilitarian. Assigning moral or social significance to them is a waste of breath or ink (or electrons), and trying to be sarcastic on that basis is just shooting blanks.
She wrote "Philosopher's Stone". Scholastic, the US publisher, decided that Americans are too ill-read and undereducated to understand what a Philosopher's Stone is. ("Whut, Lurlene, I thot that Harry Potter guy was a sor-ser-er, not some freethinker egghead.")
Sad to say, I think Scholastic was right in this decision, but pay no attention to me. I'm just kinda bitter about the incredibly poor state of classical education in the current American society. (I was going to say culture, but around here "culture" is just what you find growing in moist dark creases of the typical mouth-breather's body.)
Ok, I missed that last bit. That takes care of my earlier objection.
OTOH, you still wind up with the occasional 20-minute recording of someone else's recorded outdial "please hold on the line for an important message", but that's non-fatal as long as you're not obligated to listen to all 20 minutes to decide the call is spam.
And, since we're discussing Asterisk (either in this thread or in an earlier one), we can make darn sure you don't have to listen to 20 minutes. The genius of Open Source saves that particular day.
Which only leaves automated callout systems which aren't evil in the cold. Like, automated appointment reminders from the doctor's office. Which is a valid use of the technology.
This is yet another technical solution to a non-technical problem. If you choose to unilaterally reject a whole chunk of the incalling behavior spectrum, you can make it work for you. All that's requires is you decide the behavior (automated outdial, for instance) is evil, rather than the use (spamming versus "opt-in" reminders).
Overall, we manage to get a 'bullet-proof' patch in about 4-5 weeks (from coding->QA->Build/Packaging->shipment)
Not unreasonable, depending on the size of your release. (How many modules and how many LOC you're changing, the number of change requests or bug reports in the build).
But the other day, we got an urgent request from our support team to come up with a decent fix in 48 hours. I think they're a tiny bit unrealistic.
I think they're smoking crack.
So I wanted to get feedback from my peers: are we doing that bad?
With your regular release schedule, I don't think so.
are our customers being unreasonable?
Yes. That's what they do. If they want a crash development program to get this "patch" out the door that fast, they seriously risk software which does nothing but crash. Really, if they want it that bad, they run the risk of getting it that bad.
You have to ask yourself and your "support team" (sounds more like marketing to me): "Do we wish to ruin a perfectly good reputation for quality and reliability in one hurry-up bashfest followed by weeks of agonizing on-line debugging?" Really, advocate any kind of work-around and risk mitigation response before being pushed into an overly-hasty release that will linger on your reputation like a dead skunk.
I hope her investments paid off well enough to finance her well-earned investment even after paying for all the counseling and therapy. Kneading googeeks all day./shudder
Having lowered the bar in evidentiary burdens against copyright infringers by shifting prosecution into the civil court system, I think the obvious next logical step is to declare content piracy* as a terrorist act, eliminating the requirement for evidence entirely!
*not my phrase, not my idea, I'm just sayin' it like the pigopolists would.
Oh, I agree. But you're arguing how real terrorists are cautious enough to avoid such obvious giveaways, whereas the current state of security theater requires much more "willing suspension of disbelief."
In other words, stop being so logical. You have to clap or Tinkerbell will blow up Western Civilization As We Know It!
All signs point to the credit card companies providing this data, and not the individual stores
I'm sure grocery chain loyalty card information would be a rich vein of consumer purchase history to datamine. The only limit to that approach is that such membership is optional, whereas CC is almost mandatory in modern US consumer culture.
Slashdot Mirror
That's hype. In the arena of food products, the SPAM mark will still be valid and enforceable.
To quote The Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School:
-- http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm#7, emphasis mineThe first boldfaced bit covers your end-of-the-world hyperbole case. The second boldfaced bit is the actual case: The same trade name applied to distinct and unrelated products will probably not be infringement, which is borne out in the specific lawsut TFA was about.
ObDisclaimer: IANAL, but I bet the clever chaps at Harvard Law School are.
The problem isn't a nonsensical sentence.
The problem is that you're using a faulty definition of "privacy".
The correct definition of privacy is "You divulge all the details of your life to the government, and the government protects it for you. From everyone. Except itself, of course. But you have nothing to fear from your government. After all, we're here to help you."
Unfortunately for the author's hyperbole, tattoos of copyrighted art on one's person fall under fair use.
Well, thanks for clearing that up.
I had no idea that a functional majority of the Supreme Court of the United State (A) had issued a writ of certiorari in an appellate case involving copyright and fair use; (B) has chosen to collectively blog on Slashdot under a single pseudonym "bconway"; and (C) has decided to publish a definitive opinion on the scope of fair use in personal body art under the aforementioned pseudonym in the aforementioned Slashdot. As opposed to, say, The United States Reports, which is the oh-so-last-century "official" recording mechanism for SCOTUS decisions.
I personally think you're right. But since Section 107 of US Code Title 17 doesn't call out "personal body embellishment" as one of the explicit examples of fair use, it's a judgment call. Not your judgment, not my judgment, but a court's judgment. And, if the appeal process runs far enough, the Supreme Court's judgment.
ObDisclaimer: IANAL, but neither are most of y'all.
What's even worse? It's not the VA any more. It's the Department of Veterans Affairs. But no one ever calls it the DVA.
OK, so maybe the hospital part of this Department thingie is the "VA" in question.
Nope, sorry, wrong again. That's the Veterans Health Administration, or VHA.
"Do not try to unfubar the VA; that's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth: There is no VA."
that this kind of "emotional distance" is behind ganking.
And not the fact that my WoW character's name is Gnomestompy.
Although that seems to piss off a lot of gnomes.
Better to admit to once having been a fool than to continue to fight when even you know that you're wrong.
Not really; you're neglecting a huge part of the psychology that makes snake oil work.
"You've proven nothing to me as long as I can refuse to admit being wrong."
The game's not over when objective reality says it's over; it's over only when the self-deluded stops deluding himself or herself, and that's a pretty tall hurdle to get over. Particularly if personal ego or public "face" is involved.
Some still haven't given up on Reeve.
Umm... Christopher Reeve? As in, "The late Christopher Reeve, who died in October of 2004?"
What it would take to help him now doesn't involve brain transplants; it involves necromancy.
That said, the foundation he and his late wife Dana founded isstill hard at work to find a solution to spinal cord injuries.
Oh, you mean America's MOST USEFUL FRIENDS, the Saudis?
There, fixed it for you.
The U.S.'s dealings with most of the world are purely utilitarian. Assigning moral or social significance to them is a waste of breath or ink (or electrons), and trying to be sarcastic on that basis is just shooting blanks.
She wrote "Philosopher's Stone". Scholastic, the US publisher, decided that Americans are too ill-read and undereducated to understand what a Philosopher's Stone is. ("Whut, Lurlene, I thot that Harry Potter guy was a sor-ser-er, not some freethinker egghead.")
Sad to say, I think Scholastic was right in this decision, but pay no attention to me. I'm just kinda bitter about the incredibly poor state of classical education in the current American society. (I was going to say culture, but around here "culture" is just what you find growing in moist dark creases of the typical mouth-breather's body.)
There's a fine line between drama and melodrama.. And you flew right over it without even braking. Well played.
The tendency to blame the messenger is ancient. Just ask Cassandra.
Ok, I missed that last bit. That takes care of my earlier objection.
OTOH, you still wind up with the occasional 20-minute recording of someone else's recorded outdial "please hold on the line for an important message", but that's non-fatal as long as you're not obligated to listen to all 20 minutes to decide the call is spam.
And, since we're discussing Asterisk (either in this thread or in an earlier one), we can make darn sure you don't have to listen to 20 minutes. The genius of Open Source saves that particular day.
Which only leaves automated callout systems which aren't evil in the cold. Like, automated appointment reminders from the doctor's office. Which is a valid use of the technology.
This is yet another technical solution to a non-technical problem. If you choose to unilaterally reject a whole chunk of the incalling behavior spectrum, you can make it work for you. All that's requires is you decide the behavior (automated outdial, for instance) is evil, rather than the use (spamming versus "opt-in" reminders).
Overall, we manage to get a 'bullet-proof' patch in about 4-5 weeks (from coding->QA->Build/Packaging->shipment)
Not unreasonable, depending on the size of your release. (How many modules and how many LOC you're changing, the number of change requests or bug reports in the build).
But the other day, we got an urgent request from our support team to come up with a decent fix in 48 hours. I think they're a tiny bit unrealistic.
I think they're smoking crack.
So I wanted to get feedback from my peers: are we doing that bad?
With your regular release schedule, I don't think so.
are our customers being unreasonable?
Yes. That's what they do. If they want a crash development program to get this "patch" out the door that fast, they seriously risk software which does nothing but crash. Really, if they want it that bad, they run the risk of getting it that bad.
You have to ask yourself and your "support team" (sounds more like marketing to me): "Do we wish to ruin a perfectly good reputation for quality and reliability in one hurry-up bashfest followed by weeks of agonizing on-line debugging?" Really, advocate any kind of work-around and risk mitigation response before being pushed into an overly-hasty release that will linger on your reputation like a dead skunk.
I'm still waiting for autotranslation to throw in a bit about your hovercraft being full of eels. That would make my day complete.
There's ample prior art.
I hope her investments paid off well enough to finance her well-earned investment even after paying for all the counseling and therapy. Kneading googeeks all day. /shudder
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/magic-story.html
(ooooh, nifty movie title)
Having lowered the bar in evidentiary burdens against copyright infringers by shifting prosecution into the civil court system, I think the obvious next logical step is to declare content piracy* as a terrorist act, eliminating the requirement for evidence entirely!
*not my phrase, not my idea, I'm just sayin' it like the pigopolists would.
Oh, I agree. But you're arguing how real terrorists are cautious enough to avoid such obvious giveaways, whereas the current state of security theater requires much more "willing suspension of disbelief."
In other words, stop being so logical. You have to clap or Tinkerbell will blow up Western Civilization As We Know It!
All signs point to the credit card companies providing this data, and not the individual stores
I'm sure grocery chain loyalty card information would be a rich vein of consumer purchase history to datamine. The only limit to that approach is that such membership is optional, whereas CC is almost mandatory in modern US consumer culture.
You forgot to mention "Speak only English, just like Jesus did."
"My God! It's full of pixels!"
A critical weakness of human psychology is the "can't happen to me" problem.
"The lessons of the past don't apply to me because I'm {smarter | cooler | tougher | the chosen people of $DIETY | not like them | ... }!"
Self-deception is very powerful. People who get caught, no matter how inevitably, are quite often shocked and amazed.
Sarcasm is no substitute for thought.
Here's streaming, ca. 1950: take a sensor. Wire it to a radio transmitter. Operate the sensor and the transmitter.
Storage required? ZERO.
Kids these days. Everything's gotta be digital, buffered, and pr0n-compatible. Sheesh.