Correction: You can't trademark if the mark is already used "IN TRADE".
The foundation is a non-profit organization providing free certificates under that name. That is not "TRADE" (i.e. business, i.e. involving exchange of money for value).
However, by the same token, the seemingly slimy corporation seeking the trademark should be hard pressed to stop the non-profit's use of the mark for a free service, since that is not competing TRADE since it is not TRADE.
Besides, if it ever came to a case where they tried to prove that the non-profit was causing confusion about Comodo's trademark, it should be easy at that point to argue in court that the non-profit was openly and widely using the mark for their activity prior to Comodo's use of the mark in the conduct of trade. Therefore it was in fact Comodo that caused whatever confusion may have arisen among Comodo's potential customer base. Case dismissed.
Warning: IANAL and tend to hope naively that natural justice will prevail in the justice system, despite all evidence to the contrary.
If the law only targets apartments, and leaves owners of detached houses free to do what they want, isn't this creating a two-tier system favouring the already rich?
Is there ever more than one person in your residence?
If so, how does one person know which way the other person switched the UI configuration to? And when they changed their mind back again?
So as the second or subsequent person in the room, I can't learn what the big central number means, because some dufus keeps changing the meaning on me.
Sounds like a terrible, terrible idea. Most of Nest's management "brainpower" would necessarily have gone into managing that growth and re-org'ing projects and departments several times.
Completely BADDDDDD strategy.
Google bought a highly focussed successful startup, and the way the acquisition was managed, it looks like the focus and execution ability was lost and the potential for sane expansion of the product offering and feature set at a sane pace was squandered.
Not sure who was responsible for that disastrous headcount growth rate and overly ambitious speed-of-execution plan but it looks like a predictable clusterf@&k.
In case you missed it, Fort McMurray, the small city where those working in the oil-sands industry in Canada live, was just ravaged by a Boreal forest wildfire. The fire is about the size of the smallest Canadian province. The city is evacuated and oil production is still mostly halted, after a month or so now.
Since the frequency and intensity of wildfires at these latitudes is positively correlated with climate change due to increased greenhouse gases, the residents of this city should take it as a sign to retrain for a job in the green energy economy. I'm not saying I wish a fire on them, but they should seriously take it as an opportunity to rethink their trajectory in life.
Aside from you being wrong that cheap renewable energy is not feasible now, you are also wrong that the currently still more expensive forms of renewable energy need tax subsidies.
What they do need is for the carbon-emissions of fossil-fuel-based electricity to be taxed with a sin-tax similar to cigarette taxes. That would level the energy economics playing field in a hurry.
So let me get this straight. You are a scientific researcher but you don't want to make your results publicly available?
How exactly is that science that you are doing?
Proper science (with the maximum chance of advancing correctly and rapidly, and the maximum benefit to humanity) is an inherently open information-sharing activity.
Are you working on bio-weapons science or something else really dangerous like that? If not, I don't see your motivation for hiding your results.
If you're doing science just for the money, you're doing it wrong.
I don't agree with you. The super-thin Macbook keyboard is unusable for long text entry like documents, articles, and code. The current macbook pro keyboards are about as small a key travel as you can go for adequate tactile feedback.
If Apple replicates the Macbook keyboard to the pro, I would have to seriously look around for what my next serious work computer would be. I really don't want to leave MacOSX and other Apple hardware design features, but they might force me.
The Great Elon himself is talking about how it would only take a little square piece of Nevada to power the US with solar. So make 3 little square pieces worth, then use hydrogen for, for example, international aviation and shipping.
Plants are only 2% efficient at photosynthesizing solar energy into usable forms of energy for the plant. They seem to work quite well.
Also, a giant central hydrogen storage facility with electrolysis and fuel cells might very well turn out to be a good way to store a whole country's unneeded night-time wind generation. Ok, so you only get half of the energy back. So what, that's way better than the nothing you get back right now. Right now, in the very definition of insanity, because we don't use something like that, they actually have times in Europe when the price of electricity is negative because there's too much wind power.
They order the wind farms to shut down, and keep the coal fires burning. Isn't that insane? A big hydrogen facility, if you don't have the topography for pumped-hydro, makes a hell of a lot of sense compared to what's going on right now.
The problem here is the way US / state labor laws are written. Minimum wage should apply to everyone working in the state/country, regardless of the person's origin or citizenship status.
And everyone with rights to work in the states should have the right to seek any job, not just one they were brought in to do.
And minimum wage should be a living wage in the jurisdiction.
And everyone who has the right to work in the states should have a path to citizenship.
With laws like that, incentives to ship in workers would be reduced, and more Americans would want to apply for the jobs that were available.
Or, in the future. will individual lawyer personality instances be given personhood, and given a bank account to store their salary portion of the legal bill, and then can I sue the AI instance itself for bad advice?
More objectively speaking, with scientific backing, it would be more accurate to say that those who still oppose green initiatives, at this late date, are going to be judged criminally insane by history.
Around 60% fossil fuel electricity generation in 2040, as is forecast, is way too much, considering that we need to get the whole energy economy, including transportation, heating, industry, etc. which this report doesn't cover, off fossil fuels almost completely by mid-century or so, to keep a chance of managing global warming.
We need technology and economy tipping points, in between now and 2050, so that the rate of change accelerates very rapidly. Government policy should be aimed at expediting those tipping points and rapid transitions to a fundamentally new energy technology mix.
I was just in some countries on the opposite side of the world where even being on the correct side of the road is considered a rough guideline.
These are places where if you don't go "aggressive"/"obnoxious" mixed with "neck-snapping stops"you make no progress at all and are run at by angry drivers behind you who were expecting more aggression from you, so they could make some progress themselves.
These countries typically also follow right-of-weight rather than right-of-way rules of the road. Pedestrians are lowest on the totem pole, and routinely get honked at (or worse) for crossing the street at a corner with a green light. "How dare you block me from running that red!!" Next lowest in rank are the scooters with dad's carrying their three year old daughters, no helmets anywhere in sight. They are routinely forced onto the sidewalks by the bigger fish, but are happy to oblige.
This will be an interesting challenge for the self-driving car/truck AIs, which currently appear to slavishly obey all traffic laws to a tee. The contrast with other driver behaviour in those countries will create a dangerous situation, yet do you program your AI to be as cavalier and pushy as the others? Risky from a legal standpoint.
So at least 20 years for full global coverage, yeah.
Of fraud and embezzlement, which I'm pretty sure is covered by existing criminal codes. I guess the next question is which jurisdiction is going to charge them?
in their theoretical expressive power to describe any computable function. See Turing-Equivalent
At least, all deterministic programming languages.
Languages vary mostly in how compressed and/or comprehensible it is to express this versus that type of operation or type of datatype.
I guess a machine-language for the universe would have to be expressive enough to take advantage of everything a quantum computer could do, whatever that set of capabilities actually is.
Slashdot Mirror
Correction: You can't trademark if the mark is already used "IN TRADE".
The foundation is a non-profit organization providing free certificates under that name. That is not "TRADE" (i.e. business, i.e. involving exchange of money for value).
However, by the same token, the seemingly slimy corporation seeking the trademark should be hard pressed to stop the non-profit's use of the mark for a free service, since that is not competing TRADE since it is not TRADE.
Besides, if it ever came to a case where they tried to prove that the non-profit was causing confusion about Comodo's trademark, it should be easy at that point to argue in court that the non-profit was openly and widely using the mark for their activity prior to Comodo's use of the mark in the conduct of trade. Therefore it was in fact Comodo that caused whatever confusion may have arisen among Comodo's potential customer base. Case dismissed.
Warning: IANAL and tend to hope naively that natural justice will prevail in the justice system, despite all evidence to the contrary.
If the law only targets apartments, and leaves owners of detached houses free to do what they want, isn't this creating a two-tier system favouring the already rich?
Would be only a slight generalization of his view point.
A lot of people think this is how Americans think about the rest of the world.
We've heard it's out there, but it doesn't matter very much, as long as they have a McDonalds, a 7-11, and a Starbucks.
http://www.marsicehouse.com/
Oops, I meant making it user-selectable which number means what is a terrible idea.
Terrible idea from a human-factors perspective.
Is there ever more than one person in your residence?
If so, how does one person know which way the other person switched the UI configuration to? And when they changed their mind back again?
So as the second or subsequent person in the room, I can't learn what the big central number means, because some dufus keeps changing the meaning on me.
Sounds like a terrible, terrible idea.
Most of Nest's management "brainpower" would necessarily have gone into managing that growth and re-org'ing projects and departments several times.
Completely BADDDDDD strategy.
Google bought a highly focussed successful startup, and the way the acquisition was managed, it looks like the focus and execution ability was lost and the potential for sane expansion of the product offering and feature set at a sane pace was squandered.
Not sure who was responsible for that disastrous headcount growth rate and overly ambitious speed-of-execution plan but it looks like a predictable clusterf@&k.
In case you missed it, Fort McMurray, the small city where those working in the oil-sands industry in Canada live, was just ravaged by a Boreal forest wildfire. The fire is about the size of the smallest Canadian province. The city is evacuated and oil production is still mostly halted, after a month or so now.
Since the frequency and intensity of wildfires at these latitudes is positively correlated with climate change due to increased greenhouse gases, the residents of this city should take it as a sign to retrain for a job in the green energy economy. I'm not saying I wish a fire on them, but they should seriously take it as an opportunity to rethink their trajectory in life.
Aside from you being wrong that cheap renewable energy is not feasible now,
you are also wrong that the currently still more expensive forms of renewable energy need tax subsidies.
What they do need is for the carbon-emissions of fossil-fuel-based electricity to be taxed with a sin-tax similar to cigarette taxes. That would level the energy economics playing field in a hurry.
They're blinding me with science!
How did actual politicians come up with something this wise and uncorrupted? It boggles the mind.
So let me get this straight. You are a scientific researcher but you don't want to make your results publicly available?
How exactly is that science that you are doing?
Proper science (with the maximum chance of advancing correctly and rapidly, and the maximum benefit to humanity) is an inherently open information-sharing activity.
Are you working on bio-weapons science or something else really dangerous like that? If not, I don't see your motivation for hiding your results.
If you're doing science just for the money, you're doing it wrong.
You've just put your finger on it.
3. How people will find purpose and happiness when AI and robots are better than them at most things needed in the economy.
Oh, that problem and
2. massive ecosystem and species loss and
1. global warming
I don't agree with you. The super-thin Macbook keyboard is unusable for long text entry like documents, articles, and code.
The current macbook pro keyboards are about as small a key travel as you can go for adequate tactile feedback.
If Apple replicates the Macbook keyboard to the pro, I would have to seriously look around for what my next serious work computer would be. I really don't want to leave MacOSX and other Apple hardware design features, but they might force me.
The Great Elon himself is talking about how it would only take a little square piece of Nevada to power the US with solar. So make 3 little square pieces worth, then use hydrogen for, for example, international aviation and shipping.
Plants are only 2% efficient at photosynthesizing solar energy into usable forms of energy for the plant. They seem to work quite well.
Also, a giant central hydrogen storage facility with electrolysis and fuel cells might very well turn out to be a good way to store a whole country's unneeded night-time wind generation. Ok, so you only get half of the energy back. So what, that's way better than the nothing you get back right now. Right now, in the very definition of insanity, because we don't use something like that, they actually have times in Europe when the price of electricity is negative because there's too much wind power.
They order the wind farms to shut down, and keep the coal fires burning. Isn't that insane? A big hydrogen facility, if you don't have the topography for pumped-hydro, makes a hell of a lot of sense compared to what's going on right now.
Well we still have to figure out an effective strategy to deal with the sociopathic douchebags.
Both of those regimes are/were messed up in their own special way.
It's too bad that sheeple put up with such tyranny, in either case.
This paradox will increase with the soon-to-come full automation of the manufacturing sector, and half of the service sector.
Worrying about cheap foreign workers is so 20th century.
You should be worrying about even cheaper A.I. and robots, made in the U.S. of A.
Automation of work will reduce the low-wage advantages of poor countries.
But it will not get you your fairly routine job back. Fuggedaboudit.
The problem here is the way US / state labor laws are written. Minimum wage should apply to everyone working in the state/country, regardless of the person's origin or citizenship status.
And everyone with rights to work in the states should have the right to seek any job, not just one they were brought in to do.
And minimum wage should be a living wage in the jurisdiction.
And everyone who has the right to work in the states should have a path to citizenship.
With laws like that, incentives to ship in workers would be reduced, and more Americans would want to apply for the jobs that were available.
Or, in the future. will individual lawyer personality instances be given personhood, and given a bank account to store their salary portion of the legal bill, and then can I sue the AI instance itself for bad advice?
More objectively speaking, with scientific backing, it would be more accurate to say that those who still oppose green initiatives, at this late date, are going to be judged criminally insane by history.
than this projection says we will.
Around 60% fossil fuel electricity generation in 2040, as is forecast, is way too much, considering that we need to get the whole energy economy, including transportation, heating, industry, etc. which this report doesn't cover, off fossil fuels almost completely by mid-century or so, to keep a chance of managing global warming.
We need technology and economy tipping points, in between now and 2050, so that the rate of change accelerates very rapidly. Government policy should be aimed at expediting those tipping points and rapid transitions to a fundamentally new energy technology mix.
I was just in some countries on the opposite side of the world where even being on the correct side of the road is considered a rough guideline.
These are places where if you don't go "aggressive"/"obnoxious" mixed with "neck-snapping stops"you make no progress at all and are run at by angry drivers behind you who were expecting more aggression from you, so they could make some progress themselves.
These countries typically also follow right-of-weight rather than right-of-way rules of the road. Pedestrians are lowest on the totem pole, and routinely get honked at (or worse) for crossing the street at a corner with a green light. "How dare you block me from running that red!!" Next lowest in rank are the scooters with dad's carrying their three year old daughters, no helmets anywhere in sight. They are routinely forced onto the sidewalks by the bigger fish, but are happy to oblige.
This will be an interesting challenge for the self-driving car/truck AIs, which currently appear to slavishly obey all traffic laws to a tee. The contrast with other driver behaviour in those countries will create a dangerous situation, yet do you program your AI to be as cavalier and pushy as the others? Risky from a legal standpoint.
So at least 20 years for full global coverage, yeah.
Of fraud and embezzlement, which I'm pretty sure is covered by existing criminal codes.
I guess the next question is which jurisdiction is going to charge them?
in their theoretical expressive power to describe any computable function. See Turing-Equivalent
At least, all deterministic programming languages.
Languages vary mostly in how compressed and/or comprehensible it is to express this versus that type of operation or type of datatype.
I guess a machine-language for the universe would have to be expressive enough to take advantage of everything a quantum computer could do, whatever that set of capabilities actually is.
For $50,000 per year for room, board, educational, and security, social services provided.