What exactly is so incredibly and overwhelmingly evil about a corporate owned photocopier that is able to enforce the "CONFIDENTIAL DO NOT PHOTOCOPY" marks on important documents? A locksmith will refuse to cut a key that says "DO NOT DUPLICATE". Is this more evil than that? Less? Same?
It would be illegal if the CBC did NOT have this policy. See, their PodCasts are ad supported. Almost all CC music forbids commercial use. The CBC has said that you cannot use music that forbids commercial use, because even though the podcasts are free, they are sometimes distributed via ad supported rotations. Slashdot, of course, went the same rout it always goes with news: Outright lies. If these artists wanted their music used on the radio without compensation, they would have released it under a more permissive license. But, they don't, and the CBC is enforcing their wishes.
Except it's not the politician using the DMCA to censor. It's the film studio that owns the movies they used clips from. So in this case the Streisand effect is the desired outcome. Nobody noticed or cared what movie it was. But now the film studio is all OVER the news;)
You need to work on your abstract reasoning: Just because the example of shenanigans happing IRL is of NAMBLA, doesn't mean that the NAMBLA group is the only one in all of facebook that allows your friends forcing you into groups. In fact, they all do. Including all of the fake terrorist groups people make as a "joke".
They seemed to think they would ruin him if he had a publication and a patent. Why would a Nobel Prize be a good example of prior art, but an actual patent would be a joke? Even with a patent and a Nobel prize and a dozen publications, there is nothing you can due when sued for violating 1,000 different patents and faced with a team of 200 lawyers filing a dozen lawsuits every day until you fold. That's the point. They don't care if they lose a lot in court. The point was they will never license his discovery, they will take and if he tries to fight, they will dedicate their entire existence to ruining his life. AKA they will act like any corporation ever. Steal and then sue your victim for 10 trillion dollars.
Well, they shouldn't have just let it burn. Put the fire out, then charge him services rendered. It costs $500-$1000 to respond to a fire and put it out, let him pay. They showed up to make sure it doesn't spread to his neighbor who does pay the fee. That makes no sense, putting it out is the easier way to prevent it from spreading. Once it's torched an entire property it's a lot bigger and harder to control.
That being said, I hate people with an entitled attitude who think it should be fine to pay insurance retroactively when they need it, since the company gets the same amount of money as if he'd been paying the whole time. In BC, "Universal" Health Insurance still has a premium to pay. So, you can pay your premium. (IIRC $150 for 3 months, but with discounts for people with low income. Households making under, I believe, $20,000 pay $0). If you don't pay your premiums, then you have pay-as-you-go service. Visit a doctor, you pay for that visit. Need surgery, you pay for that too. Anti-government types refuse to pay the premium because they "ain't sick" and it's just another tax for no benefit to them. Then they have a heart attack and say "ok ok ok I've learned my lesson, I'll pay my premiums this month, you cover my bills..." Doesn't work that way, you want to gamble with your life for less money than your satellite bill, go right ahead.
That's not very accurate. It doesn't require bare skin, it's permanent not temporary, and it's not just a blotchy rash, it's a blotchy rash that can form weeping skin lesions and sores, and can become cancerous.
Did you know that prolonged used of an electric blanket, hot water bottle, or a hot tub could cause a permanent blotchy rash that can become cancerous? No? I guess that makes you "the dumbest of society" then. This isn't about burns from a very hot laptop, it's about a chronic skin condition caused by a comfortably warm laptop. But I guess you can't really expect the dumbest of society to RTFA.
However if there are issues simply from extended periods of being nicely toasty, that definitely isn't good, and people do need to be warned.
Yes, that's precisely what TFA says it is:
The condition is sometimes called "toasted skin syndrome," and is commonly seen among elderly patients that use heating pads for prolonged periods. The consequences of the condition have a small chance of being serious.
Prolonged exposure to being "toasty" can cause a blotchy rash, and if exposure continues, it can result in permanent thinning of the skin in those areas, leading to lesions and sores. These sores can become cancerous. This isn't caused by repeated burns, just by being very toasty warm for a long time. You can also get the same thing from overuse of a hot-tub.
Yes, it is a damn shame the judge didn't call you up for a definition of "commercial interest", and instead he turned to the musty old ivory tower elitist law books, which are totally out of touch with Joe on the street in REAL AMERICA. In this case, the plaintiff sued under trademark law, for advertising that, by "false or misleading representation of fact, which -- is likely to...deceive as to the...sponsorship or approval of his or her goods, services or commercial activity by another person".
That's all well and good, except for one tiny little detail: This is a trademark law. Now, you don't need a registered trademark to sue for trademark violation. However, you do at a minimum need a "commercial interest" in the mark. In spite of what you wish to be true, the law does define commercial interest as, "placing a mark in any manner on a good or the packaging thereof, or when that is impractical, in the accompanying documentation." or use of the mark in the advertising thereof, or in the sale or advertising of any service offered commercially. Putting your name on a resume is not using the mark in the sale or advertising of a service, so it does not constitute a "commercial interest" as far as trademark law goes. By your definition, every person in the world would have an automatic trademark on their name. Meaning, nobody could ever sell anything under their name without first proving that nobody else has that name. Otherwise, they have a "commercial interest" and you would be breaking the law by registering it!
You have a bizarre version of logical conclusion. For example, let us say a crazy person brings a wrongful death suit against Google, on the grounds that their father had a heart attack after getting some porn in his search results. If the court rejects the claim because the father did not die from his heart attack (and thus it cannot be wrongful death without a death) the logical conclusion is NOT that Google would be automatically guilty any time anybody does die while using the internet.
In this instance, a woman was suing Yahoo! because somehow, if you search for a name, any search results are implicitly endorsed by the person whose name that is. Not just one of them, but somehow, all of them in the world all endorse all of those matches, even though the name doesn't appear in the matches. She sued under false endorsement laws. The court refused to hear the case, on the grounds that false endorsement laws require the person to have a commercial interest in making an endorsement. The court specifically didn't even consider whether or not Yahoo! was making any kind of endorsement whatsoever.
Anyways, if somebody sues under, as you put it "X Obscure Law" then of fucking course the court rules on whether or not "X Obscure Law" applies. That is its one and its only job.
I've seen documentaries filmed in IMAX 3D. 3D isn't a gimmick, it's absolutely phenomenal. Or at least it was 20 years ago. The gimmick is their desire to look "cool". Home Improvement made fun of it when all of the other stations were doing their 3D episodes, with glasses in the newspaper, what, 10 years ago now? (Third Rock from the Sun and many other shows all did it the same night, get glasses from paper, see episode in stunning 3D). So, Tool Time had it's own 3D episode, and Tim, Al, and Heidi spent the entire time just thrusting tools at the camera over and over going "Woah! WOAH! WOAAAAAH!". 3D movies that are filmed like movies are superb. The problem is with 3D movies that are filmed like they're "WOAH 3D MAN" instead of like they are still movies.
The same thing happened with stereophonic records. For a while, rather than just recording a normal song but in stereo, everybody became absolutely obsessed with the stereo effects. You even hear it on Beatles albums from the time, absolute ping ponging, instruments jumping from left to right just because they can.
The difference is, it's not new. For decades now they've been filming documentaries in polarized 3D. Everybody just ignored it until James Cameron remade Fern Gully with it. If only they had learned from him to just film the movie like normal, and let the 3D handle itself. If going overboard with shit flying at the camera would have been poor cinematography for a 2D movie, for a 3D movie it will be poor cinematography...in 3D!
You're attributing to the government, what was actually written as a sourceless editorial. Nobody is calling this a threat except the stupid newspaper, The Daily Fail. My god is the writing terrible and intentionally misleading. "...has now been labelled an 'aid to terrorists' by security experts and the US Department of Homeland Security is also examining how to protect airliners." They used an intentional run-on sentence to make it look like "Security experts and the DHS" are united in calling this a terrorist program. But no, they're just changing subjects mid sentence and telling you that the US government doesn't want airplanes shot down. Also, whenever an article says "Some say" they mean "We say". So, it's just a scaremonger site, what a joke. They managed to troll you pretty well though.
c) In the 1600 they referred to copying books and plays without permission as piracy, and back then there still were pirates cruising the waters. In 1703 Daniel Defoe said of his book that, if he had written it for the money, he would be greatly concerned at the actions of PIRATES and PARAGRAPHMEN (they loved capslock for emphasis back then, too), but since he didn't, they were welcome to their pennies.
My Laptop came with Windows 7. I like it. Eye candy is neat, but hardly a deciding factor. I could put Windows 7 on my desktop, too, but why bother with the hassle? For the eyecandy? For the...what else is new? Oh, right, the spotlight clone search thingy. That's pretty cool I guess. Still not worth the effort to reinstall all of my software.
Hemp isn't actually marijuana. Listing reasons why they wouldn't legalize weed instead of hemp is like using heroin as an argument against using poppy-seeds in the baking industry.
And finally, no one has successfully sued a handset maker for infringed patents in operating systems like Linux.
If you read TFA, Microsoft has been threatening Android makers, saying Android, being Linux, violates Microsoft patents, and telling them they need to buy licenses to MS patents or their customers will be sued. HTC has already folded for an undisclosed retroactive royalty on all of their Android phones. Verizon forces users to use Bing by forcefully blocking Google and Yahoo on their Samsung Android phones, so they might have taken matters into their own hands after Samsung refused to pay MS protection money. Microsoft, by talking up their indemnity, is making a not so subtle threat "You are safe with us. If you make an Android phone, we WILL sue your customers individually, not just you. You will be ruined".
Oh, you're right, 100% of that money is coming from the State's fund for road sign replacement. NYC already has to replace 8000 signs a year due to wear and tear, or theft. They have elected to replace them with new signs, instead of identical signs. So while 100% of that is state money, 0% of it is new money. The Slashdot summary is actually another lie, like 99% of all Slashdot summaries. It's like if I decide "diet time" and so declare to my cat that next time we're out of frozen hamburger patties, I will buy the $10 box of extra lean patties, instead of the $9 box of medium patties. My decision cost me $1, not $10! In this instance, it doesn't even cost NYC more money for mixed-case signs, so their decision cost them $0, and Slashdot took $0 and turned it into millions, because outrage at government spending gives Slashbots a hard-on.
If you don't want your freedom quashed, you can kindly stop using the public airwaves. That's the tradeoff. If you want to rob me of my right to have a radio device, because you think you deserve that frequency more, you have to agree not to use it in an attempt to deafen me. Some broadcast networks are horrible about it. Normally the Ads aren't that much louder. Sometimes they even quiet the shows down, too. Like, I have to set my TV from 15 to 25+ to hear what people are saying, then it switches to commercials and blows the TV speaker. If you want to assault me on DVD, fine. Get the fuck off the air you evil bastard.
My Grandpa tells me they had a saying in WWII. When the RAF flies, the Germans duck. When the Luftwaffe flies, we duck. When the US Airforce flies, everybody ducks. Not much has changed.
Ummm, what's your citation for your big reveal that sodium can't cause hypertension? Because there is plenty of evidence that reducing sodium intake is as effective as the best known blood pressure medication. Salty blood keeps more water in your veins due to osmosis, putting more pressure on them. Further, what's your citation that there's no link to obesity and type 2 diabetes? Because the evidence is pretty strong behind that, too, for you to just chuckle to yourself about the rubes duped by dodgy science, without making any kind of attempt to back that up. Certainly that's not the only way, but when a bad diet and/or poor exercise is correlated that strongly, you can't just roll your eyes and shout "correlation is not causation" until people leave you alone. (How much correlation? People with a healthy lifestyle and weight are 89% less likely to develop type 2 diabetes).
As for high fructose corn syrup, well, you're right there by shotgun effect. There was basically one study in 2004 that showed that people who drink a lot of pop, rich in HFCS, are far more likely to be obese. What's important to note is that there's no comparison to any other form of sugar. Fanatics who claim that due to having slightly more fructose, HFCS is pure poison, latched on with a deathgrip. But, at least one of the co-authors was quoted in several of the newspaper articles about it, that it's only about pop vs obesity, only correlation, and that they're not trying to suggest that if pop was sweetened with cane sugar it would be any different. OK, actually, in this case you're still wrong. This is a case not of dodgy science, but once AGAIN, of bad reporting of good science! Journalists saw something about corn syrup, and went on the war path, basically ignoring the AUTHORS OF THE PAPER telling them that they're interpreting it wrong. If the people reporting on this had, as you suggested, not separated themselves, it still would have been fine if they had understood the paper, or at least not refused to quote the author dispelling their narrative.
Slashdot Mirror
What exactly is so incredibly and overwhelmingly evil about a corporate owned photocopier that is able to enforce the "CONFIDENTIAL DO NOT PHOTOCOPY" marks on important documents? A locksmith will refuse to cut a key that says "DO NOT DUPLICATE". Is this more evil than that? Less? Same?
It would be illegal if the CBC did NOT have this policy. See, their PodCasts are ad supported. Almost all CC music forbids commercial use. The CBC has said that you cannot use music that forbids commercial use, because even though the podcasts are free, they are sometimes distributed via ad supported rotations. Slashdot, of course, went the same rout it always goes with news: Outright lies. If these artists wanted their music used on the radio without compensation, they would have released it under a more permissive license. But, they don't, and the CBC is enforcing their wishes.
Except it's not the politician using the DMCA to censor. It's the film studio that owns the movies they used clips from. So in this case the Streisand effect is the desired outcome. Nobody noticed or cared what movie it was. But now the film studio is all OVER the news ;)
You need to work on your abstract reasoning: Just because the example of shenanigans happing IRL is of NAMBLA, doesn't mean that the NAMBLA group is the only one in all of facebook that allows your friends forcing you into groups. In fact, they all do. Including all of the fake terrorist groups people make as a "joke".
They seemed to think they would ruin him if he had a publication and a patent. Why would a Nobel Prize be a good example of prior art, but an actual patent would be a joke? Even with a patent and a Nobel prize and a dozen publications, there is nothing you can due when sued for violating 1,000 different patents and faced with a team of 200 lawyers filing a dozen lawsuits every day until you fold. That's the point. They don't care if they lose a lot in court. The point was they will never license his discovery, they will take and if he tries to fight, they will dedicate their entire existence to ruining his life. AKA they will act like any corporation ever. Steal and then sue your victim for 10 trillion dollars.
Well, they shouldn't have just let it burn. Put the fire out, then charge him services rendered. It costs $500-$1000 to respond to a fire and put it out, let him pay. They showed up to make sure it doesn't spread to his neighbor who does pay the fee. That makes no sense, putting it out is the easier way to prevent it from spreading. Once it's torched an entire property it's a lot bigger and harder to control.
That being said, I hate people with an entitled attitude who think it should be fine to pay insurance retroactively when they need it, since the company gets the same amount of money as if he'd been paying the whole time. In BC, "Universal" Health Insurance still has a premium to pay. So, you can pay your premium. (IIRC $150 for 3 months, but with discounts for people with low income. Households making under, I believe, $20,000 pay $0). If you don't pay your premiums, then you have pay-as-you-go service. Visit a doctor, you pay for that visit. Need surgery, you pay for that too. Anti-government types refuse to pay the premium because they "ain't sick" and it's just another tax for no benefit to them. Then they have a heart attack and say "ok ok ok I've learned my lesson, I'll pay my premiums this month, you cover my bills..." Doesn't work that way, you want to gamble with your life for less money than your satellite bill, go right ahead.
That's not very accurate. It doesn't require bare skin, it's permanent not temporary, and it's not just a blotchy rash, it's a blotchy rash that can form weeping skin lesions and sores, and can become cancerous.
Did you know that prolonged used of an electric blanket, hot water bottle, or a hot tub could cause a permanent blotchy rash that can become cancerous? No? I guess that makes you "the dumbest of society" then. This isn't about burns from a very hot laptop, it's about a chronic skin condition caused by a comfortably warm laptop. But I guess you can't really expect the dumbest of society to RTFA.
Yes, that's precisely what TFA says it is:
Prolonged exposure to being "toasty" can cause a blotchy rash, and if exposure continues, it can result in permanent thinning of the skin in those areas, leading to lesions and sores. These sores can become cancerous. This isn't caused by repeated burns, just by being very toasty warm for a long time. You can also get the same thing from overuse of a hot-tub.
Yes, it is a damn shame the judge didn't call you up for a definition of "commercial interest", and instead he turned to the musty old ivory tower elitist law books, which are totally out of touch with Joe on the street in REAL AMERICA. In this case, the plaintiff sued under trademark law, for advertising that, by "false or misleading representation of fact, which -- is likely to...deceive as to the...sponsorship or approval of his or her goods, services or commercial activity by another person".
That's all well and good, except for one tiny little detail: This is a trademark law. Now, you don't need a registered trademark to sue for trademark violation. However, you do at a minimum need a "commercial interest" in the mark. In spite of what you wish to be true, the law does define commercial interest as, "placing a mark in any manner on a good or the packaging thereof, or when that is impractical, in the accompanying documentation." or use of the mark in the advertising thereof, or in the sale or advertising of any service offered commercially. Putting your name on a resume is not using the mark in the sale or advertising of a service, so it does not constitute a "commercial interest" as far as trademark law goes. By your definition, every person in the world would have an automatic trademark on their name. Meaning, nobody could ever sell anything under their name without first proving that nobody else has that name. Otherwise, they have a "commercial interest" and you would be breaking the law by registering it!
You have a bizarre version of logical conclusion. For example, let us say a crazy person brings a wrongful death suit against Google, on the grounds that their father had a heart attack after getting some porn in his search results. If the court rejects the claim because the father did not die from his heart attack (and thus it cannot be wrongful death without a death) the logical conclusion is NOT that Google would be automatically guilty any time anybody does die while using the internet.
In this instance, a woman was suing Yahoo! because somehow, if you search for a name, any search results are implicitly endorsed by the person whose name that is. Not just one of them, but somehow, all of them in the world all endorse all of those matches, even though the name doesn't appear in the matches. She sued under false endorsement laws. The court refused to hear the case, on the grounds that false endorsement laws require the person to have a commercial interest in making an endorsement. The court specifically didn't even consider whether or not Yahoo! was making any kind of endorsement whatsoever.
Anyways, if somebody sues under, as you put it "X Obscure Law" then of fucking course the court rules on whether or not "X Obscure Law" applies. That is its one and its only job.
I've seen documentaries filmed in IMAX 3D. 3D isn't a gimmick, it's absolutely phenomenal. Or at least it was 20 years ago. The gimmick is their desire to look "cool". Home Improvement made fun of it when all of the other stations were doing their 3D episodes, with glasses in the newspaper, what, 10 years ago now? (Third Rock from the Sun and many other shows all did it the same night, get glasses from paper, see episode in stunning 3D). So, Tool Time had it's own 3D episode, and Tim, Al, and Heidi spent the entire time just thrusting tools at the camera over and over going "Woah! WOAH! WOAAAAAH!". 3D movies that are filmed like movies are superb. The problem is with 3D movies that are filmed like they're "WOAH 3D MAN" instead of like they are still movies.
The same thing happened with stereophonic records. For a while, rather than just recording a normal song but in stereo, everybody became absolutely obsessed with the stereo effects. You even hear it on Beatles albums from the time, absolute ping ponging, instruments jumping from left to right just because they can.
The difference is, it's not new. For decades now they've been filming documentaries in polarized 3D. Everybody just ignored it until James Cameron remade Fern Gully with it. If only they had learned from him to just film the movie like normal, and let the 3D handle itself. If going overboard with shit flying at the camera would have been poor cinematography for a 2D movie, for a 3D movie it will be poor cinematography...in 3D!
Or, it's italic "AV" tiled, or it's italic "SOS" tiled. Or, it's "staircase circle staircase" tiled ;)
If you plot it as an 11x3 bit pattern, it looks like "SOS" so I agree, please for assistance.
You're attributing to the government, what was actually written as a sourceless editorial. Nobody is calling this a threat except the stupid newspaper, The Daily Fail. My god is the writing terrible and intentionally misleading. "...has now been labelled an 'aid to terrorists' by security experts and the US Department of Homeland Security is also examining how to protect airliners." They used an intentional run-on sentence to make it look like "Security experts and the DHS" are united in calling this a terrorist program. But no, they're just changing subjects mid sentence and telling you that the US government doesn't want airplanes shot down. Also, whenever an article says "Some say" they mean "We say". So, it's just a scaremonger site, what a joke. They managed to troll you pretty well though.
I skipped Vista entirely due to all of the bad press. If it had come with Vista I would have replaced it with XP.
c) In the 1600 they referred to copying books and plays without permission as piracy, and back then there still were pirates cruising the waters. In 1703 Daniel Defoe said of his book that, if he had written it for the money, he would be greatly concerned at the actions of PIRATES and PARAGRAPHMEN (they loved capslock for emphasis back then, too), but since he didn't, they were welcome to their pennies.
My Laptop came with Windows 7. I like it. Eye candy is neat, but hardly a deciding factor. I could put Windows 7 on my desktop, too, but why bother with the hassle? For the eyecandy? For the...what else is new? Oh, right, the spotlight clone search thingy. That's pretty cool I guess. Still not worth the effort to reinstall all of my software.
Hemp isn't actually marijuana. Listing reasons why they wouldn't legalize weed instead of hemp is like using heroin as an argument against using poppy-seeds in the baking industry.
If you read TFA, Microsoft has been threatening Android makers, saying Android, being Linux, violates Microsoft patents, and telling them they need to buy licenses to MS patents or their customers will be sued. HTC has already folded for an undisclosed retroactive royalty on all of their Android phones. Verizon forces users to use Bing by forcefully blocking Google and Yahoo on their Samsung Android phones, so they might have taken matters into their own hands after Samsung refused to pay MS protection money. Microsoft, by talking up their indemnity, is making a not so subtle threat "You are safe with us. If you make an Android phone, we WILL sue your customers individually, not just you. You will be ruined".
Oh, you're right, 100% of that money is coming from the State's fund for road sign replacement. NYC already has to replace 8000 signs a year due to wear and tear, or theft. They have elected to replace them with new signs, instead of identical signs. So while 100% of that is state money, 0% of it is new money. The Slashdot summary is actually another lie, like 99% of all Slashdot summaries. It's like if I decide "diet time" and so declare to my cat that next time we're out of frozen hamburger patties, I will buy the $10 box of extra lean patties, instead of the $9 box of medium patties. My decision cost me $1, not $10! In this instance, it doesn't even cost NYC more money for mixed-case signs, so their decision cost them $0, and Slashdot took $0 and turned it into millions, because outrage at government spending gives Slashbots a hard-on.
It's not the New York State government doing this, it's the New York City government.
If you don't want your freedom quashed, you can kindly stop using the public airwaves. That's the tradeoff. If you want to rob me of my right to have a radio device, because you think you deserve that frequency more, you have to agree not to use it in an attempt to deafen me. Some broadcast networks are horrible about it. Normally the Ads aren't that much louder. Sometimes they even quiet the shows down, too. Like, I have to set my TV from 15 to 25+ to hear what people are saying, then it switches to commercials and blows the TV speaker. If you want to assault me on DVD, fine. Get the fuck off the air you evil bastard.
My Grandpa tells me they had a saying in WWII. When the RAF flies, the Germans duck. When the Luftwaffe flies, we duck. When the US Airforce flies, everybody ducks. Not much has changed.
Ummm, what's your citation for your big reveal that sodium can't cause hypertension? Because there is plenty of evidence that reducing sodium intake is as effective as the best known blood pressure medication. Salty blood keeps more water in your veins due to osmosis, putting more pressure on them. Further, what's your citation that there's no link to obesity and type 2 diabetes? Because the evidence is pretty strong behind that, too, for you to just chuckle to yourself about the rubes duped by dodgy science, without making any kind of attempt to back that up. Certainly that's not the only way, but when a bad diet and/or poor exercise is correlated that strongly, you can't just roll your eyes and shout "correlation is not causation" until people leave you alone. (How much correlation? People with a healthy lifestyle and weight are 89% less likely to develop type 2 diabetes).
As for high fructose corn syrup, well, you're right there by shotgun effect. There was basically one study in 2004 that showed that people who drink a lot of pop, rich in HFCS, are far more likely to be obese. What's important to note is that there's no comparison to any other form of sugar. Fanatics who claim that due to having slightly more fructose, HFCS is pure poison, latched on with a deathgrip. But, at least one of the co-authors was quoted in several of the newspaper articles about it, that it's only about pop vs obesity, only correlation, and that they're not trying to suggest that if pop was sweetened with cane sugar it would be any different. OK, actually, in this case you're still wrong. This is a case not of dodgy science, but once AGAIN, of bad reporting of good science! Journalists saw something about corn syrup, and went on the war path, basically ignoring the AUTHORS OF THE PAPER telling them that they're interpreting it wrong. If the people reporting on this had, as you suggested, not separated themselves, it still would have been fine if they had understood the paper, or at least not refused to quote the author dispelling their narrative.