We have tons of methane mined daily right on Earth. We burn it off at the source because we can't be arsed to pipe it anywhere. If you can't even be bothered piping it from an oil rig, why would you fly it through interplanetary space? I know, bad form, serious reply to non-serious post;)
They don't have to argue that the consumer will be confused. Trademark is to protect a corporation's good name, not the consumer. Consumer confusion is what corporate PR calls trademark law. The actual test for trademark dilution (something that's similar to another mark, but not actually a copy) is if a consumer would even think of the other mark. For example, lets say your name is Mark and you have Mark's Coffee Hut. If you say that your brand of coffee is "Markbucks" you can be sued. Everybody knows it's a play on words and you're not really Starbucks. Doesn't matter. They don't have to prove that the average person would be confused. In fact, your defense that "Everybody knows it's just a play on words" would work against you, as you've basically just proven their case for them! That the average person would think "Starbucks", which is actually what they have to prove, not that the average person would actually be confused.
But at least it's better than trademark laws in Europe. In Europe, the police could arrest Mark's customers too! In Europe trademark is very seriously about protecting a corporation's good name, you see. To the point that if you take your Honda Civic and you write "Ferrari" on it, you would end up on trial for counterfeiting and your car would be seized and sold as scrap. Because you'd be associating them with a cheap car, and that's what trademark is there to protect. Not the consumer, but the good name of the corporation.
Trademark dilution is even stronger than the "mom" test. It's not if the average person would confuse it. That's for regular trademark law. For dilution the test is "would they even think of the trademark". For example, if you name your family restaurant after your own last name, and you last name happens to be McDougal, you will lose to McDonalds even if you can show that every single person in your entire state is aware that it's not the same company. You could name it "Monolith Burger" straight from Space Quest, and if your name is in yellow with a really big M, you will STILL LOSE. Absolutely nobody would think it's the same company, but that's not the test. The test is if the famous mark holder would even enter their minds.
So, the test here is, would your mom see "Video Pod" and even THINK iPod. Doesn't matter if she thinks it's a different product, just if she even thinks iPod at any point. This is why no coffee shop can have "Bucks" in it, or "Star". This is why nobody can have "i" in their name. Note that nothing in your list of things to consider says the target being sued can't have their own trademark predating Apple's. Sure, the whole "We had it first" negates (v) since they probably didn't go back in time with intent to infringe apple's mark. But that's only one part of it! They did, after all, successfully take the iPhone trademark away from the company that was making already making an iPhone product, with a mark that predates the iPod.
Yeah, but the author has changed his mind from last time, going on CNN to say how this is intimidation and retaliation, and how burning a book in the digital age won't stop freedom, etc. But, basically, he was naming names and specific cities and buildings, and he was discussing classified operations in detail. The Pentagon wants some of that redacted. He says "I sumbitted it for approval!" but the Pentagon says he was supposed to submit it to them, not just to his superior officer. (He kept it within his unit). Last time, it sounded like both he and the publisher agreed with everything. But now he's talking to CNN about how everything they removed is "ludicrous" and none of it was important, and so on.
So, what you are saying is that they spent years failing to crack it, years. And two separate teams succeeded within such a tiny timespan after OtherOS removal by sheer and total coincidence.
All religious in civ 4 are 100% identical, and have no impact on politics except for, on rare occations, an AI leader demanding you convert or go to war. Not that it matters if you convert, as it has zero impact on anything other than perhaps cities with the same religion in them as you, get a microscopic happiness boost. And since a city can hold many religions even that doesn't actually matter for shit. (Especially since the best civics don't give this bonus anyway). It was a neat idea but they couldn't pull it off, and it deserved to go bye-bye.
They tried to make the telephone company put back the non-dial phones IN THE SENATE ITSELF. This is similar to me demanding that the phone company turn off my call display, and Slashdot running the story as "Slashdot user attempts to ban call display!!" No attempt was made to ban them.
Yeah, he could have ordered a sword online. But he didn't, he mined the ore, smelted the ore, and forged the bars into a sword (with help from a blacksmith). And, are you thinking of Terry Brooks, author of the highly derrivative Sword of Shanara series, which is basically LotR but with a sword? Seems like you are. Even if it was about Terry Brooks, greater curmudgeons than yourself have spent all day on Slashdot shitting on the work of others, work they could never ever do themselves. Try to be original.
So, let me get this straight. Oracle is "bad" because they announced that their distribution had a "modern" kernel, but it's "only" 2.6.32 with custom patches, not 2.6.35 which is totally almost 2 months old now so there's no excuse for it not to be in there!!!! And, Oracle is a jerk who just takes and takes without contributing back, because they are "only barely" in the top 20 contributors to the kernel (and the kernel is only one small part of Linux so basically they don't contribute at all). What a troll! At least the article is up-front about being written by a Novell employee. (Wait no it's not, it sort of slips that into the middle).
And Mr. Sour Grapes Novell employee is just pleased as punch over pointing out the "dirty secret" Oracle tried to hide, by publicly announcing that Oracle Linux would be running the 2.6.32 kernel, with custom patches to improve performance on certain hardware, and for Oracle software. How sneaky of them, you could never tell by reading that, that it's actually the 2.6.32 kernel (WHICH IS SO OLD HOW DARE THEY CALL IT MODERN).
You have it backwards. They took RHEL and replaced the Kernel. The Kernel is the only thing in there that ISN'T from RedHat. The "Fraud" is that TFA is crying emo tears about how "all" Oracle did was replace the custom RedHat Kernel (2.6.18 iirc) with 2.6.32 (plus custom patches). Apparently to call it a "new" kernel TFA feels they should have started entirely from scratch. Otherwise it's not "new" it's only new to the distribution, with new, coded by Oracle, patches added. Just like if you buy a used car, it's fraud to tell your friends you have a new car. It's not new somebody else had it first!
Being famous only affects whether or not it qualifies for trademark dilution law. Trademark dilution protects you from non-competing uses of your trademark, if your trademark is famous enough that the trademark is associated with your product and nothing else. eBay makes you think of the eBay auction site and nothing else. Pepsi makes you think of the drink, not of anything else. On the other hand, while Apple might make you think of computers, there are many other trademark holders who use Apple in their own markets. So, if some new company starts selling "Apple" stuff they are free as long as it is a different market than existing "Apple" companies. But, you can't make eBay apparel, as that "dilutes" the brand, because the brand would no longer identify one, and only one, product. This is pretty much global, most countries have basically the same law. While, even if your name was "George McDonald", you cannot open a McDonald's restaurant you can probably open a "McDonald's Plumbing". (Probably). Wouldn't protect you from being sued, but you would have the right! Same with if your name is, I don't know, Gerald Ford, you're allowed to call yourself Ford, you're allowed to sell things under the name Ford, you just couldn't sell cars.
However, whether you're allowed to sell a product under a trademark name, has nothing to do with being able to use it. Even well-known brands that identify a unique source cannot prevent you from using their trademarked name as a name. It would be beyond absurd to have Ford say "You cannot use the name of our company or our car in your consumer reports magazine, unless the review is sufficiently positive" and just block all negative reviews unless they say "A certain car from some manufacturer". That's just stupid (doesn't mean nobody has tried though). So, the thought that a person could ever get in trouble for having the same name is just dumb. Only if they sell a competing product under their own name.
Evolution isn't causal. It's, well, non-anti-causal, which isn't quite the same thing. That is to say, traits don't evolve in response to things, stuff without appropriate traits gets wiped out by those things. The difference is key. A trait doesn't persist because it's an advantage, it persists because it's not a sufficiently bad disadvantage, which is a weaker constraint. In the context of TFA, a gene that makes mice "dumber" doesn't mean that the gene provides a hidden advantage that has a better tradeoff, and it doesn't mean that being dumb provided a big advantage. All it means is that being dumb wasn't a disadvantage. Or, at least, wasn't a disadvantage strong enough to hurt the mice's reproductive chances. Due to statistics, and something called "neutral drift", an allele that is "neutral" in that it doesn't result in a significant disadvantage to reproduction, has a fair chance at taking over a population, over enough time. Not that it will happen a lot. But, "fair" chance here means it's not vanishingly small.
So, if a gene breaks comes into being that makes mice dumb, but being dumb doesn't stop them from finding food, evading predators, and having sex, then it's a neutral gene. So while not guaranteed to happen, there's nothing unusual about this gene becoming dominant, or in fact, part of the entire species. It certainly doesn't mean that it provides some sort of advantage as a trade-off. Genes that provide an advantage are much more likely to be passed on, until the entire species has it. But, ones that aren't strongly disadvantageous can be, too. All mammals have a gene that lets them make vitamin C. Some primates, including humans, have a broken version and so cannot produce vitamin C. That's because out ancestors ate mostly fruits and berries, which are full of vitamin C. So, when by chance we lost our ability to make it, it had no effect. This doesn't mean it provided a hidden disadvantage. It was simply not needed, so when it broke, natural selection did not kill animals who didn't have it.
309. No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes defamatory matter that, on reasonable grounds, he believes is true, and that is relevant to any subject of public interest, the public discussion of which is for the public benefit. [R.S., c.C-34, s.273.]
310. No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes fair comments
(a) on the public conduct of a person who takes part in public affairs; or
(b) on a published book or other literary production, or on any composition or work of art or performance publicly exhibited, or on any other communication made to the public on any subject, if the comments are confined to criticism thereof. [R.S., c.C-34, s.274.]
So yes, truth is a defense. If the Westboro Baptist Church "takes part in public affairs", which crashing military funerals and attacking grieving families probably counts as, you are free to make "fair comment". So you can certainly say particular actions are evil of them, and make comment that such behavior implies those who takes such actions are evil scumbags.
Now, Canada also has hate speech laws. I don't think they apply if you make statements about a particular church, however. Hate speech is basically just defamation laws given teeth to protect groups without a central authority. If you defame the Catholic Church, there is a specific church with cause, and they can sue or press criminal charges, depending on severity. If you make a comment about all Christians, it was hard to sue for defamation as you needed cause. Hate speech laws let the government step in in this situation. Because hate speech laws are often criticized by people who don't understand them, I'll repeat again, that they are no stronger than defamation laws. As such, truth is a defense if you have a good faith belief in the truth of your statement. And conversely, truth is not a defense if you did not have this belief. That is, if you make up a fantastic story about what the WBC did (using your example) and it happens to be more-or-less true just by luck, the truth is not a defense because you would have made the statement even if it was false, since you had know knowledge as to the truth. Another thing is that your faith counts as truth (in that something that is an unknowable matter of faith is considered non-false). So, it is not hate speech to march around with "God Hates Fags" as the WBC does. The reason being it's a matter of faith, and so they are considered to have belief in the truth of their statements. And, the fact that this subjects gay people to "Contempt, hatred, ridicule, or scorn" is trumped by it being non-false.
Where defamation and hate crimes come back together again, is that when it says it subjects the target to "contempt, hatred, ridicule, or scorn", which is the same for hate speech and for defamation, is that means the speech has to make a reasonable person feel those things towards the victim. In a hate speech case, a person was fined for saying "Hitler was right to kill jews". On appeal it was overturned. The judge in that case said that though this opinion is vile and disgusting, nobody would read it and find themselves hating jews if they didn't already, so it's not hate speech, and if about a person, wouldn't be libel.
The only other time truth is not a defense is when a fact may be true, but private. For public officials like police and politicians, few things are considered "private". But if you say, had an ugly break up and took pictures of your ex and posted them craigslist, advertising her as "A dirty slut who wants as many guys as I can get, fuck me hard and leave I don't even need your name!" then, even if you can prove she is, in fact, a dirty slut who fucks anything with a penis, you can still be convicted of libel because this "fact" true or not, is a private fact and not your business to broadcast, especially with intent to bring her reputation harm;) Wel
298. [1] A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.
300. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel that he knows is false is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. [R.S., c.C-34, s.264.]
301. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. [R.S., c.C-34, s.265.]
Looks like you're right! 5 years for if you knew it was false, that must mean the other one, 2 years, is for if it's true, right? Because there's no gray area beween "known to be false" and "known to be true" so anything not known to be false is true! Oh wait, "lawful justification or excuse", fuck! They always have to cover their asses with caveats, don't they. That could mean anything! That could even mean, as the courts have held, that if you have a good faith reason to believe the statement of fact is truthful, you're off the hook. Oh wait, you don't even need to go that far because the Canadian Criminal Code doesn't stop at Article 301.
309. No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes defamatory matter that, on reasonable grounds, he believes is true, and that is relevant to any subject of public interest, the public discussion of which is for the public benefit. [R.S., c.C-34, s.273.]
310. No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes fair comments
(a) on the public conduct of a person who takes part in public affairs; or
(b) on a published book or other literary production, or on any composition or work of art or performance publicly exhibited, or on any other communication made to the public on any subject, if the comments are confined to criticism thereof. [R.S., c.C-34, s.274.]
315. No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel publishes defamatory matter in good faith for the purpose of seeking remedy or redress for a private or public wrong or grievance from a person who has, or who on reasonable grounds he believes has, the right or is under an obligation to remedy or redress the wrong or grievance, if
(a) he believes that the defamatory matter is true;
(b) the defamatory matter is relevant to the remedy or redress that is sought; and
(c) the defamatory matter does not in any respect exceed what is reasonably sufficient in the circumstances. [R.S., c.C-34, s.279.]
Well, fuck, huh? Looks like if you say something that harms somebody's reputation, you are OK if you have a good faith reason to believe it is true, and if it's either a matter of public opinion, or a demand for redress for a wrong against your personally. So a police officer, being a public official, can be commented on under 310, as a comment on the public actions of an official. Complaint and demands of apology can also be leveled under article 315 as well, even if the person wronging you is not a public figure. (Just so long as your complaint is not excessive given the wrong. That is, raising a national stink over your neighbor's dog pooping in your lawn, should you manage it, would probably be considered unreasonable). The truth is a defense under Canadian law. It's just not an absolute defense. Like in some states, such as Florida, the truth can fail to be a defense if, first, you only "got lucky" and had no idea it was true at the time, or secondly, if, however true, the inflammatory fact was not of public interest.
You're right that economics isn't a zero sum game. It's not because if imaginary money though, don't be absurd. It's because of this: Lets say I make $30,000 this year. But $12,000 goes to rent and utilities. $4800 on food. That leaves $13,200. So did I get paid $30,000 or did I get paid $13,200. Saying that economics is zero sum is saying that I only got paid $13,200. I didn't, I got $30,000. The fact that I spent it doesn't mean it never existed. It means I spent it. If there was only $30,000 in the entire country and I started with all of it, then spent it, the GDP is over $30,000 even though only $30,000 exists. Because I'll spend it, the people who get it after me will spend it, and so on, it keeps on flowing. GDP is a measure of money FLOW, not of money.
But, some parts are zero sum. If you presume that the amount of pop people drink in a year is a fixed value, then the cola wars are a zero sum game. Coke can only make more if Pepsi makes less. That's got nothing to do with money being finite, and everything to do with demand being finite. And the OP's example is another on of these cases. If Company X has pirated software, and switches to legitimate software, they are spending $1000 more. This extra spending does not increase their income. Now, assuming that they were just sitting on that $1000 then this improves the economy, just like broken windows do. But if they were going to spend that money anyway, it's only a redistribution of wealth. It couldn't possibly create jobs unless you can show that software development companies spend money on different things, and that somehow those different things tend to go to big spenders so the economy is more stimulated. I doubt that's the case. (Plus most of that money, in TFA's example of Canadian companies, wouldn't even be staying in the same country).
That's not what happened, though. It's not that Skyhook is incompatible. Skyhook software is allowed. My Droid came with Skyhook software on it, and on the first page with Google Maps bumped to page 2 of the app list. The issue is that Skyhook tried to force Motorola to make Skyhook always on, and make it so the user cannot use Google Location Service, or any software that relies on Google Location Service, such as Google Maps. Google said "no, you can use Skyhook as the default but you are not allowed to disable parts of the AndroidOS API" and Skyhook is crying. The Motorola AndroidOS implementation is what was decided "non-compatible", because they disabled part of the API. It's not Skyhook that's not compatible.
To add further clarification, Skyhook is suing not, as they claim, because Google said you can't use Skyhook. This is false, as Samsung phones come with serveral Skyhook-based apps installed by default, at least on Bell. No, if you read the complaint, Skyhook had a contract with Motorola that said you have to disable Google Location Services as part of the API. Google is correct that disabling the API would mean some apps in the store would not work. They have made the choice that if an Android device cannot run apps from the store even if it's on the correct version of AndroidOS, then it's not allowed on the store. Motorola was not told that they can't use Skyhook, they were told that they can't use it exclusively. Though since Google Location Service was off by default on my phone, I'm inclined to believe that Skyhook is lying when they say Google demanded that GLS be on by default, and impossible to turn off. As far as I know, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a Droid phone that uses Skyhook by default, so long as the user has the option of turning GLS on as well. You're probably even allowed to make it so Skyhook is always on and can't be disabled. But, you can't disable part of the Android API and expect to be compliant.
Here's what happened. Motorola agreed as part of the contract with Skyhook, to intentionally disable Google Location Service. Google says you cannot access the app store without all of Android being functional, and that they can't have Skyhook as the exclusive location software, and that it has to have both. Skyhook is making it out that Google Location spys on you without consent. (My Droid tells me how it works and asks if I'm sure I want to turn it on, and promises the info is anonymous, so that's a blatant lie). They also say that Google isn't saying it has to support both, they're saying it has to be always-on, which is false. Google Location Service is off by default on my phone, so I doubt there's a requirement that it can't ever be turned off. Further, my Droid phone came with a GPS Navigator software, and Layar Augmented Reality Browser, both of which show me the Skyhook logo when I run them, and both of which run fine with Google Location Services turned off, and in that case rely exclusivly on GPS and Skyhook data.
So I'm inclined to believe Skyhook is lying, or stupid. Skyhook tried to force Motorola to disable Google Location Service or else Skyhook would terminate their contract. Google said you can't do that or we won't let it on the app store, since without the full Android API we can't say the other location apps will work and it will harm the customers. Skyhook seems to be deliberately misstating this as Google Location Service being required to be "always on" and always spying on the user without consent (the repeatedly refer to it as tracking data without permission, and calling it a malicious and inferior product). Since my Samsung phone uses both Google Location Service and Skyhook, and since GLS is off by default AND doesn't mislead me, I'm inclined to believe that Skyhook is lying through their teeth.
Further, Skyhook said another draconian condition is that Motorola should have a box informing the user that Skyhook will be logging nearby WAP, just like the GOogle Location Service does when you turn it on. Skyhook says this is evil of them. Fucking hypocrites, lying and saying Google presents no information that GLS logs nearby wireless networks, and then having the gall to call being asked to do so themselves unreasonable.
We need a new razor "Never ascribe a deep and hidden meaning to what can be explained by a typo". Just pretend it says "The truth is less interesting IN reality." and "in reality" becomes a redundant phrase for emphasis.
Well, if you read the BBC article, the police confirm that they told him he's been banned. They never confirm that he's been banned, just that they told him so. At any rate, the US government policy is not to tell people they have been banned. So, it's unusual to break with protocol like this, if true. It's especially weird to break with protocol preemptively, by telling the police he's been banned PRIOR to the police doing the investigation they've been asked to do by the Secret Service.
The same thing happens to US citizens, too. If you send a threatening email to the president, or anybody in the government really, you'll get the FBI or the SS showing up to ask you a few questions. Almost always they decide it's harmless, and you get warned not to make threats even in jest. Sure, they end up on FOX when threatening a democrat, and on CNN otherwise, showing how the evil party in power abuses its power by crushing the freedom to make death threats, but it's not like they get arrested unless the SS/FBI think it's a legitimate threat.
What's more important is that this was not an EULA "license" that they "signed". This is a paper license they actually signed with a pen, prior to being given the software.
I know you can't ask Slashdot to read the article, but can't we even read the summary anymore? From the headline "US Must secure the Internet" (A change from the actual headline "US has a duty to secure the internet" to the actual NSA Director "has a responsibility to take a leadership role in securing the internet") maybe you can say they're talking about making online ID mandatory so all activities can be traced to an individuals internet license ID. Or something. But they're not. They're talking about providing expertise and advice to help others secure both public networks (like the Internet) as well as private networks (such as corporate and government networks.) This is similar to how the FDA advises the public on the proper temperature to cook your hamburger to to avoid e.coli, but doesn't send in the stormtroopers if their spy sats detect you BBQing undercooked meat. You can say that, given the government track record for incursions into their own networks, they have no business telling others how to secure their networks. And you'd probably be right, but you wouldn't be saying anything that TFA didn't say.
But, the majority of TFA is talking about how the government plans to improve the security of their own networks, and the steps that they have already taken. Very little is spent talking about their planned "leadership" roll in helping secure public and private networks across the country. It sounds an awful lot like leadership by example, however. There's no mention of new laws making security features mandatory, for example. More like just providing advice on how to secure a network, with examples of how they have improved their own security. It's being criticized as being overly broad and generalized. Which, again, is probably valid, since it's exactly the field of the people leveling the critiques. But nothing sounds malicious at all. Nothing sounds like, as people have been saying, they plan to eliminate anonymity by making all internet connections require a traceable license. That's pretty absurd, and if it's been brought up by the government, it wasn't by TFA or anybody in it. What he's saying is, the internet is important, and the government has a duty to protect it from attacks. Such as, a DDoS or other sort of attack taking down key points and knocking a substantial amount of the country offline. That would be a serious blow to the economy, so yes, the government does have a duty to do what it can to prevent that kind of attack.
Last but not least, is the quote that ends TFA.
"Our citizens take a lot of interest in the government's activities in this area, and I have an obligation to the law and the American people to ensure everything we do preserves and protects their rights while protecting our interests," he said. "That's an obligation that's never compromised."
I suppose this makes the FSF a copyright troll. They ask that people releasing under the GPL transfer all copyrights to the FSF so that they can sue to enforce the GPL. If having an agreement with a with another organization where, when your rights are infringed, you transfer the copyright to them so they can sue, instead of you, makes you a troll, then the FSF is a major-league copyright troll.
Doesn't need new hardware. It's a trivial fix. This works by exploiting a heap overflow bug in their USB drivers. All they have to do is fix the drivers and it's patched.
Slashdot Mirror
We have tons of methane mined daily right on Earth. We burn it off at the source because we can't be arsed to pipe it anywhere. If you can't even be bothered piping it from an oil rig, why would you fly it through interplanetary space? I know, bad form, serious reply to non-serious post ;)
They don't have to argue that the consumer will be confused. Trademark is to protect a corporation's good name, not the consumer. Consumer confusion is what corporate PR calls trademark law. The actual test for trademark dilution (something that's similar to another mark, but not actually a copy) is if a consumer would even think of the other mark. For example, lets say your name is Mark and you have Mark's Coffee Hut. If you say that your brand of coffee is "Markbucks" you can be sued. Everybody knows it's a play on words and you're not really Starbucks. Doesn't matter. They don't have to prove that the average person would be confused. In fact, your defense that "Everybody knows it's just a play on words" would work against you, as you've basically just proven their case for them! That the average person would think "Starbucks", which is actually what they have to prove, not that the average person would actually be confused.
But at least it's better than trademark laws in Europe. In Europe, the police could arrest Mark's customers too! In Europe trademark is very seriously about protecting a corporation's good name, you see. To the point that if you take your Honda Civic and you write "Ferrari" on it, you would end up on trial for counterfeiting and your car would be seized and sold as scrap. Because you'd be associating them with a cheap car, and that's what trademark is there to protect. Not the consumer, but the good name of the corporation.
Incorrect. Trademark dilution does not consider the market. Apple can sue anybody who uses "i" or "Pod" in their name anywhere, in any market.
Trademark dilution is even stronger than the "mom" test. It's not if the average person would confuse it. That's for regular trademark law. For dilution the test is "would they even think of the trademark". For example, if you name your family restaurant after your own last name, and you last name happens to be McDougal, you will lose to McDonalds even if you can show that every single person in your entire state is aware that it's not the same company. You could name it "Monolith Burger" straight from Space Quest, and if your name is in yellow with a really big M, you will STILL LOSE. Absolutely nobody would think it's the same company, but that's not the test. The test is if the famous mark holder would even enter their minds.
So, the test here is, would your mom see "Video Pod" and even THINK iPod. Doesn't matter if she thinks it's a different product, just if she even thinks iPod at any point. This is why no coffee shop can have "Bucks" in it, or "Star". This is why nobody can have "i" in their name. Note that nothing in your list of things to consider says the target being sued can't have their own trademark predating Apple's. Sure, the whole "We had it first" negates (v) since they probably didn't go back in time with intent to infringe apple's mark. But that's only one part of it! They did, after all, successfully take the iPhone trademark away from the company that was making already making an iPhone product, with a mark that predates the iPod.
Yeah, but the author has changed his mind from last time, going on CNN to say how this is intimidation and retaliation, and how burning a book in the digital age won't stop freedom, etc. But, basically, he was naming names and specific cities and buildings, and he was discussing classified operations in detail. The Pentagon wants some of that redacted. He says "I sumbitted it for approval!" but the Pentagon says he was supposed to submit it to them, not just to his superior officer. (He kept it within his unit). Last time, it sounded like both he and the publisher agreed with everything. But now he's talking to CNN about how everything they removed is "ludicrous" and none of it was important, and so on.
So, what you are saying is that they spent years failing to crack it, years. And two separate teams succeeded within such a tiny timespan after OtherOS removal by sheer and total coincidence.
All religious in civ 4 are 100% identical, and have no impact on politics except for, on rare occations, an AI leader demanding you convert or go to war. Not that it matters if you convert, as it has zero impact on anything other than perhaps cities with the same religion in them as you, get a microscopic happiness boost. And since a city can hold many religions even that doesn't actually matter for shit. (Especially since the best civics don't give this bonus anyway). It was a neat idea but they couldn't pull it off, and it deserved to go bye-bye.
They tried to make the telephone company put back the non-dial phones IN THE SENATE ITSELF. This is similar to me demanding that the phone company turn off my call display, and Slashdot running the story as "Slashdot user attempts to ban call display!!" No attempt was made to ban them.
Yeah, he could have ordered a sword online. But he didn't, he mined the ore, smelted the ore, and forged the bars into a sword (with help from a blacksmith). And, are you thinking of Terry Brooks, author of the highly derrivative Sword of Shanara series, which is basically LotR but with a sword? Seems like you are. Even if it was about Terry Brooks, greater curmudgeons than yourself have spent all day on Slashdot shitting on the work of others, work they could never ever do themselves. Try to be original.
So, let me get this straight. Oracle is "bad" because they announced that their distribution had a "modern" kernel, but it's "only" 2.6.32 with custom patches, not 2.6.35 which is totally almost 2 months old now so there's no excuse for it not to be in there!!!! And, Oracle is a jerk who just takes and takes without contributing back, because they are "only barely" in the top 20 contributors to the kernel (and the kernel is only one small part of Linux so basically they don't contribute at all). What a troll! At least the article is up-front about being written by a Novell employee. (Wait no it's not, it sort of slips that into the middle).
And Mr. Sour Grapes Novell employee is just pleased as punch over pointing out the "dirty secret" Oracle tried to hide, by publicly announcing that Oracle Linux would be running the 2.6.32 kernel, with custom patches to improve performance on certain hardware, and for Oracle software. How sneaky of them, you could never tell by reading that, that it's actually the 2.6.32 kernel (WHICH IS SO OLD HOW DARE THEY CALL IT MODERN).
You have it backwards. They took RHEL and replaced the Kernel. The Kernel is the only thing in there that ISN'T from RedHat. The "Fraud" is that TFA is crying emo tears about how "all" Oracle did was replace the custom RedHat Kernel (2.6.18 iirc) with 2.6.32 (plus custom patches). Apparently to call it a "new" kernel TFA feels they should have started entirely from scratch. Otherwise it's not "new" it's only new to the distribution, with new, coded by Oracle, patches added. Just like if you buy a used car, it's fraud to tell your friends you have a new car. It's not new somebody else had it first!
Being famous only affects whether or not it qualifies for trademark dilution law. Trademark dilution protects you from non-competing uses of your trademark, if your trademark is famous enough that the trademark is associated with your product and nothing else. eBay makes you think of the eBay auction site and nothing else. Pepsi makes you think of the drink, not of anything else. On the other hand, while Apple might make you think of computers, there are many other trademark holders who use Apple in their own markets. So, if some new company starts selling "Apple" stuff they are free as long as it is a different market than existing "Apple" companies. But, you can't make eBay apparel, as that "dilutes" the brand, because the brand would no longer identify one, and only one, product. This is pretty much global, most countries have basically the same law. While, even if your name was "George McDonald", you cannot open a McDonald's restaurant you can probably open a "McDonald's Plumbing". (Probably). Wouldn't protect you from being sued, but you would have the right! Same with if your name is, I don't know, Gerald Ford, you're allowed to call yourself Ford, you're allowed to sell things under the name Ford, you just couldn't sell cars.
However, whether you're allowed to sell a product under a trademark name, has nothing to do with being able to use it. Even well-known brands that identify a unique source cannot prevent you from using their trademarked name as a name. It would be beyond absurd to have Ford say "You cannot use the name of our company or our car in your consumer reports magazine, unless the review is sufficiently positive" and just block all negative reviews unless they say "A certain car from some manufacturer". That's just stupid (doesn't mean nobody has tried though). So, the thought that a person could ever get in trouble for having the same name is just dumb. Only if they sell a competing product under their own name.
Evolution isn't causal. It's, well, non-anti-causal, which isn't quite the same thing. That is to say, traits don't evolve in response to things, stuff without appropriate traits gets wiped out by those things. The difference is key. A trait doesn't persist because it's an advantage, it persists because it's not a sufficiently bad disadvantage, which is a weaker constraint. In the context of TFA, a gene that makes mice "dumber" doesn't mean that the gene provides a hidden advantage that has a better tradeoff, and it doesn't mean that being dumb provided a big advantage. All it means is that being dumb wasn't a disadvantage. Or, at least, wasn't a disadvantage strong enough to hurt the mice's reproductive chances. Due to statistics, and something called "neutral drift", an allele that is "neutral" in that it doesn't result in a significant disadvantage to reproduction, has a fair chance at taking over a population, over enough time. Not that it will happen a lot. But, "fair" chance here means it's not vanishingly small.
So, if a gene breaks comes into being that makes mice dumb, but being dumb doesn't stop them from finding food, evading predators, and having sex, then it's a neutral gene. So while not guaranteed to happen, there's nothing unusual about this gene becoming dominant, or in fact, part of the entire species. It certainly doesn't mean that it provides some sort of advantage as a trade-off. Genes that provide an advantage are much more likely to be passed on, until the entire species has it. But, ones that aren't strongly disadvantageous can be, too. All mammals have a gene that lets them make vitamin C. Some primates, including humans, have a broken version and so cannot produce vitamin C. That's because out ancestors ate mostly fruits and berries, which are full of vitamin C. So, when by chance we lost our ability to make it, it had no effect. This doesn't mean it provided a hidden disadvantage. It was simply not needed, so when it broke, natural selection did not kill animals who didn't have it.
So yes, truth is a defense. If the Westboro Baptist Church "takes part in public affairs", which crashing military funerals and attacking grieving families probably counts as, you are free to make "fair comment". So you can certainly say particular actions are evil of them, and make comment that such behavior implies those who takes such actions are evil scumbags.
Now, Canada also has hate speech laws. I don't think they apply if you make statements about a particular church, however. Hate speech is basically just defamation laws given teeth to protect groups without a central authority. If you defame the Catholic Church, there is a specific church with cause, and they can sue or press criminal charges, depending on severity. If you make a comment about all Christians, it was hard to sue for defamation as you needed cause. Hate speech laws let the government step in in this situation. Because hate speech laws are often criticized by people who don't understand them, I'll repeat again, that they are no stronger than defamation laws. As such, truth is a defense if you have a good faith belief in the truth of your statement. And conversely, truth is not a defense if you did not have this belief. That is, if you make up a fantastic story about what the WBC did (using your example) and it happens to be more-or-less true just by luck, the truth is not a defense because you would have made the statement even if it was false, since you had know knowledge as to the truth. Another thing is that your faith counts as truth (in that something that is an unknowable matter of faith is considered non-false). So, it is not hate speech to march around with "God Hates Fags" as the WBC does. The reason being it's a matter of faith, and so they are considered to have belief in the truth of their statements. And, the fact that this subjects gay people to "Contempt, hatred, ridicule, or scorn" is trumped by it being non-false.
Where defamation and hate crimes come back together again, is that when it says it subjects the target to "contempt, hatred, ridicule, or scorn", which is the same for hate speech and for defamation, is that means the speech has to make a reasonable person feel those things towards the victim. In a hate speech case, a person was fined for saying "Hitler was right to kill jews". On appeal it was overturned. The judge in that case said that though this opinion is vile and disgusting, nobody would read it and find themselves hating jews if they didn't already, so it's not hate speech, and if about a person, wouldn't be libel.
The only other time truth is not a defense is when a fact may be true, but private. For public officials like police and politicians, few things are considered "private". But if you say, had an ugly break up and took pictures of your ex and posted them craigslist, advertising her as "A dirty slut who wants as many guys as I can get, fuck me hard and leave I don't even need your name!" then, even if you can prove she is, in fact, a dirty slut who fucks anything with a penis, you can still be convicted of libel because this "fact" true or not, is a private fact and not your business to broadcast, especially with intent to bring her reputation harm ;) Wel
Nope.
Looks like you're right! 5 years for if you knew it was false, that must mean the other one, 2 years, is for if it's true, right? Because there's no gray area beween "known to be false" and "known to be true" so anything not known to be false is true! Oh wait, "lawful justification or excuse", fuck! They always have to cover their asses with caveats, don't they. That could mean anything! That could even mean, as the courts have held, that if you have a good faith reason to believe the statement of fact is truthful, you're off the hook. Oh wait, you don't even need to go that far because the Canadian Criminal Code doesn't stop at Article 301.
Well, fuck, huh? Looks like if you say something that harms somebody's reputation, you are OK if you have a good faith reason to believe it is true, and if it's either a matter of public opinion, or a demand for redress for a wrong against your personally. So a police officer, being a public official, can be commented on under 310, as a comment on the public actions of an official. Complaint and demands of apology can also be leveled under article 315 as well, even if the person wronging you is not a public figure. (Just so long as your complaint is not excessive given the wrong. That is, raising a national stink over your neighbor's dog pooping in your lawn, should you manage it, would probably be considered unreasonable). The truth is a defense under Canadian law. It's just not an absolute defense. Like in some states, such as Florida, the truth can fail to be a defense if, first, you only "got lucky" and had no idea it was true at the time, or secondly, if, however true, the inflammatory fact was not of public interest.
You're right that economics isn't a zero sum game. It's not because if imaginary money though, don't be absurd. It's because of this: Lets say I make $30,000 this year. But $12,000 goes to rent and utilities. $4800 on food. That leaves $13,200. So did I get paid $30,000 or did I get paid $13,200. Saying that economics is zero sum is saying that I only got paid $13,200. I didn't, I got $30,000. The fact that I spent it doesn't mean it never existed. It means I spent it. If there was only $30,000 in the entire country and I started with all of it, then spent it, the GDP is over $30,000 even though only $30,000 exists. Because I'll spend it, the people who get it after me will spend it, and so on, it keeps on flowing. GDP is a measure of money FLOW, not of money.
But, some parts are zero sum. If you presume that the amount of pop people drink in a year is a fixed value, then the cola wars are a zero sum game. Coke can only make more if Pepsi makes less. That's got nothing to do with money being finite, and everything to do with demand being finite. And the OP's example is another on of these cases. If Company X has pirated software, and switches to legitimate software, they are spending $1000 more. This extra spending does not increase their income. Now, assuming that they were just sitting on that $1000 then this improves the economy, just like broken windows do. But if they were going to spend that money anyway, it's only a redistribution of wealth. It couldn't possibly create jobs unless you can show that software development companies spend money on different things, and that somehow those different things tend to go to big spenders so the economy is more stimulated. I doubt that's the case. (Plus most of that money, in TFA's example of Canadian companies, wouldn't even be staying in the same country).
That's not what happened, though. It's not that Skyhook is incompatible. Skyhook software is allowed. My Droid came with Skyhook software on it, and on the first page with Google Maps bumped to page 2 of the app list. The issue is that Skyhook tried to force Motorola to make Skyhook always on, and make it so the user cannot use Google Location Service, or any software that relies on Google Location Service, such as Google Maps. Google said "no, you can use Skyhook as the default but you are not allowed to disable parts of the AndroidOS API" and Skyhook is crying. The Motorola AndroidOS implementation is what was decided "non-compatible", because they disabled part of the API. It's not Skyhook that's not compatible.
To add further clarification, Skyhook is suing not, as they claim, because Google said you can't use Skyhook. This is false, as Samsung phones come with serveral Skyhook-based apps installed by default, at least on Bell. No, if you read the complaint, Skyhook had a contract with Motorola that said you have to disable Google Location Services as part of the API. Google is correct that disabling the API would mean some apps in the store would not work. They have made the choice that if an Android device cannot run apps from the store even if it's on the correct version of AndroidOS, then it's not allowed on the store. Motorola was not told that they can't use Skyhook, they were told that they can't use it exclusively. Though since Google Location Service was off by default on my phone, I'm inclined to believe that Skyhook is lying when they say Google demanded that GLS be on by default, and impossible to turn off. As far as I know, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a Droid phone that uses Skyhook by default, so long as the user has the option of turning GLS on as well. You're probably even allowed to make it so Skyhook is always on and can't be disabled. But, you can't disable part of the Android API and expect to be compliant.
Here's what happened. Motorola agreed as part of the contract with Skyhook, to intentionally disable Google Location Service. Google says you cannot access the app store without all of Android being functional, and that they can't have Skyhook as the exclusive location software, and that it has to have both. Skyhook is making it out that Google Location spys on you without consent. (My Droid tells me how it works and asks if I'm sure I want to turn it on, and promises the info is anonymous, so that's a blatant lie). They also say that Google isn't saying it has to support both, they're saying it has to be always-on, which is false. Google Location Service is off by default on my phone, so I doubt there's a requirement that it can't ever be turned off. Further, my Droid phone came with a GPS Navigator software, and Layar Augmented Reality Browser, both of which show me the Skyhook logo when I run them, and both of which run fine with Google Location Services turned off, and in that case rely exclusivly on GPS and Skyhook data.
So I'm inclined to believe Skyhook is lying, or stupid. Skyhook tried to force Motorola to disable Google Location Service or else Skyhook would terminate their contract. Google said you can't do that or we won't let it on the app store, since without the full Android API we can't say the other location apps will work and it will harm the customers. Skyhook seems to be deliberately misstating this as Google Location Service being required to be "always on" and always spying on the user without consent (the repeatedly refer to it as tracking data without permission, and calling it a malicious and inferior product). Since my Samsung phone uses both Google Location Service and Skyhook, and since GLS is off by default AND doesn't mislead me, I'm inclined to believe that Skyhook is lying through their teeth.
Further, Skyhook said another draconian condition is that Motorola should have a box informing the user that Skyhook will be logging nearby WAP, just like the GOogle Location Service does when you turn it on. Skyhook says this is evil of them. Fucking hypocrites, lying and saying Google presents no information that GLS logs nearby wireless networks, and then having the gall to call being asked to do so themselves unreasonable.
We need a new razor "Never ascribe a deep and hidden meaning to what can be explained by a typo". Just pretend it says "The truth is less interesting IN reality." and "in reality" becomes a redundant phrase for emphasis.
Well, if you read the BBC article, the police confirm that they told him he's been banned. They never confirm that he's been banned, just that they told him so. At any rate, the US government policy is not to tell people they have been banned. So, it's unusual to break with protocol like this, if true. It's especially weird to break with protocol preemptively, by telling the police he's been banned PRIOR to the police doing the investigation they've been asked to do by the Secret Service.
The same thing happens to US citizens, too. If you send a threatening email to the president, or anybody in the government really, you'll get the FBI or the SS showing up to ask you a few questions. Almost always they decide it's harmless, and you get warned not to make threats even in jest. Sure, they end up on FOX when threatening a democrat, and on CNN otherwise, showing how the evil party in power abuses its power by crushing the freedom to make death threats, but it's not like they get arrested unless the SS/FBI think it's a legitimate threat.
What's more important is that this was not an EULA "license" that they "signed". This is a paper license they actually signed with a pen, prior to being given the software.
I know you can't ask Slashdot to read the article, but can't we even read the summary anymore? From the headline "US Must secure the Internet" (A change from the actual headline "US has a duty to secure the internet" to the actual NSA Director "has a responsibility to take a leadership role in securing the internet") maybe you can say they're talking about making online ID mandatory so all activities can be traced to an individuals internet license ID. Or something. But they're not. They're talking about providing expertise and advice to help others secure both public networks (like the Internet) as well as private networks (such as corporate and government networks.) This is similar to how the FDA advises the public on the proper temperature to cook your hamburger to to avoid e.coli, but doesn't send in the stormtroopers if their spy sats detect you BBQing undercooked meat. You can say that, given the government track record for incursions into their own networks, they have no business telling others how to secure their networks. And you'd probably be right, but you wouldn't be saying anything that TFA didn't say.
But, the majority of TFA is talking about how the government plans to improve the security of their own networks, and the steps that they have already taken. Very little is spent talking about their planned "leadership" roll in helping secure public and private networks across the country. It sounds an awful lot like leadership by example, however. There's no mention of new laws making security features mandatory, for example. More like just providing advice on how to secure a network, with examples of how they have improved their own security. It's being criticized as being overly broad and generalized. Which, again, is probably valid, since it's exactly the field of the people leveling the critiques. But nothing sounds malicious at all. Nothing sounds like, as people have been saying, they plan to eliminate anonymity by making all internet connections require a traceable license. That's pretty absurd, and if it's been brought up by the government, it wasn't by TFA or anybody in it. What he's saying is, the internet is important, and the government has a duty to protect it from attacks. Such as, a DDoS or other sort of attack taking down key points and knocking a substantial amount of the country offline. That would be a serious blow to the economy, so yes, the government does have a duty to do what it can to prevent that kind of attack.
Last but not least, is the quote that ends TFA.
I suppose this makes the FSF a copyright troll. They ask that people releasing under the GPL transfer all copyrights to the FSF so that they can sue to enforce the GPL. If having an agreement with a with another organization where, when your rights are infringed, you transfer the copyright to them so they can sue, instead of you, makes you a troll, then the FSF is a major-league copyright troll.
Doesn't need new hardware. It's a trivial fix. This works by exploiting a heap overflow bug in their USB drivers. All they have to do is fix the drivers and it's patched.