Now if the ad itself said Larry Miller Ford and gave the appearance of being a link to the actual Larry Miller Ford and then linked to a page that looked like Larry Miller Ford but when you actually contact the phone numbers on site it's John Walker Automotive, then you would have a clear case of Trademark infringement. That's exactly what the GP said the case was about. Read for comprehension, much?
Except it's _not_ latin-based hypercorrection. it's just yet another idiosyncracy of the English language. "Antennae" is the correct _english_ plural of "antenna", regardless of whether it's the subject or object. There are no rules for these things, just a giant list. English is funny that way.
The nominative and accusative cases are not* part of English. The form "antennae" is. Latin has nothing to do with it, except that it's one of the many languages that English has stolen vocabulary from.
Alice and Bob haven't started talking yet. Why? Comcast is doing this in the middle of ongoing connections, not merely preventing them from being established in the first place. (left this off my last post)
When does a very minor act of mimicking someone else become a full-blown act of impersonation? It's a matter of intent - your "M syllable" example lacks that, whereas in this example, and of the RST packets, Comcast (or, for Alice & Bob, we'll say Carol, that's the traditional "C" there, isn't it?) is actually intending for the packet to be interpreted as having been sent by the other party.
I love the entire premise: if you vote FOR anything MS related... your country is corrupt. If you vote against it... your country isn't corrupt. Except if you'd RTFS, you'd see that it was actually finding that all the countries which are corrupt by a completely unrelated measurement are also, by (i'm sure) complete coincidence, the ones that voted for MS.
Actually, since the IP in the header is a specific claim to be the computer in question, not a "mere similarity", then given the fact that it's still a small amount of information means a better analogy would be - Alice and Bob are having a conversation, and you, hiding around a corner, mimic Bob's voice and yell "shut up!"
the countries in question nationalized their oil production - which was by and large owned by western corporations at the time. In effect, the countries in question stole from the West. And how did those western corporations get the oil in the first place, if not by stealing it?
That's like saying that posting on e.g. photobucket is automatically an infringement even if your intention is to use it in a forum post which would include commentary.
OK, but is it smart enough to underline "bgcolr" if you typo for bgcolor?
(yeah, that's what syntax highlighting is for - vim syntax highlighting, at least, isn't smart enough to catch if it's a valid attribute but doesn't belong to this kind of element, say, )
Hardly any C library functions are real words. Plus, matching the actual name of a function is more important than being "spelled right", so far from checking actual code, it could essentially ONLY check function prototypes and variable declarations, and tell you to refactor-rename them.
Experienced lawyers don't agree about it not because of any complexity naturally present in the law, but because artificial complexity enables them to keep their high-paying jobs.
"trustworthiness" doesn't enter into whether something gets edited out, for precisely the same reason a need for this is perceived at all: it can be edited by anyone!
and no case for putting it on YouTube. If he hosted the clip on his own server, things would be a bit different. How the HELL does his choice of hosting services make any difference?
If anyone seriously expects to get legal advice from a web forum, especially slashdot, they deserve what they get - "I am not a lawyer" is implied by now.
Probably testing the waters (i.e. make sure they're intimidated into doing whatever the thieves say) before giving them bank account information to do the wire transfers.
While Viacom was stupid in this matter, they are techhnically correct (the best kind of correct;-)). He did infringe Viacom's copyright - they own everything surrounding his clip that was a part of that program. No, it's an unauthorized derivative work - they own NOTHING. 17 USC 103(a).
Actually, a derivative work created in violation of copyright law does not have _any_ copyright protection of its own. If they infringed his copyright, they have no copyright.
You were right about what, exactly? It's still a link, and it's still underlined. Can I assume your incoherent post means that it works for you now? It seems more likely the problem was with your browser [and somehow it fixed itself, maybe you restarted it] than with slashdot.
What are they links to, genius? The individual comment. However, with javascript enabled it instead acts as an expand/collapse button (though middle-clicking will still open the comment in a new tab)
What does the status bar say when you hover on 'em? It says "http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=282945&cid=20 402197"
What website does it take you to? The above-mentioned URL.
How come no other article has fake-link underlines on the subjects of every comment? They all have, for me, for months now.
It's intended to be available to _a_ member of the public, but the plural doesn't work for that - so does this mean google only owns emails I send to two or more people?
Actually - it's intended to be available to both myself and the person I send it to. That's two "members of the public" right there.
Slashdot Mirror
Except it's _not_ latin-based hypercorrection. it's just yet another idiosyncracy of the English language. "Antennae" is the correct _english_ plural of "antenna", regardless of whether it's the subject or object. There are no rules for these things, just a giant list. English is funny that way.
$.0195 cents per kb, you say?
The nominative and accusative cases are not* part of English. The form "antennae" is. Latin has nothing to do with it, except that it's one of the many languages that English has stolen vocabulary from.
*except for pronouns.
Alice and Bob haven't started talking yet. Why? Comcast is doing this in the middle of ongoing connections, not merely preventing them from being established in the first place. (left this off my last post)
Actually, since the IP in the header is a specific claim to be the computer in question, not a "mere similarity", then given the fact that it's still a small amount of information means a better analogy would be - Alice and Bob are having a conversation, and you, hiding around a corner, mimic Bob's voice and yell "shut up!"
no, clearly he meant you need to keep all your _identifiers_ in external files too, by "interface" he means API
Yeah, but the feature this post is asking for is for it to pick out spelling mistakes in _identifiers_.
That's like saying that posting on e.g. photobucket is automatically an infringement even if your intention is to use it in a forum post which would include commentary.
OK, but is it smart enough to underline "bgcolr" if you typo for bgcolor?
(yeah, that's what syntax highlighting is for - vim syntax highlighting, at least, isn't smart enough to catch if it's a valid attribute but doesn't belong to this kind of element, say, )
Hardly any C library functions are real words. Plus, matching the actual name of a function is more important than being "spelled right", so far from checking actual code, it could essentially ONLY check function prototypes and variable declarations, and tell you to refactor-rename them.
Experienced lawyers don't agree about it not because of any complexity naturally present in the law, but because artificial complexity enables them to keep their high-paying jobs.
"trustworthiness" doesn't enter into whether something gets edited out, for precisely the same reason a need for this is perceived at all: it can be edited by anyone!
If anyone seriously expects to get legal advice from a web forum, especially slashdot, they deserve what they get - "I am not a lawyer" is implied by now.
Probably testing the waters (i.e. make sure they're intimidated into doing whatever the thieves say) before giving them bank account information to do the wire transfers.
Actually, a derivative work created in violation of copyright law does not have _any_ copyright protection of its own. If they infringed his copyright, they have no copyright.
(not a lawyer, but neither are you)
You were right about what, exactly? It's still a link, and it's still underlined. Can I assume your incoherent post means that it works for you now? It seems more likely the problem was with your browser [and somehow it fixed itself, maybe you restarted it] than with slashdot.
It's intended to be available to _a_ member of the public, but the plural doesn't work for that - so does this mean google only owns emails I send to two or more people?
Actually - it's intended to be available to both myself and the person I send it to. That's two "members of the public" right there.