I can understand Amazon not wanting erotic books to show up when social conservatives or children do searches, but the implementation described makes no sense. If they want users to be able to filter, give them the choice the way Google does. Perhaps even default to "safe search", but allow users to choose "full search", or provide a more nuanced system with multiple categories that can be excluded.
In any case, there's no reason that a book should be excluded from sales rank in order to exclude it from search results. Surely Amazon has better programmers than that.
No, I'm not mistaken. Trademarks are registered for specific market segments. The "famous mark" provision that you cite allows holders of some marks to claim the mark outside the registered segment(s), but most marks don't fall into this category. It is intended for marks that are not only well known but associated with diverse market segments, e.g. "Sears". Even if Goldman Sachs is very well known in the financial services area, the fact that it is restricted to this one market segment and, for that matter, is unknown to people who know nothing about financial services, militate rather strongly against "famous mark" status.
He isn't in the financial services market if he isn't offering financial services. Since he isn't selling anything, he isn't really in any market, but if you have to specify one, it is presumably journalism.
The C and D letter itself undermines its argument. It notes that Goldmann Sachs owns the trademark "in the financial services market". Trademarks are restricted to particular market segments. The fact that Goldmann Sachs owns that trademark in the financial services market does not prevent others from using the same trademark in other market segments. If you want to start a chain of "Goldmann Sachs Cheeseburgers", you are free to do so. So, not only is GoldmannSachs666 clearly distinct from GoldmannSachs, but since it isn't in the financial services market, it wouldn't infringe even if it weren't distinct.
Well, to be fair, Obama has a few other items on his plate. The economic mess and the war in Iraq, for example, are no doubt far more important right now. I'm hoping that this is just inertia in the DOJ on an issue to which the new administration hasn't had time to attend. That may be wrong, in which case I'll be disappointed, but I'm willing to give them a little while to fix things.
The article says that he died of smoke inhalation. I'm sure that isn't fun, but it is not nearly as painful as burning to death. Fortunately, many fire victims actually die of smoke inhalation/lack of oxygen rather than from burns.
What makes you think that there is anything wrong with using bamboo scaffolding? Bamboo is strong, light, and flexible. Bamboo scaffolding is easy and quick to put up. When you're done with it, it is biodegradable and you don't need to expend a lot of effort to transport it elsewhere. I'm not aware of any evidence that there are safety issues with it.
This isn't coming from the Palace, it is coming from the military. It's the Thai version going after the opposition for not being sufficiently patriotic. I've read that the King actually doesn't approve of harassing people for lese majeste.
This is indeed sneaky, but if the law is sufficiently unpopular, when the other 561 members return they can repeal it. And with luck some who were not firmly opposed before will be sufficiently angry at being bypassed that they will vote to repeal.
But are you sure that in Texas such decisions are made by competant IT professionals? I wouldn't be surprised if: (a) decisions about software purchases are made separately for different parts of the state government; (b) in at least some of them people who aren't all that savvy make the decisions. It is also possible that even the IT pros are heavily invested in Microsoft and do pretty much what Microsoft says to do. So this may not be an instance of ridiculous micromanagement.
No, its exactly the other way around. In the evolution controversy, we have theologians (or, rather, most of the time, preachers) trying to make scientific decisions.
I think we should give credit to the RIAA. They no doubt realize that exposing children to the persistent irrationality of their arguments might retard their cognitive growth and reduce their faith in the legal system. In opposing the broadcast, they're just thinking of the children.
Nothing on erth is an absolute defense against anything.
This is not true. In law, there certainly is such a thing as an absolute defense. An absolute defense contrasts with a conditional defense. In most jurisdictions in the US, truth is an absolute defense to libel in the sense that, if the defendant can prove that what he said is true, he cannot be held liable for libel.
Truth is both an affirmative defense and an absolute defense against libel. They don't conflict. An affirmative defense is one in which the burden of proof is on the defendant.
An absolute defense is one which, if proven, is entirely sufficient to prevent conviction. That is, if the defendant can show that what he said is true, a ruling for the plaintiff is impossible. Because truth is an affirmative defense, the burden of proof is on the defendant to establish the truth of what he said.
US law is different. In the US a defamatory statement must be false in order to be
actionable. There is no such "public interest" restriction". Truth is an absolute defense virtually everywhere in the US.
(La)TeX is widely used in Math, Computer Science, Physics, and some areas of engineering. It is also used by a subset of linguists. The great majority of people that I know in the humanities and social sciences have no idea what LaTeX is. They use MS Word (many with nostalgia for WordPerfect), or sometimes, e.g. in East Asian Languages, Nisus Writer. I myself have done almost all of my writing for many years in TeX. (That's TeX, NOT LaTeX.) I've written certain things recently using OpenOffice.org, in some cases because it was more convenient but mostly because all too many publishers and editors insist on MS Word.
This only works if software is running on your host? Well, there are plenty of circumstances in which people can't install software on your system but could be
monitoring EM from outside. In those circumstances, then, use of an on-screen keyboard is secure, isn't it?
Also, granted that one can pick up mouse signals, don't they just indicate how much the mouse moved and the direction? If so, in order to translate that into key strokes, you need to know not only the layout of the on-screen keyboard, which you can't know unless you can construct the image from EFI and the keyboard is appropriately labelled on the screen, but you need to know the point of origin of the mouse.
There are a great many circumstances in which you can be sure that no one else is in the room and that no video camera can see your screen but in which electromagnetic monitoring is possible. So, yes, there are ways of spying on someone using an on-screen keyboard, but in many circumstances it is far more secure than a regular keyboard.
A surefire way to get around keyboard monitoring is not to use one. It is admittedly rather tedious, but if you have good cause to be concerned about security, you can use an on-screen keyboard. As far as I know, they can't obtain the necessary information by monitoring your mouse signals.
Martus, a package aimed at human rights workers who need to keep their activities secret from hostile governments, includes an on-screen keyboard.
Leaving aside the issue of users' rights, as far as I can see Amazon is just plain wrong on the law and lacks legal justification for the takedown notice. What the DMCA prohibits is the distribution of tools for overcoming technical measures for protecting copyrighted materials. The first program generates a MOBI ID from a kindle serial number. The second program rewrites a non-Amazon ebook so that it contains the id that will allow it to work on the Kindle with the given serial number. Neither program modifies or copies the Kindle's software. Since the ebooks in question are not produced by Amazon, no material whose copyright belongs to Amazon is affected in any way. In other words, this software does not defeat any technical measure of Amazon's for protecting copyrighted material since Amazon has no copyrighted material at stake here. The DMCA is inapplicable, and the takedown notice invalid.
Indeed, it is so clear that this software does nothing to defeat protection of copyrighted material that I would say that the takedown notice was issued in bad faith.
What this software actually does is allow for interoperability, which is explicitly protected by the DMCA.
I don't think that "Catholic" in that context means what you think it means. It is not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church: rather, it means "universal", as in "he has catholic tastes". The use of Catholic by itself to designate the Roman Catholic Church is shorthand. There are other churches that consider themselves "Catholic".
The company that makes the error-free banking systems is the original Diebold company. The company that makes the awful voting machines was called Global Election Systems when Diebold bought it in 2002. So, although Diebold now owns both, the people who designed the banking machines and the people who designed the voting machines are entirely different. Diebold is still at fault for failing to fix or scrap the voting machines and for allowing its voting machine subsidiary to play fast and loose with election rules, but it isn't responsible for the original design. See Diebold.
Slashdot Mirror
I can understand Amazon not wanting erotic books to show up when social conservatives or children do searches, but the implementation described makes no sense. If they want users to be able to filter, give them the choice the way Google does. Perhaps even default to "safe search", but allow users to choose "full search", or provide a more nuanced system with multiple categories that can be excluded.
In any case, there's no reason that a book should be excluded from sales rank in order to exclude it from search results. Surely Amazon has better programmers than that.
No, I'm not mistaken. Trademarks are registered for specific market segments. The "famous mark" provision that you cite allows holders of some marks to claim the mark outside the registered segment(s), but most marks don't fall into this category. It is intended for marks that are not only well known but associated with diverse market segments, e.g. "Sears". Even if Goldman Sachs is very well known in the financial services area, the fact that it is restricted to this one market segment and, for that matter, is unknown to people who know nothing about financial services, militate rather strongly against "famous mark" status.
He isn't in the financial services market if he isn't offering financial services. Since he isn't selling anything, he isn't really in any market, but if you have to specify one, it is presumably journalism.
The C and D letter itself undermines its argument. It notes that Goldmann Sachs owns the trademark "in the financial services market". Trademarks are restricted to particular market segments. The fact that Goldmann Sachs owns that trademark in the financial services market does not prevent others from using the same trademark in other market segments. If you want to start a chain of "Goldmann Sachs Cheeseburgers", you are free to do so. So, not only is GoldmannSachs666 clearly distinct from GoldmannSachs, but since it isn't in the financial services market, it wouldn't infringe even if it weren't distinct.
Well, to be fair, Obama has a few other items on his plate. The economic mess and the war in Iraq, for example, are no doubt far more important right now. I'm hoping that this is just inertia in the DOJ on an issue to which the new administration hasn't had time to attend. That may be wrong, in which case I'll be disappointed, but I'm willing to give them a little while to fix things.
The article says that he died of smoke inhalation. I'm sure that isn't fun, but it is not nearly as painful as burning to death. Fortunately, many fire victims actually die of smoke inhalation/lack of oxygen rather than from burns.
What makes you think that there is anything wrong with using bamboo scaffolding? Bamboo is strong, light, and flexible. Bamboo scaffolding is easy and quick to put up. When you're done with it, it is biodegradable and you don't need to expend a lot of effort to transport it elsewhere. I'm not aware of any evidence that there are safety issues with it.
This isn't coming from the Palace, it is coming from the military. It's the Thai version going after the opposition for not being sufficiently patriotic. I've read that the King actually doesn't approve of harassing people for lese majeste.
You know, Firefox could really use a goatse filter.
This is indeed sneaky, but if the law is sufficiently unpopular, when the other 561 members return they can repeal it. And with luck some who were not firmly opposed before will be sufficiently angry at being bypassed that they will vote to repeal.
But are you sure that in Texas such decisions are made by competant IT professionals? I wouldn't be surprised if: (a) decisions about software purchases are made separately for different parts of the state government; (b) in at least some of them people who aren't all that savvy make the decisions. It is also possible that even the IT pros are heavily invested in Microsoft and do pretty much what Microsoft says to do. So this may not be an instance of ridiculous micromanagement.
No, its exactly the other way around. In the evolution controversy, we have theologians (or, rather, most of the time, preachers) trying to make scientific decisions.
I think we should give credit to the RIAA. They no doubt realize that exposing children to the persistent irrationality of their arguments might retard their cognitive growth and reduce their faith in the legal system. In opposing the broadcast, they're just thinking of the children.
This is not true. In law, there certainly is such a thing as an absolute defense. An absolute defense contrasts with a conditional defense. In most jurisdictions in the US, truth is an absolute defense to libel in the sense that, if the defendant can prove that what he said is true, he cannot be held liable for libel.
Truth is both an affirmative defense and an absolute defense against libel. They don't conflict. An affirmative defense is one in which the burden of proof is on the defendant. An absolute defense is one which, if proven, is entirely sufficient to prevent conviction. That is, if the defendant can show that what he said is true, a ruling for the plaintiff is impossible. Because truth is an affirmative defense, the burden of proof is on the defendant to establish the truth of what he said.
US law is different. In the US a defamatory statement must be false in order to be actionable. There is no such "public interest" restriction". Truth is an absolute defense virtually everywhere in the US.
(La)TeX is widely used in Math, Computer Science, Physics, and some areas of engineering. It is also used by a subset of linguists. The great majority of people that I know in the humanities and social sciences have no idea what LaTeX is. They use MS Word (many with nostalgia for WordPerfect), or sometimes, e.g. in East Asian Languages, Nisus Writer. I myself have done almost all of my writing for many years in TeX. (That's TeX, NOT LaTeX.) I've written certain things recently using OpenOffice.org, in some cases because it was more convenient but mostly because all too many publishers and editors insist on MS Word.
This only works if software is running on your host? Well, there are plenty of circumstances in which people can't install software on your system but could be monitoring EM from outside. In those circumstances, then, use of an on-screen keyboard is secure, isn't it?
Also, granted that one can pick up mouse signals, don't they just indicate how much the mouse moved and the direction? If so, in order to translate that into key strokes, you need to know not only the layout of the on-screen keyboard, which you can't know unless you can construct the image from EFI and the keyboard is appropriately labelled on the screen, but you need to know the point of origin of the mouse.
There are a great many circumstances in which you can be sure that no one else is in the room and that no video camera can see your screen but in which electromagnetic monitoring is possible. So, yes, there are ways of spying on someone using an on-screen keyboard, but in many circumstances it is far more secure than a regular keyboard.
A surefire way to get around keyboard monitoring is not to use one. It is admittedly rather tedious, but if you have good cause to be concerned about security, you can use an on-screen keyboard. As far as I know, they can't obtain the necessary information by monitoring your mouse signals.
Martus, a package aimed at human rights workers who need to keep their activities secret from hostile governments, includes an on-screen keyboard.
Leaving aside the issue of users' rights, as far as I can see Amazon is just plain wrong on the law and lacks legal justification for the takedown notice. What the DMCA prohibits is the distribution of tools for overcoming technical measures for protecting copyrighted materials. The first program generates a MOBI ID from a kindle serial number. The second program rewrites a non-Amazon ebook so that it contains the id that will allow it to work on the Kindle with the given serial number. Neither program modifies or copies the Kindle's software. Since the ebooks in question are not produced by Amazon, no material whose copyright belongs to Amazon is affected in any way. In other words, this software does not defeat any technical measure of Amazon's for protecting copyrighted material since Amazon has no copyrighted material at stake here. The DMCA is inapplicable, and the takedown notice invalid. Indeed, it is so clear that this software does nothing to defeat protection of copyrighted material that I would say that the takedown notice was issued in bad faith.
What this software actually does is allow for interoperability, which is explicitly protected by the DMCA.
I don't think that "Catholic" in that context means what you think it means. It is not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church: rather, it means "universal", as in "he has catholic tastes". The use of Catholic by itself to designate the Roman Catholic Church is shorthand. There are other churches that consider themselves "Catholic".
The company that makes the error-free banking systems is the original Diebold company. The company that makes the awful voting machines was called Global Election Systems when Diebold bought it in 2002. So, although Diebold now owns both, the people who designed the banking machines and the people who designed the voting machines are entirely different. Diebold is still at fault for failing to fix or scrap the voting machines and for allowing its voting machine subsidiary to play fast and loose with election rules, but it isn't responsible for the original design. See Diebold.
But what if the contents of address 0 happens to be equal to CONSTANT? In that case the value of the expression will be 1, which is an error.
If that is true, the language compiled by the IBM POWER XLC compiler is not C. The C standard requires short-circuit evaluation of logical and.