Mother names new born daughter "Ann de Wees Allen". Is this trademark infringement? By mother? Child? Or does it require a "Dr."? If so, who infringes, the PhD student? Or the university?
I think it is bad, as a matter of public policy, to allow trademarks on names. Otherwise I could be sued, since my name is Bob Weir.
In particular, without knowing how many applications were rejected, we don't know whether the USPTO is approving a higher percentage of applications, or whether they have just increased up their processing rates.
And without knowing the number of patent examiners on staff over time, we don't know whether any increase in processing rates was caused by spending less time on each application (less scrutiny), whether they have hired more examiners, or whether they are using technology to process applications more efficiently.
Get all those facts, number of examiners, number of applications rejected, etc., and then you might be able to draw some conclusions.
We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.
Also similar is Asimov's pyschohistory, which suggests that the problem might solved, in aggregate via statistical means.
Interesting ideas. But I think they are all wrong. The problems are combinatorial. Brains don't live in a jar. We're bombarded by information from the outside, and the complexity of these interactions is going to be something that can never be computed. Already at 59! you're at 10^80 combinations and have exceeded the number of protons in the universe. Good luck that that calculation. Ultimately our interactions with others is what makes us human. Put brain in a closed room with no contact and it will never rise above the level of a temperature regulator.
OMG, letters have post marks and tell what town the sender lives in!
OMG, caller ID gives my phone number to people that I call!
OMG, the Registry of Deeds lists my address and how much I paid for the house!
OMG, the phone book list my name, phone number and address!
We've been dealing with stuff like this for decades, right? I think the danger is more about the contents of your tweets ("I am on vacation") than the metadata ("I live here"). I can probably find your address if I wanted, even without Flickr metadata.
Of course, metadata can lie as well. Maybe I want to say, "I have a big coin collection" in Twitter and put photos of it all over the place on the web, but with false geotag data to make it look like it came from someone else's home. Because of that risk, even those who do not use Twitter, or the iPhone or Flickr are also at risk. Gee. maybe we should just lock our doors at night.
The fact that the US thinks it is legal under US law is not really the point, is it? What counts is jurisdiction. And if Marc proposes that the FBI grab foreign nationals in countries like Iceland, Sweden, etc., where it is against local law, then that is a problem with jurisdiction.
If Swedish police caught the FBI grabbing an Australian citizen on Swedish soil, I assume that is a crime, regardless of what the U.S thinks about. How could it not be?
Would the U.S. be happy if the Chinese starting grabbing Tibetan dissidents in the US, arguing that this is (hypothetically) allowed under Chinese law?
...but Marc Thiessen is downright scary. Secret indictments. Grabbing foreign citizens in other countries against local laws and extradition treaties. Are you kidding, Marc? Want to bring back the Alien and Sedition Acts while you're at it?
I'm not sure that a regime where stuff like this happens is really worth protecting in the name of "national security".
An inefficient system is a boon for those who benefit from helping people manage the inefficiency. Make the system more efficient and they lose. Sometimes they revolt as did the Piemen of Erie.
I didn't say JSB "ditched" the organ or harpsichord. But he didn't shy from the new technology either. There are several contemporary documents describing his use of the pianoforte, an instrument which had recently been introduced into Germany by Gottfried Silbermann. The most famous instance was in 1747 when Bach visited Frederick I in Potsdam and played on 7 different Silbermann fortepianos.
In other words, a computer doesn't replace an instrument, it replaces a musician, and does so very poorly.
Actually I think Bach would have been very happy to replace some of his musicians, especially the famed "Nanny-goat" bassoonist he complained about. He was rarely happy at the quality of his musician. Leipzig was not exactly Dresden if you know what I mean.
I think the point is not to make un-human music, to eliminate the weakest link between composer-conductor-musician-recording-audience. Replacing the musician with a synthesizer allows the conductor to more precisely get what he wants. Replacing the conductor would be the next logical step.
Remember, the history of composition is the history of composers notating more and more exactly what they want. From the the use of accidentals to replace musica ficta, to metronome markings, to detailed expression and phrase markings, the progression has been to reduce the corrupting contributions of the conductor and musicians. Personally, I think that is a good thing.
If a composer can notate the exact performance he intended, and guarantee that it would be performed exactly that way, why is that such a bad thing? We see the Mona Lisa how Da Vinci painted it, not as interpreted by some 2nd rate modern artist. We read Shakespeare according to the First Folio, not as a retelling by modern scribblers. We view Michelangelo's David how sculpted it, not as interpreted by some minor contemporary talent. Why should the composer's art be treated so poorly compared to other arts? Yes, we had technical constraints before, but those constraints are disappearing. This is a great thing, IMHO.
Critics see synthesizers as little better than some barbarian force trampling the classical music landscape.
Example: J.S. Bach didn't hide from the newly invented piano and cry "Ach, mein Gott, give me mein harpsichord and save me from the barbarian pianoforte". No, Bach took the piano and made it his bitch. Ditto for Telemann and the keyed flute.
And remember, electronic instruments have been part of classical music since the 1930's and Edgard Varèse.
If you want to hold back the evolution of musical instruments, then you might as well throw away your violin and go back to banging sticks and stones together.
It sounds more like this: If there was life on Mars, then these rocks remind someone of rocks in Australia that preserved evidence of early life on Earth.
This does not imply by any means that the existence of these rocks raises the probability that there was life on Mars.
Compare: We discovered life on Earth in a red rock. We found red rocks on Mars, therefore they might be hiding evidence of life! Or not...
For example, pink cars might garner a greater degree of derision, leading to a greater incidence of vandalism. They might be pulled over more for speeding. Their owners might be more often victims of other crimes. Mechanics might inflate prices more.
What you want to look at is the "total cost of ownership" for the car over a period of time, as a function of color.
But ditto for other things as well. I can ask a normal question, a rhetorical question, a negative question, a hesitant question, a imperative question, a leading question, a disbelieving question, even a sarcastic question. Should we have a glyph for each of them? Really? Are you kidding? What makes sarcasm so special compared to every other language nuance that it requires its own glyph?
I think the general trend over the last 100 years has been to reduce the variety of punctuation marks in use, not increase them. The semi-colon is seldom seen these days, at least not used correctly. It is being replaced by the comma in many cases. Ellipsis is now generally replaced by periods. Hyphens, em- and en-dash are now all conflated, except by typographers and the more fastidious editors. So the general trend is to reduce the number of punctuation marks in use.
Generally, if it is not on their keyboard, users don't use it.
I see no reason to perpetuate the vanity of the Artist Formally Known as Prince for adding new glyphs just to be trendy.
And contrary to freezing language, I'd suggest it should follow practice, but until I actually see sarcastic Ethiopians on Slashdot with their special character, I suggest this is all just idle mischief.
Hard to argue that it is essential if we've had 2500 years of written Indo-European languages and we managed to express sarcasm just fine without requiring another character. If we lacked something essential I assume the Gauls would have added it 1800 years ago. They were far more sarcastic than us moderns.
Note I have nothing against a parenthetical expression or other notation using existing characters. This might be good for expressing a variety of things, like "This sentence is funny" or "This phrase is brilliant" or "This rhymes but only if you pronounce it funny". The later would work very well with Gilbert and Sullivan operettas.
A good analogy would be to any of the existing editorial notes we can make, such as "sic" to indicate that something is copied literally, including errors. We didn't need a new character for that, did we?
Well, duh. Writing is not the same as speaking. There are lot of things that are lacking in writing: accents, intonation, gesture, body language, etc. Should we encode them all? Should we write in the International Phonetic Alphabet with notated choreography and stage directions?
Of course not. Writing is different than speaking, and we adapt our use of language to the medium. One is not worse than the other. They are merely different. But trying to pretend they are two forms of the same thing... this is not the path to sanity.
If you need a punctuation mark to express sarcasm then you are not doing it right.
It is like a laugh track or a drum rimshot to indicate a joke's punchline. It only accompanies the worst forms of humor.
I'm reminded of Laurence Olivier's remark to Dustin Hoffman, who had subjected himself to sleep deprivation to prepare himself for his role in "Marathon Man". Hoffman came onto the set, looking like hell, and explained what he did to prepare. Olivier said, "Dear chap, next time try acting." No special punctuation mark needed.
Slashdot Mirror
... that cameras are not allowed in many/most court rooms.
But that is a trademark on weight loss products. It isn't a trademark on a person's name.
Mother names new born daughter "Ann de Wees Allen". Is this trademark infringement? By mother? Child? Or does it require a "Dr."? If so, who infringes, the PhD student? Or the university?
I think it is bad, as a matter of public policy, to allow trademarks on names. Otherwise I could be sued, since my name is Bob Weir.
It comes from reduced spending someplace else? Or increasing consumer or business debt, right?
This is an old, old economic fallacy. I tried to debunk it once in a blog post: "Broken Windows and the Ghost of Keynes" but you can't kill the undead.
...how does a tolerant society deal with intolerance?
There are many inconsistent and hypocritical ways of answering this question. I'm not sure there are any good answers.
This "church" is doing to tolerance what Gödel did to mathematics -- showing its internal contradictions.
In particular, without knowing how many applications were rejected, we don't know whether the USPTO is approving a higher percentage of applications, or whether they have just increased up their processing rates.
And without knowing the number of patent examiners on staff over time, we don't know whether any increase in processing rates was caused by spending less time on each application (less scrutiny), whether they have hired more examiners, or whether they are using technology to process applications more efficiently.
Get all those facts, number of examiners, number of applications rejected, etc., and then you might be able to draw some conclusions.
Also similar is Asimov's pyschohistory, which suggests that the problem might solved, in aggregate via statistical means.
Interesting ideas. But I think they are all wrong. The problems are combinatorial. Brains don't live in a jar. We're bombarded by information from the outside, and the complexity of these interactions is going to be something that can never be computed. Already at 59! you're at 10^80 combinations and have exceeded the number of protons in the universe. Good luck that that calculation. Ultimately our interactions with others is what makes us human. Put brain in a closed room with no contact and it will never rise above the level of a temperature regulator.
OMG, letters have post marks and tell what town the sender lives in!
OMG, caller ID gives my phone number to people that I call!
OMG, the Registry of Deeds lists my address and how much I paid for the house!
OMG, the phone book list my name, phone number and address!
We've been dealing with stuff like this for decades, right? I think the danger is more about the contents of your tweets ("I am on vacation") than the metadata ("I live here"). I can probably find your address if I wanted, even without Flickr metadata.
Of course, metadata can lie as well. Maybe I want to say, "I have a big coin collection" in Twitter and put photos of it all over the place on the web, but with false geotag data to make it look like it came from someone else's home. Because of that risk, even those who do not use Twitter, or the iPhone or Flickr are also at risk. Gee. maybe we should just lock our doors at night.
...but I sometimes forget where I put it.
The fact that the US thinks it is legal under US law is not really the point, is it? What counts is jurisdiction. And if Marc proposes that the FBI grab foreign nationals in countries like Iceland, Sweden, etc., where it is against local law, then that is a problem with jurisdiction.
If Swedish police caught the FBI grabbing an Australian citizen on Swedish soil, I assume that is a crime, regardless of what the U.S thinks about. How could it not be?
Would the U.S. be happy if the Chinese starting grabbing Tibetan dissidents in the US, arguing that this is (hypothetically) allowed under Chinese law?
...but Marc Thiessen is downright scary. Secret indictments. Grabbing foreign citizens in other countries against local laws and extradition treaties. Are you kidding, Marc? Want to bring back the Alien and Sedition Acts while you're at it?
I'm not sure that a regime where stuff like this happens is really worth protecting in the name of "national security".
An inefficient system is a boon for those who benefit from helping people manage the inefficiency. Make the system more efficient and they lose. Sometimes they revolt as did the Piemen of Erie.
I didn't say JSB "ditched" the organ or harpsichord. But he didn't shy from the new technology either. There are several contemporary documents describing his use of the pianoforte, an instrument which had recently been introduced into Germany by Gottfried Silbermann. The most famous instance was in 1747 when Bach visited Frederick I in Potsdam and played on 7 different Silbermann fortepianos.
Actually I think Bach would have been very happy to replace some of his musicians, especially the famed "Nanny-goat" bassoonist he complained about. He was rarely happy at the quality of his musician. Leipzig was not exactly Dresden if you know what I mean.
I think the point is not to make un-human music, to eliminate the weakest link between composer-conductor-musician-recording-audience. Replacing the musician with a synthesizer allows the conductor to more precisely get what he wants. Replacing the conductor would be the next logical step.
Remember, the history of composition is the history of composers notating more and more exactly what they want. From the the use of accidentals to replace musica ficta, to metronome markings, to detailed expression and phrase markings, the progression has been to reduce the corrupting contributions of the conductor and musicians. Personally, I think that is a good thing.
If a composer can notate the exact performance he intended, and guarantee that it would be performed exactly that way, why is that such a bad thing? We see the Mona Lisa how Da Vinci painted it, not as interpreted by some 2nd rate modern artist. We read Shakespeare according to the First Folio, not as a retelling by modern scribblers. We view Michelangelo's David how sculpted it, not as interpreted by some minor contemporary talent. Why should the composer's art be treated so poorly compared to other arts? Yes, we had technical constraints before, but those constraints are disappearing. This is a great thing, IMHO.
Example: J.S. Bach didn't hide from the newly invented piano and cry "Ach, mein Gott, give me mein harpsichord and save me from the barbarian pianoforte". No, Bach took the piano and made it his bitch. Ditto for Telemann and the keyed flute.
And remember, electronic instruments have been part of classical music since the 1930's and Edgard Varèse.
If you want to hold back the evolution of musical instruments, then you might as well throw away your violin and go back to banging sticks and stones together.
Sir, I defer to your greater experience in this matter.
Name one profession that is _not_ filled with petty politics, sucking up to superiors, back stabbing and arguing over parking spots?
The difference is only academics write a thick book about it.
It sounds more like this: If there was life on Mars, then these rocks remind someone of rocks in Australia that preserved evidence of early life on Earth.
This does not imply by any means that the existence of these rocks raises the probability that there was life on Mars.
Compare: We discovered life on Earth in a red rock. We found red rocks on Mars, therefore they might be hiding evidence of life! Or not...
For example, pink cars might garner a greater degree of derision, leading to a greater incidence of vandalism. They might be pulled over more for speeding. Their owners might be more often victims of other crimes. Mechanics might inflate prices more.
What you want to look at is the "total cost of ownership" for the car over a period of time, as a function of color.
A good blog that covers this and similar issue is here: http://carlosmiller.com/
You may be surprised to see that this is not an isolated incident.
But ditto for other things as well. I can ask a normal question, a rhetorical question, a negative question, a hesitant question, a imperative question, a leading question, a disbelieving question, even a sarcastic question. Should we have a glyph for each of them? Really? Are you kidding? What makes sarcasm so special compared to every other language nuance that it requires its own glyph?
I think the general trend over the last 100 years has been to reduce the variety of punctuation marks in use, not increase them. The semi-colon is seldom seen these days, at least not used correctly. It is being replaced by the comma in many cases. Ellipsis is now generally replaced by periods. Hyphens, em- and en-dash are now all conflated, except by typographers and the more fastidious editors. So the general trend is to reduce the number of punctuation marks in use.
Generally, if it is not on their keyboard, users don't use it.
I see no reason to perpetuate the vanity of the Artist Formally Known as Prince for adding new glyphs just to be trendy.
And contrary to freezing language, I'd suggest it should follow practice, but until I actually see sarcastic Ethiopians on Slashdot with their special character, I suggest this is all just idle mischief.
Hard to argue that it is essential if we've had 2500 years of written Indo-European languages and we managed to express sarcasm just fine without requiring another character. If we lacked something essential I assume the Gauls would have added it 1800 years ago. They were far more sarcastic than us moderns.
Note I have nothing against a parenthetical expression or other notation using existing characters. This might be good for expressing a variety of things, like "This sentence is funny" or "This phrase is brilliant" or "This rhymes but only if you pronounce it funny". The later would work very well with Gilbert and Sullivan operettas.
A good analogy would be to any of the existing editorial notes we can make, such as "sic" to indicate that something is copied literally, including errors. We didn't need a new character for that, did we?
Well, duh. Writing is not the same as speaking. There are lot of things that are lacking in writing: accents, intonation, gesture, body language, etc. Should we encode them all? Should we write in the International Phonetic Alphabet with notated choreography and stage directions?
Of course not. Writing is different than speaking, and we adapt our use of language to the medium. One is not worse than the other. They are merely different. But trying to pretend they are two forms of the same thing... this is not the path to sanity.
If you need a punctuation mark to express sarcasm then you are not doing it right.
It is like a laugh track or a drum rimshot to indicate a joke's punchline. It only accompanies the worst forms of humor.
I'm reminded of Laurence Olivier's remark to Dustin Hoffman, who had subjected himself to sleep deprivation to prepare himself for his role in "Marathon Man". Hoffman came onto the set, looking like hell, and explained what he did to prepare. Olivier said, "Dear chap, next time try acting." No special punctuation mark needed.