With all the censoring China does, it sounds to me like it's just an excuse to hire 20000 people to read through everyone's email and make sure they're not discussing something they "shouldn't" be talking about.
I absolutely can't cite any cases and I'll freely admit that (BTW, that's not a concession that it's never happened either though).
First, let's work off the scenario where the original Mickey animations pass into public domain.
I understood the original post to claim that this does not allow anyone other than Disney to use modern images of Mickey Mouse, nor to use Mickey Mouse as a product or company logo or any of the usual restrictions of a trademark (for example, Ralph Lauren uses an image very close to the US flag as his logo. Anyone can use an image of the US flag, but IIRC RL won a trademark infringement case against another clothing manufacturer who used a similar logo on their clothes. I was unable to find any references though). They would still be free to do anything with the original works, whether or not they go through the exercise of modifying the original work.
As for the U.S. my guess (IANAL) would be that you'd have to get info about how they stored your data and what happened, and then prove their negligence, and who knows if there is even a precedent (groklaw?)
I'm pretty sure it's not enough to be able to prove that they were careless or negligent, you also need to be able to demonstrate that you have suffered actual damages from it.
I've got a new batch of mod points, and I was tempted to mod you down for *just that statement*.
I'm not a neo-con, and I agree (approximately) with what you said, but then you put up the "look at me, I'm being repressed!" banner.
Biggest reason I posted instead was that I thought you might get the wrong idea about why you were modded down.
Re:Was it necessary to use the Lord's name in vane
on
Everyone Hates UMD
·
· Score: 1
Good to know I'm not alone in how I feel:)
Wow... curse like a sailor. Note to self (and you) - avoid cliches.
Re:Was it necessary to use the Lord's name in vane
on
Everyone Hates UMD
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Maybe these points add up, and maybe they don't, but here:
1. I'm not religious in any way, shape or form. 2. I curse like a sailor. 3. Other people cursing doesn't bother me. 4. I felt that 'goddamn' was inappropriate in the article summary. Probably because it was unnecessary. 5. (Not for you so much) It's VAIN. V-A-I-N.
The piece you snipped is the bit that makes it not-so-horrifying:
There are current encryption technologies already deployed in the market that allow for two sets of data to be encrypted with two keys into a single file. This allows a user to encrypt a sensitive file with an innocuous one, so that when required to disclose a private key the user can just give the one that decrypts the innocent data.
Slashdot Mirror
With all the censoring China does, it sounds to me like it's just an excuse to hire 20000 people to read through everyone's email and make sure they're not discussing something they "shouldn't" be talking about.
They need an excuse?
This time the bullet cold rocked ya
A yellow ribbon instead of a swastika
Have I played guess the RATM song with you before?
IIRC this is the same one as your last sig.
I absolutely can't cite any cases and I'll freely admit that (BTW, that's not a concession that it's never happened either though).
First, let's work off the scenario where the original Mickey animations pass into public domain.
I understood the original post to claim that this does not allow anyone other than Disney to use modern images of Mickey Mouse, nor to use Mickey Mouse as a product or company logo or any of the usual restrictions of a trademark (for example, Ralph Lauren uses an image very close to the US flag as his logo. Anyone can use an image of the US flag, but IIRC RL won a trademark infringement case against another clothing manufacturer who used a similar logo on their clothes. I was unable to find any references though). They would still be free to do anything with the original works, whether or not they go through the exercise of modifying the original work.
Are we arguing over unrelated topics?
And the rest of the comment you replied to:
except as pertains to images of him used in steamboat willie, which could be utilized with impunity, as could the entirety of the film itself.
which agrees with the ruling you cited.
Not that the word 'ablate' is any more paletable than 'grind' when it's coupled with the word 'cornea.'
That depends entirely on how good your vocabulary is.
As for the U.S. my guess (IANAL) would be that you'd have to get info about how they stored your data and what happened, and then prove their negligence, and who knows if there is even a precedent (groklaw?)
I'm pretty sure it's not enough to be able to prove that they were careless or negligent, you also need to be able to demonstrate that you have suffered actual damages from it.
The summary is a bit misleading. Yes, the US is pushing for this new IP concept, but it's through WIPO, so it's not intended solely for the US.
It does say 'Treaty'. Doesn't really imply (to me) that it's just the U.S.
...and blowjobs. Lot's of 'em.
It doesn't exist, but that's the EXACT mod I wanted from that post.
I don't think "tasty" is the appropriate word for describing a peanut that has been sitting under tons of crap.
Compared to the crap it sure is.
Finding political speech on the internet is like finding poop in the toilet: it's easy to find, but you don't want to see it.
I'd say it's more like sifting through poop: You've got to dig through tons of crap before you can find a tasty peanut.
They claimed 20% more UPTIME, not 20% less DOWNTIME. Still bad math.
Thanks for the thought...
While on one hand I felt my summary was pretty much accurate, I was also going for funny. I think my Karma's capped anyway.
But yeah, I was waiting for the Starcraft stuff. Last time I played SC was earlier this year. It's still fun.
The article basically says something like 'They made warcraft, and things went uphill from there.'
It was a decoy! It was meant to be broken and the South would have won if the North took the bait!
Can you back that up with anything? Or are you just a whale? Because whales spout water, and you're spouting... well, not water. Never mind.
I must admit to always thinking that the Car Analogy should be included as a form of Godwin's Law.
Negative view:
Adding the car analogy to Godwin's Law would be like taking a smoothly riding Porsche and sticking a brick wall in front of it.
Positive view:
Adding the car analogy to Godwin's Law would be like taking an old Chevy that wouldn't start and giving it a brand new engine.
After reading some more comments, I got the impression you weren't alone in that.
It doesn't give you a very good indication that there's any sort of functionality hooked into those headers.
I really thought the little white triangles made it kind of obvious.
But you can mess with them if you double click them. Double click on it once and then the arrow pointing down means you have it collapsed.
You can get totally immersed in the game and begin to think about the game also when you are not playing it.
I used to look at people's faces and want to put L-shaped tetris blocks between their eyebrows.
Expecting the neo-con mod down in 3..2..1
I've got a new batch of mod points, and I was tempted to mod you down for *just that statement*.
I'm not a neo-con, and I agree (approximately) with what you said, but then you put up the "look at me, I'm being repressed!" banner.
Biggest reason I posted instead was that I thought you might get the wrong idea about why you were modded down.
Good to know I'm not alone in how I feel :)
Wow... curse like a sailor. Note to self (and you) - avoid cliches.
Maybe these points add up, and maybe they don't, but here:
1. I'm not religious in any way, shape or form.
2. I curse like a sailor.
3. Other people cursing doesn't bother me.
4. I felt that 'goddamn' was inappropriate in the article summary. Probably because it was unnecessary.
5. (Not for you so much) It's VAIN. V-A-I-N.
I suppose it's a matter of perspective.
I'd rather have legislatures wasting their time with ineffective laws than having them pass bills that could really screw things up.
The piece you snipped is the bit that makes it not-so-horrifying:
There are current encryption technologies already deployed in the market that allow for two sets of data to be encrypted with two keys into a single file. This allows a user to encrypt a sensitive file with an innocuous one, so that when required to disclose a private key the user can just give the one that decrypts the innocent data.
Amendment IX:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
You've got it backwards. The need is to prove that it's NOT an essential liberty.