This is a great point. The parents are the ones that spend the christmas money. If the kiddos can be placated with a Wii, why spend the money on a PS3, especially when it's going to cost $300 to drive your Prius to the store and pick one up.
This brings up some really bizzare (at least in my mind) legal questions.
IIUTC trademark in the US is limited to specific types of business i.e. retail.
From TFA
Franklin Loufrani - just one of a number of people who profess to have invented the image - has marketed the sign since the early 1970s.
He and his London-based company SmileyWorld today own the rights to the logo in more than 80 countries around the world.
Does he own a copyright or a trademark? Are these two concepts universal? Does he license it to multiple forms of business? How would this concept of him 'owning the rights' apply here in the US?
On top of that, how does the whole 'prior art' thing work in this instance? Could this guy theoretically trademark something he's been using since the 60's even though another company has been using it for over 10 years? Is prior art an international concept, or does it have to have been used in the US for the USPTO to recognize it?
Ultimately I'm not sure why this frenchman is bothering, other than the fact that he's French and annoying. It would cost Walmart an astronomical amount of money to remove the smiley from all of the areas of business where they use it. I"m sure they'd much rather put that money to fighting it (or buying a judge, buying new laws, etc...). How could anyone hope to have the finances to win this case?
If you've forgotten, they can mail it to the billing address on record (or email it to the address on record) and you can call them back later. Why wouldn't that work?
Because 80% of the people will forget their secret answer and then whine, cry, or yell to get what they want. The people on the phone, being people, will give in sometimes - hence the social engineering. As long as there is a human answering the call they can be duped into bending the rules. If a machine answers the phone the company gets a reputation for being cold and inhuman and loses customers. There's no way to win.
It's no different than spam. You tell millions of people not to click the link of naked Paris Hilton pictures - you will get a virus. Next week an email goes around with naked pictures of Nicky Hilton. What happens? 80% click and get a virus. I have no idea why people aren't smarter than this, but they this social engineering stuff definitely works.
Seriously, local government ceased to matter the day Lee signed his surrender at Appomatox.
Hey, the South will Rise again!
Seriously though, I don't think that's true at all. Damage was done there, but it was really FDR and his New Deal that drove the final nail in the coffin. Income Tax, Social Security, the Federal Reserve. These things all gave the federal government the power and funding it needed to exert greater control over the states.
The UN is just as irrelevant in my life as the US is. I'm an Illinoisan first and foremost. Even that group is too big to treat me with respect and to protect my rights from those looking to trample on them...
Your statement is excellent. If there is one thing I wish we would all learn about politics it's the point you made. Your local government is what matters. Local government has the ability to make decisions to protect your rights. That's why the constitution was written the way it was. 200 years ago, with a population a fraction as large as the one we have now, no one trusted the federal government. Now, when most states have more people than the whole country did then, we give more power than ever to the feds. Everyone gets so worked up about federal elections, but doesn't even bother to vote for their own mayor or attend their local city council meetings.
Using that same arguement anyone can say "We shouldn't have firemen because they will be used to burn books in the future! Fahrenheit 451 says so!"
I'm a dumbass? I'm not the one that can't make a proper analogy. It would be more accurate to say "We shouldn't start burning books becaus Faherenheit 451 says so".
This isn't about philosphy. This is about something someone is doing to himself.
What is philisophical if it's not one mans decisions for his own life.
From Wikipedia's philosophy entry: (emphasis mine)
Philosophy is a field of study that includes diverse subfields such as aesthetics, epistemology, ethics, logic, and metaphysics, in which people ask questions such as whether God exists, whether knowledge is possible, and what makes actions right or wrong.
Any technology can be used for opression. Anything can be used for good or for evil.
You have been watching entirely too many Wild Wild West and Avengers reruns. The majority of things cannot be used for opression or evil. What? Somebody's going to start controlling my mind with an iPod or use the new Nintendo Wii to video tape my house? The difference here is we are talking about a technology specifically designed to track and record movements plus store data. It's not a huge logical leap to see a future where an embedded chip is our only form of currency.
Yeah, so what's your excuse? Dropped on your head as a child?
Bring the bible into this discussion is like bringing any other work of fiction into it. Why not talk about Logan's Run and Carousel, or THX-1138?
Or 1984, or Mein Kampf, or Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? There are many works, fictional or not, that have insights into philisophical questions like this. At the very least the book of Revelation is describing an evil oppressive society. There is value recognizing that some of this technology could eventually be used to opress mankind. If someone wants to do it voluntarily, that's great, but there's nothing wrong with considering the possible ramifications.
And, if you think you can't be tracked now, you are either ignorant or fooling yourself.
Hey, I watch 24. All I have to do is take my cell phone battery out and I'm off the grid.
Isn't it a lot easier and quicker to just hook up a tow truck and off you go
My only guess is the guys that actually steal the cars can't afford a truck, but your idea is good. It would be even better to get a repo truck or a setup like this. The repo guys are setup so they can just hook on to a car and drag it away quick. Seems like the same thing would be good for all out theft.
From TFA
Microsoft does not need to pay one cent to place its search engine in the lead position on its browser
The statement isn't that MSN doesn't have to pay one cent, it's that Microsoft doesn't have to pay one cent. Microsoft has paid a significant amount do develop IE7, while Google has paid the Firefox foundation and Opera lots of money - so they could develop their products. It's more or less just a matter of accounting. The only difference is Google doesn't outright 'own' Firefox and Opera, but they could very well be defunct without their Google contracts.
Currently, Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on web browsers. There are 3 major competitors (Safari, Opera and Firefox) plus any number of minor competitors (konqueror, etc...) which either didn't exist or didn't have significant market share when the Microsoft monopoly ruling was passed down. They definitely don't have a monopoly on Internet search engines.
IIRC the thing that really got them in trouble was their inclusion of IE with Windows OS (the area where they arguably do have a monopoly), remember the whole 'we can't remove IE from the operating system' nonsense. How are they going to be infringing on the law until they ship Vista with IE included.
When there's enough people refusing to forward the packets, it'll be a moot point whether the ISPs do. Plus there's always the threat of some kind of idiotic law, likely proposed by Feinstein, that makes forwarding packets that may contain copyright violations illegal or some inane shit like that.
Sure, that's possible, but as soon as that happens p2p developers will come out with a new system that makes the packets less distinguishable and harder to filter.
Plus there's always the threat of some kind of idiotic law, likely proposed by Feinstein, that makes forwarding packets that may contain copyright violations illegal or some inane shit like that.
Which will be yet another idiotic, unenforcable law (YAIUL) that will attempt to make criminals out of everyone. Bottom line, it's all about the money. ISPs, Universities, whoever are not going to do anything that's going to erode their customer base. They are going to fight laws that see that happen.
The EULAs already prohibit you from serving content - eventually someone'll start enforcing that.
Actually in my experience, it's been just the opposite. Enforcement of restrictions on servers have become more lax, not more strict.
They'll start refusing to relay traffic that might expose them to liability, such as p2p networks and usenet.
This is unlikely to happen in the near future. A large number of broadband customers have a connection just for p2p networks. The minute an ISP cuts p2p users off that customer is going to look for someone else.
The Internet may turn into TV, but with one big difference. I can host a website for a ridiculously small fee, that can't be done with TV. There is no reason to crack down on customers with servers because nobody runs their own sever, it's too cheap to let someone else maintain the hardware/software for $5/month.
This is a good discussion to have, but I don't think any of it will ever happen for one reason. Bandwidth is too cheap. Technology and Infrastructure has improved to the point where broadband access via cable, DSL, wifi, microwave, satellite or traditional T1 is available in most locations. The telcos are attempting to create a false scarcity. The networks aren't overloaded and there's no reason to think the technology can't keep up with further adoption. This means that even if some providers do start charging for premium access to some sites, it won't last. The competition will always be able to undercut them because the bandwidth isn't a real limiting factor.
My prediction is the idio telcos will get some law passed, lose the common carrier status and then find out the their proposed revenue model doesn't work.
The other huge difference between Amercian restaurants and European ones is the portion size of drinks. You order a coke in Italy, you'll get maybe a can's worth (12oz). You order a coke in most sit down places in the US (even small local only restaurants) you'll get nearly a liter of coke, with free refills.
So don't order a Coke. I think you have a valid point, but how difficult is it to order water other than a soft drink. Personally, I do often have a coke when I go out, but I go out rarely and have pretty much eliminated soft drinks from my day to day diet, so it's a treat for me.
My thought exactly. What is Microsoft bringing to the table, other than cash (that I didn't know Yahoo was in dire need of). Yahoo should take a lesson from the HP/Compaq merger. Combining number 2 and 3 doesn't always make you number 1.
I'm British and I haven't been to the doctors in about five years. I know several people who aren't even registered with doctors. No-one I know of my age (36) has had tests for prostate cancer, checked themselves for testicular cancer or even has regular annual check-ups.
That is a very interesting statement. Supporters of socialized healthcare here in the States point out that more people would go to the doctor more often if it was free. From your experience, there are a significant number of people that still won't go to the doctor, even though the government pays has already charged you for it.
Here's what I got for results -- it looked like counting only unique IP's gave you only about 85% of the unique hits.
So, shouldn't this actually (more or less) average out. You looked at unique combos of IP and useragent. Isn't it probable that some of those combos are actually the same user who's IP has changed, but has the same useragent as well as unique users behind a common firewall?
Nintendo might have a hit on their hands, think about it! All the cool named systems underperformed: Lynx, Jaguar, TurboGrafx, Dreamcast, Saturn!!!
Actually, I would say just the opposite. The names you listed aren't exactly cool, but they are unusual or even unique, like wii. OTOH, the boring generic names (2600, NES, etc...) are the big sellers (although it could be argued that 'playstation' actually belongs in the first group). What you call 'cool named systems' were actually companies attempting to do exactly what Nintendo is trying. Come up with some gimmicky name. This actually may be a sign that Nintendo is worried about their new product.
Slashdot Mirror
And I hope someone hasn't patented this system. They might sue the USPTO.
Especially when parents are spending the dough.
This is a great point. The parents are the ones that spend the christmas money. If the kiddos can be placated with a Wii, why spend the money on a PS3, especially when it's going to cost $300 to drive your Prius to the store and pick one up.
The difference is when the ps2 came out EVERYONE wanted a DVD player. I'm not sure the demand for blu-ray will be as high as DVD demand was then.
This brings up some really bizzare (at least in my mind) legal questions.
IIUTC trademark in the US is limited to specific types of business i.e. retail.
From TFA Franklin Loufrani - just one of a number of people who profess to have invented the image - has marketed the sign since the early 1970s.
He and his London-based company SmileyWorld today own the rights to the logo in more than 80 countries around the world.
Does he own a copyright or a trademark? Are these two concepts universal? Does he license it to multiple forms of business? How would this concept of him 'owning the rights' apply here in the US?
On top of that, how does the whole 'prior art' thing work in this instance? Could this guy theoretically trademark something he's been using since the 60's even though another company has been using it for over 10 years? Is prior art an international concept, or does it have to have been used in the US for the USPTO to recognize it?
Ultimately I'm not sure why this frenchman is bothering, other than the fact that he's French and annoying. It would cost Walmart an astronomical amount of money to remove the smiley from all of the areas of business where they use it. I"m sure they'd much rather put that money to fighting it (or buying a judge, buying new laws, etc...). How could anyone hope to have the finances to win this case?
This is just the latest treatment for erectile dysfunction.
If you've forgotten, they can mail it to the billing address on record (or email it to the address on record) and you can call them back later. Why wouldn't that work?
Because 80% of the people will forget their secret answer and then whine, cry, or yell to get what they want. The people on the phone, being people, will give in sometimes - hence the social engineering. As long as there is a human answering the call they can be duped into bending the rules. If a machine answers the phone the company gets a reputation for being cold and inhuman and loses customers. There's no way to win.
It's no different than spam. You tell millions of people not to click the link of naked Paris Hilton pictures - you will get a virus. Next week an email goes around with naked pictures of Nicky Hilton. What happens? 80% click and get a virus. I have no idea why people aren't smarter than this, but they this social engineering stuff definitely works.
Seriously, local government ceased to matter the day Lee signed his surrender at Appomatox.
Hey, the South will Rise again!
Seriously though, I don't think that's true at all. Damage was done there, but it was really FDR and his New Deal that drove the final nail in the coffin. Income Tax, Social Security, the Federal Reserve. These things all gave the federal government the power and funding it needed to exert greater control over the states.
The UN is just as irrelevant in my life as the US is. I'm an Illinoisan first and foremost. Even that group is too big to treat me with respect and to protect my rights from those looking to trample on them...
Your statement is excellent. If there is one thing I wish we would all learn about politics it's the point you made. Your local government is what matters. Local government has the ability to make decisions to protect your rights. That's why the constitution was written the way it was. 200 years ago, with a population a fraction as large as the one we have now, no one trusted the federal government. Now, when most states have more people than the whole country did then, we give more power than ever to the feds. Everyone gets so worked up about federal elections, but doesn't even bother to vote for their own mayor or attend their local city council meetings.
Dig a little deeper. I bet you can find some even smaller players in the online advertising world.
Using that same arguement anyone can say "We shouldn't have firemen because they will be used to burn books in the future! Fahrenheit 451 says so!"
I'm a dumbass? I'm not the one that can't make a proper analogy. It would be more accurate to say "We shouldn't start burning books becaus Faherenheit 451 says so".
This isn't about philosphy. This is about something someone is doing to himself.
What is philisophical if it's not one mans decisions for his own life.
From Wikipedia's philosophy entry: (emphasis mine)
Philosophy is a field of study that includes diverse subfields such as aesthetics, epistemology, ethics, logic, and metaphysics, in which people ask questions such as whether God exists, whether knowledge is possible, and what makes actions right or wrong.
Any technology can be used for opression. Anything can be used for good or for evil.
You have been watching entirely too many Wild Wild West and Avengers reruns. The majority of things cannot be used for opression or evil. What? Somebody's going to start controlling my mind with an iPod or use the new Nintendo Wii to video tape my house? The difference here is we are talking about a technology specifically designed to track and record movements plus store data. It's not a huge logical leap to see a future where an embedded chip is our only form of currency.
IMNSHO, yes it does mean they are stupid.
Yeah, so what's your excuse? Dropped on your head as a child?
Bring the bible into this discussion is like bringing any other work of fiction into it. Why not talk about Logan's Run and Carousel, or THX-1138?
Or 1984, or Mein Kampf, or Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? There are many works, fictional or not, that have insights into philisophical questions like this. At the very least the book of Revelation is describing an evil oppressive society. There is value recognizing that some of this technology could eventually be used to opress mankind. If someone wants to do it voluntarily, that's great, but there's nothing wrong with considering the possible ramifications.
And, if you think you can't be tracked now, you are either ignorant or fooling yourself.
Hey, I watch 24. All I have to do is take my cell phone battery out and I'm off the grid.
Isn't it a lot easier and quicker to just hook up a tow truck and off you go
My only guess is the guys that actually steal the cars can't afford a truck, but your idea is good. It would be even better to get a repo truck or a setup like this. The repo guys are setup so they can just hook on to a car and drag it away quick. Seems like the same thing would be good for all out theft.
From TFA
Microsoft does not need to pay one cent to place its search engine in the lead position on its browser
The statement isn't that MSN doesn't have to pay one cent, it's that Microsoft doesn't have to pay one cent. Microsoft has paid a significant amount do develop IE7, while Google has paid the Firefox foundation and Opera lots of money - so they could develop their products. It's more or less just a matter of accounting. The only difference is Google doesn't outright 'own' Firefox and Opera, but they could very well be defunct without their Google contracts.
Currently, Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on web browsers. There are 3 major competitors (Safari, Opera and Firefox) plus any number of minor competitors (konqueror, etc...) which either didn't exist or didn't have significant market share when the Microsoft monopoly ruling was passed down. They definitely don't have a monopoly on Internet search engines.
IIRC the thing that really got them in trouble was their inclusion of IE with Windows OS (the area where they arguably do have a monopoly), remember the whole 'we can't remove IE from the operating system' nonsense. How are they going to be infringing on the law until they ship Vista with IE included.
When there's enough people refusing to forward the packets, it'll be a moot point whether the ISPs do. Plus there's always the threat of some kind of idiotic law, likely proposed by Feinstein, that makes forwarding packets that may contain copyright violations illegal or some inane shit like that.
Sure, that's possible, but as soon as that happens p2p developers will come out with a new system that makes the packets less distinguishable and harder to filter.
Plus there's always the threat of some kind of idiotic law, likely proposed by Feinstein, that makes forwarding packets that may contain copyright violations illegal or some inane shit like that.
Which will be yet another idiotic, unenforcable law (YAIUL) that will attempt to make criminals out of everyone. Bottom line, it's all about the money. ISPs, Universities, whoever are not going to do anything that's going to erode their customer base. They are going to fight laws that see that happen.
The EULAs already prohibit you from serving content - eventually someone'll start enforcing that.
Actually in my experience, it's been just the opposite. Enforcement of restrictions on servers have become more lax, not more strict.
They'll start refusing to relay traffic that might expose them to liability, such as p2p networks and usenet.
This is unlikely to happen in the near future. A large number of broadband customers have a connection just for p2p networks. The minute an ISP cuts p2p users off that customer is going to look for someone else.
The Internet may turn into TV, but with one big difference. I can host a website for a ridiculously small fee, that can't be done with TV. There is no reason to crack down on customers with servers because nobody runs their own sever, it's too cheap to let someone else maintain the hardware/software for $5/month.
This is a good discussion to have, but I don't think any of it will ever happen for one reason. Bandwidth is too cheap. Technology and Infrastructure has improved to the point where broadband access via cable, DSL, wifi, microwave, satellite or traditional T1 is available in most locations. The telcos are attempting to create a false scarcity. The networks aren't overloaded and there's no reason to think the technology can't keep up with further adoption. This means that even if some providers do start charging for premium access to some sites, it won't last. The competition will always be able to undercut them because the bandwidth isn't a real limiting factor.
My prediction is the idio telcos will get some law passed, lose the common carrier status and then find out the their proposed revenue model doesn't work.
The other huge difference between Amercian restaurants and European ones is the portion size of drinks. You order a coke in Italy, you'll get maybe a can's worth (12oz). You order a coke in most sit down places in the US (even small local only restaurants) you'll get nearly a liter of coke, with free refills.
So don't order a Coke. I think you have a valid point, but how difficult is it to order water other than a soft drink. Personally, I do often have a coke when I go out, but I go out rarely and have pretty much eliminated soft drinks from my day to day diet, so it's a treat for me.
My thought exactly. What is Microsoft bringing to the table, other than cash (that I didn't know Yahoo was in dire need of). Yahoo should take a lesson from the HP/Compaq merger. Combining number 2 and 3 doesn't always make you number 1.
So it's all Global Warming? Dammit!!!
I'm British and I haven't been to the doctors in about five years. I know several people who aren't even registered with doctors. No-one I know of my age (36) has had tests for prostate cancer, checked themselves for testicular cancer or even has regular annual check-ups.
That is a very interesting statement. Supporters of socialized healthcare here in the States point out that more people would go to the doctor more often if it was free. From your experience, there are a significant number of people that still won't go to the doctor, even though the government pays has already charged you for it.
Fair enough, but who realistically thinks Microsoft is going to meet these November/January dates?
Even if the report is biased, I would say an additional three month delay on Vista would be a reasonable assumption.
when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
comes off sounding like a dumbass.
Appearantly not too much of a dumbass. Managed to get his blog slashdotted. He's probably buying a new car with his adsense check about now.
Here's what I got for results -- it looked like counting only unique IP's gave you only about 85% of the unique hits.
So, shouldn't this actually (more or less) average out. You looked at unique combos of IP and useragent. Isn't it probable that some of those combos are actually the same user who's IP has changed, but has the same useragent as well as unique users behind a common firewall?
Nintendo might have a hit on their hands, think about it! All the cool named systems underperformed: Lynx, Jaguar, TurboGrafx, Dreamcast, Saturn!!!
Actually, I would say just the opposite. The names you listed aren't exactly cool, but they are unusual or even unique, like wii. OTOH, the boring generic names (2600, NES, etc...) are the big sellers (although it could be argued that 'playstation' actually belongs in the first group). What you call 'cool named systems' were actually companies attempting to do exactly what Nintendo is trying. Come up with some gimmicky name. This actually may be a sign that Nintendo is worried about their new product.