IIRC correctly from a US trademark law class a couple years ago, words like "android" are precluded from trademark protection only if they literally describe the thing.
You couldn't use "android" as a trademark for a line of androids you've released, for example. Well, you could use it as a trademark, but you couldn't get trademark protection.
Because remember that a "trademark" is merely a mark you use in trade.
I'm not sure how I feel about this idea that Osama would be so meticulous about netiquette that, even were he to be assassinated or need to run away from the CIA very fast, he would still sign off IRC properly.
Let's at least get our terminology correct. He hasn't had a trial yet; thus, he's not been convicted.
Note that I'm pretty damn certain he's guilty. However, with the strong allegations of torture, he might not be convicted in a court of law under the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine.
Also, it would take some pretty limber gymnastics to find he's innocent. Namely, he's either (1) never confessed and the government is completely lying to us, or (2) been tortured into giving a false confession.
Additionally, you'd have to believe that every good info he's given us was really given by someone else and then blamed on him.
Suffice to say, he's guilty-in-fact, but he's not been convicted.
Just to share what little additional (potential) insight I may have: I have a couple friends from Mexico who go to school with me. They told me that, in Mexico, people wait until they are very, very sick in order to seek medical care.
This may explain the higher death rate in Mexico than in the US.
Such a theory is bolstered by the news today out of Mexico City that the death toll has decelerated over the past 24-36 hours. The suggestion from doctors there is that, now, everyone is seeking medical care as soon as they have an inkling of a suspicion that they may have swine flu.
And I should add that the legislative history of the Geneva Conventions disagrees with you as well. All you need to do is read the Hamdan opinion I linked you in my previous post to find a discussion and analysis of the legislative history of Geneva to see what I'm talking about. It's far too detailed to quote here.
Furthermore they aren't protected by the Geneva Conventions
Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court and the stewards of the Geneva Conventions disagree with you there. At a minimum, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions provide a baseline of protections the United States must afford to every detainee.
I know current Supreme Court jurisprudence is to the contrary, but maybe because the Constitution explicitly states the sole purpose of copyright is to be a utilitarian purpose: "to promote the useful Arts and Sciences."
If lengthening copyright terms does not promote, then it is unconstitutional.
The problem is that this is a political question and will be dismissed as nonjusticiable if the courts ever had to decide this issue.
In effect, unless Congress extends copyright by some patently-to-everyone ridiculous amount like life+300yrs, the courts will consistently say "political question doctrine, we defer to Congress."
At my law school, you cannot turn a paper from one class into another. This is considered a breach of the honor code.
A course that is based on a paper is meant to judge your analysis based on what you learned in the class, not what you learned in other classes. Thus, you are responsible for producing something unique for that specific class.
I don't think of plagiarism as a criminal offense, but a civil one. Your analogy about criminal investigations is inaccurate.
You are not jailed if you plagiarize. You receive an equitable (civil) punishment: expulsion or an F in the course.
Thus, you should compare this sort of investigation to the sort permitted in civil cases. If you think someone ripped you off in a contract, you are well within your legal rights to investigate whether they did or not. This does not constitute any sort of breach of trust in my mind.
Perhaps some cultural practices mask wisdom of some sort, like for example a cultural practice of burying your dead instead of leaving them in the bed with you, which could cause infection and death?
And history seems to just be subsumed by wisdom, too: Don't attack a force unless you outnumber them 2:1, because we did it once and lost a lot of good people.
Wisdom definitely is. Post-reproductive people with wisdom help contribute to the tribe's ability to acquire food, shelter, and other things necessary for survival.
That post-reproductive people improve the population's chances of survival means that they increase the possible number of their genetic descendants.
If the parents have to go hunt and gather and leave young children behind, you bet your ass it's about grandparenting skills. Healthy grandparents allow both parents to gather food while the grandparents behave as caretakers for the children.
I read an article years ago about this as a justification for why women outlive men: In general, grandmothers more often provided child rearing assistance than grandfatheres, so genes were naturally selected that preferred long lifespans for women, but lifespans for men were not needed to be as long. Or rather, selection didn't prefer aged men the way it preferred aged women.
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC correctly from a US trademark law class a couple years ago, words like "android" are precluded from trademark protection only if they literally describe the thing.
You couldn't use "android" as a trademark for a line of androids you've released, for example. Well, you could use it as a trademark, but you couldn't get trademark protection.
Because remember that a "trademark" is merely a mark you use in trade.
I'm not sure how I feel about this idea that Osama would be so meticulous about netiquette that, even were he to be assassinated or need to run away from the CIA very fast, he would still sign off IRC properly.
"convicted terrorist"
Let's at least get our terminology correct. He hasn't had a trial yet; thus, he's not been convicted.
Note that I'm pretty damn certain he's guilty. However, with the strong allegations of torture, he might not be convicted in a court of law under the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine.
Also, it would take some pretty limber gymnastics to find he's innocent. Namely, he's either (1) never confessed and the government is completely lying to us, or (2) been tortured into giving a false confession.
Additionally, you'd have to believe that every good info he's given us was really given by someone else and then blamed on him.
Suffice to say, he's guilty-in-fact, but he's not been convicted.
Just to share what little additional (potential) insight I may have: I have a couple friends from Mexico who go to school with me. They told me that, in Mexico, people wait until they are very, very sick in order to seek medical care.
This may explain the higher death rate in Mexico than in the US.
Such a theory is bolstered by the news today out of Mexico City that the death toll has decelerated over the past 24-36 hours. The suggestion from doctors there is that, now, everyone is seeking medical care as soon as they have an inkling of a suspicion that they may have swine flu.
So the Republicans can't count on the solidarity of 41 senators, but the Democrats can now count on the solidarity of 60?
And I should add that the legislative history of the Geneva Conventions disagrees with you as well. All you need to do is read the Hamdan opinion I linked you in my previous post to find a discussion and analysis of the legislative history of Geneva to see what I'm talking about. It's far too detailed to quote here.
Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court and the stewards of the Geneva Conventions disagree with you there. At a minimum, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions provide a baseline of protections the United States must afford to every detainee.
Well, you don't have to worry about contraception when you're in a rack. You only have to worry when you're in a genitalia.
Oh no, the US did that two with the URAA of the GATT. This Act removed works from the public domain and placed them back into copyright.
I know current Supreme Court jurisprudence is to the contrary, but maybe because the Constitution explicitly states the sole purpose of copyright is to be a utilitarian purpose: "to promote the useful Arts and Sciences."
If lengthening copyright terms does not promote, then it is unconstitutional.
The problem is that this is a political question and will be dismissed as nonjusticiable if the courts ever had to decide this issue.
In effect, unless Congress extends copyright by some patently-to-everyone ridiculous amount like life+300yrs, the courts will consistently say "political question doctrine, we defer to Congress."
Especially not when they realize that this is to prevent spreading their germs to others, not to protect themselves from infection.
Dude, this is Slashdot. We all have seen LotR. Thus, we all know where NZ is: Middle Earth.
1. Set up that service model
2. Distribute your A+ papers to every college student you know.
3. COME ON WE KNOW WHAT GOES HERE
4. Profit
I should have said "well within your moral/ethical rights to investigate." My point still stands, nonetheless.
At my law school, you cannot turn a paper from one class into another. This is considered a breach of the honor code.
A course that is based on a paper is meant to judge your analysis based on what you learned in the class, not what you learned in other classes. Thus, you are responsible for producing something unique for that specific class.
I don't think of plagiarism as a criminal offense, but a civil one. Your analogy about criminal investigations is inaccurate.
You are not jailed if you plagiarize. You receive an equitable (civil) punishment: expulsion or an F in the course.
Thus, you should compare this sort of investigation to the sort permitted in civil cases. If you think someone ripped you off in a contract, you are well within your legal rights to investigate whether they did or not. This does not constitute any sort of breach of trust in my mind.
What's terrible is that I'm actually working on a journal article on fair use that I hope to get published.
On one hand, I can cite this decision and use it to bolster my argument.
On the other hand, I can't plagiarize large portions of my argument anymore!
Maybe Steve Ballmer can't throw a zeroeth chair, but I bet Steve Jobs can. Doesn't he practice Zen or something?
Perhaps some cultural practices mask wisdom of some sort, like for example a cultural practice of burying your dead instead of leaving them in the bed with you, which could cause infection and death?
And history seems to just be subsumed by wisdom, too: Don't attack a force unless you outnumber them 2:1, because we did it once and lost a lot of good people.
Wisdom definitely is. Post-reproductive people with wisdom help contribute to the tribe's ability to acquire food, shelter, and other things necessary for survival.
That post-reproductive people improve the population's chances of survival means that they increase the possible number of their genetic descendants.
There are still plenty of infections and illnesses and diseases that kill people before they reproduce.
If the parents have to go hunt and gather and leave young children behind, you bet your ass it's about grandparenting skills. Healthy grandparents allow both parents to gather food while the grandparents behave as caretakers for the children.
I read an article years ago about this as a justification for why women outlive men: In general, grandmothers more often provided child rearing assistance than grandfatheres, so genes were naturally selected that preferred long lifespans for women, but lifespans for men were not needed to be as long. Or rather, selection didn't prefer aged men the way it preferred aged women.
You wouldn't last one day in the winter without fire, either.
>UID: 4-digits
>Physical prowess: Olympic level
Life just isn't fair!
No, because saying something is not like beer is a sure fire way to kill interest in the subject among the college crowd.