mechanisms in place, like the electoral college to prevent such tyranny of the majority out of the executive branch.
Really? Is that why the executive branch is growing in power at the expense of the Judicial and Legislative branches?
I have two issues with this statement. First, I think the executive's growth in power is only at the expense of the legislature. If anything, I'd say the judiciary's power has increased as well. Second, the checks and balances still work, but are skewed by the effect of something the founding fathers couldn't imagine -- TV. TV == the bully pulpit, which gives the president the ability (and de facto authority) to set the national agenda.
And as for declaring war, the president does not have that power (although congress essentially tried to give it to him for Iraq -- and it was debated). He does, however, have the authority as Commander in Chief to order the military into action. The legislature then basically has a veto, in the form of funding, over permitting the military action. And as for not declaring war, even though it was not formally done last year, it was in the original Gulf War.
It's at +4 as I read this. That's at least 2 moderators who need the SarcasmDetector. Unfortunately, the ones who need it most are the least likely to realize it.
*sigh*
You're just not looking at it in the long term. If everyone begins outsourcing to India, then the law of supply and demand requires that eventually the cost of doing this will rise. So they'll begin to outsource to some other, cheaper, country. The cycle will repeat itself until eventually the U.S. is the cheapest place to 'outsource' jobs to.
It's all about perspective, man. Look at the big picture.
For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that the He3 fusion plants have been proved out, and folks are frantically building them, just waiting for us to show up with with tanks full of helium-3.
Interesting name when pronounced out loud: My dong long.
Also amazing how hideously mangled the grammar is, without a single misspelled word. I think we may have ourselves a Babelfish troll -- try copying a block of text into Babelfish, translate to Chinese, then back again. It looks remarkably like the parent.
This press release contains forward-looking statements regarding SCO's lawsuit against Novell.. . . These forward- looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties including, without limitation, the risk that SCO may not be successful in its claims against Novell and that the pursuit of protections for SCO's copyrights will require the expenditure of resources and may result in further litigation.
They have my nomination for understatement of the year (& it's only January). Second, anyone?
It's a bad sign when you start putting disclaimers in your press releases.
Open Source Search
Remember the early Linux days -- when code contributions and discussion forums were one in the same? What if web search harvested the global treasure store for sharing the advancements in retrieval, indexing, ranking, disambiguation, communities, profiling, presentation...imagine what could be. Lend your support (we did) by keeping tabs on this project.
I won't say that you've convinced me, but this is hardly a black and white issue. I think that under trademark law, as it has developed over the years, Playboy has a very strong argument for infringement. As the law exists, I think I am right.
Now, as to whether that law is the way it should be . . . I'm torn. This case is just one of the many recent examples of pre-[insert noun here] law being applied to situations that were never anticipated by the ones developing said law (whether legislatures or gradually by the courts). I think it is important that trademarks be protected, but I also think it is wrong to blindly treat them as "property" instead of simply use them to protect consumers (as they originally developed). I don't know the facts of the original case, but the most important thing, in my opinion, is what those banner ads looked like. If they looked like they might belong to Playboy, then they infringed; if no reasonable person could think they did, then not.
Also, I do think it makes a difference that this occurred in something more analogous to a broadcast medium as opposed to a newstand where only a few people (relatively) will ever see the alleged infringement.
Oh, and FYI, Coke, Kleenex, & Xerox are still valid trademarks. Aspirin, escalator, and brassiere (sp? whatever -- bra) are better examples of trademarks becoming generic.
First, to get the nit picked, trademark law and copyright law are two separate creatures.
Second, to use your analogy, what happened here was that someone came up and asked for a Playbory, and you handed him the Hustler without explanation. Does that change things? I think so.
And third, this has nothing to do with the search engine or search results. Presumably those weren't an issue. What happened was the interjection of those ads for competitors when it was not clear they were in fact competitors'.
I think it's an uphill battle, Frog. They see "search engine" and "law" and "somebody stopping somebody else from doing something" and the immediate, hard-wired reaction is "by god this is evil and I won't put up with it!"
I think I'm going to go do some earth-moving with tweezers. It'll be less frustrating than trying to make sense here.
You missed the point. This case has absolutely nothing to do with what search results were returned by the engine. The problem was that, in additon to the search results, up popped a nifty banner ad for a competitor -- in a way where you might think it was Playboy's until you clicked through.
I would have to disagree that the previous court "got it right," implying that this one got it wrong. Playboy & playmate are famous trademarks, even though they have independent English-language meanings. If I do a search for "playmate," and a banner ad pops up for a non-Playboy adult-oriented site, how is that not trademark infringement? If the ad is for, say, children's clothes or toys, I can see it; but anything else is blatantly taking advantage of the consumer's use of Playboy's trademark and that is what happened here.
Trademark law is based on likelihood of confusion. I don't agree, and the courts won't either, that Playboy can stop all uses of these terms. But I think it's justified here, where someone is using a company's trademark to sell related but non-affiliated goods. This isn't a case of the search results including related goods; here the website brings up a paid-for banner advertisement: "Some consumers, initially seeking Playboy's sites, may initially believe that unlabeled banner advertisements are links to Playboy's sites...Once they follow the instructions to 'click here,' and they access the site, they may well realize that they are not at a Playboy-sponsored site."
I agree that most intellectual property law is subject to abuse (see, e.g., RIAA), but that does not automatically equal the proposition that it is all bad or immoral.
In case you don't want to RTFA, it all boils down to SCO giving two excuses for not fully complying with the court's order:
(1) Hey, it was the holidays. This lawsuit isn't important enough to bother our directors with over Christmas.
(2) Well, we're pretty sure that they're infringing somehow, but despite the fact that we claim to own this stuff, doggone if we can't find a current version of it. Anyway, once IBM spells it all out for us I'm sure we'll come up with something that looks like that other thing. Probably.
Another FA you can avoid R'ing (link found at
Groklaw): the Motley Fool looks at the 'shakedown' of Linux providers: "with the entire computing world putting its money behind Linux, it appears that, for SCO, the apocalypse is now."
My wife, the architect, has been saying for years that they needed to make some of these. Of course, it'll be a while before these come down to a reasonable price, but when they do -- well, I think a hearty w00t is appropriate here!
Ah, to be able to kick back in the den on a summer's evening, watching the sun sink slowly below the horizon, and then *CLICK* Matrix Re-re-re-reloaded, without even having to move my eyeballs!
Musica de los 70's y 80's == Spanish title
Music of the 70's and 80's == English title
Can you tell what language the recordings are in? Are they even different recordings? Aside from the fact that copyrights last 50 years (or 70 or whatever it is now), the RIAA 'ownership' (or lack thereof) is hardly based on the language of the title.
You could get a bunch of burly friends together, dress up in quasi-tactical gear and go demand your car back with as much authority as you muster -- and you'll be completely within your rights to do so. You could even try to take your car back if you wanted (and the tire irons and switchblades didn't intimidate you), but if there was any kind of resistance/altercation you can expect to spend some time behind bars. It's called "self-help," and as long as it is peaceful and you don't impersonate a cop it's perfectly legal. But that doesn't make it a good idea.
I think the RIAA is setting itself up for a fall here, and more power to them, but that doesn't mean that what they are doing is inherently illegal.
Congress, that's who (and by extension, you). Making/downloading copies is one thing, but actually making and selling illegal copies is something else entirely. The RIAA would have to get a court order to actually sieze anything that was not voluntarily given up, but if it was pirated they would have a right to do so. You'll also note that the EFF actually supports this activity by the RIAA, as opposed to the harassment of file-sharers.
if an anti-piracy team crossed the line between looking like cops and implying or telling vendors that they are cops, the Los Angeles Police Department would take a pretty dim view
I don't know -- the RIAA is pretty low, but I don't think even they would want people to confuse them with the LAPD.
Second best quote: "They tried to scare me," Borrayo said. "They told me, 'You're a pirate!' I said, 'C'mon, guys, pirates are all at sea. I just work in a parking lot.'"
This is one of the purposes of the sun dial on the rover, or more specifically, the color dots on the sundial -- for a known quantity for color correction/balance.
Slashdot Mirror
mechanisms in place, like the electoral college to prevent such tyranny of the majority out of the executive branch.
Really? Is that why the executive branch is growing in power at the expense of the Judicial and Legislative branches?
I have two issues with this statement. First, I think the executive's growth in power is only at the expense of the legislature. If anything, I'd say the judiciary's power has increased as well. Second, the checks and balances still work, but are skewed by the effect of something the founding fathers couldn't imagine -- TV. TV == the bully pulpit, which gives the president the ability (and de facto authority) to set the national agenda.
And as for declaring war, the president does not have that power (although congress essentially tried to give it to him for Iraq -- and it was debated). He does, however, have the authority as Commander in Chief to order the military into action. The legislature then basically has a veto, in the form of funding, over permitting the military action. And as for not declaring war, even though it was not formally done last year, it was in the original Gulf War.
You would be overcome with an uncontrollable desire to eat Spam. Lot's of it.
It's at +4 as I read this. That's at least 2 moderators who need the SarcasmDetector. Unfortunately, the ones who need it most are the least likely to realize it.
*sigh*
You're just not looking at it in the long term. If everyone begins outsourcing to India, then the law of supply and demand requires that eventually the cost of doing this will rise. So they'll begin to outsource to some other, cheaper, country. The cycle will repeat itself until eventually the U.S. is the cheapest place to 'outsource' jobs to.
It's all about perspective, man. Look at the big picture.
For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that the He3 fusion plants have been proved out, and folks are frantically building them, just waiting for us to show up with with tanks full of helium-3.
I think this says it all.
Interesting name when pronounced out loud: My dong long.
Also amazing how hideously mangled the grammar is, without a single misspelled word. I think we may have ourselves a Babelfish troll -- try copying a block of text into Babelfish, translate to Chinese, then back again. It looks remarkably like the parent.
So they do. Learn something new everyday.
This press release contains forward-looking statements regarding SCO's lawsuit against Novell.. . . These forward- looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties including, without limitation, the risk that SCO may not be successful in its claims against Novell and that the pursuit of protections for SCO's copyrights will require the expenditure of resources and may result in further litigation.
They have my nomination for understatement of the year (& it's only January). Second, anyone?
It's a bad sign when you start putting disclaimers in your press releases.
Open Source Search
Remember the early Linux days -- when code contributions and discussion forums were one in the same? What if web search harvested the global treasure store for sharing the advancements in retrieval, indexing, ranking, disambiguation, communities, profiling, presentation...imagine what could be. Lend your support (we did) by keeping tabs on this project.
Now, as to whether that law is the way it should be . . . I'm torn. This case is just one of the many recent examples of pre-[insert noun here] law being applied to situations that were never anticipated by the ones developing said law (whether legislatures or gradually by the courts). I think it is important that trademarks be protected, but I also think it is wrong to blindly treat them as "property" instead of simply use them to protect consumers (as they originally developed). I don't know the facts of the original case, but the most important thing, in my opinion, is what those banner ads looked like. If they looked like they might belong to Playboy, then they infringed; if no reasonable person could think they did, then not.
Also, I do think it makes a difference that this occurred in something more analogous to a broadcast medium as opposed to a newstand where only a few people (relatively) will ever see the alleged infringement.
Oh, and FYI, Coke, Kleenex, & Xerox are still valid trademarks. Aspirin, escalator, and brassiere (sp? whatever -- bra) are better examples of trademarks becoming generic.Second, to use your analogy, what happened here was that someone came up and asked for a Playbory, and you handed him the Hustler without explanation. Does that change things? I think so.
And third, this has nothing to do with the search engine or search results. Presumably those weren't an issue. What happened was the interjection of those ads for competitors when it was not clear they were in fact competitors'.I think I'm going to go do some earth-moving with tweezers. It'll be less frustrating than trying to make sense here.
This isn't about Google and the way it does business. It's about some of its less scrupulous colleagues: Excite and Netscape.
You missed the point. This case has absolutely nothing to do with what search results were returned by the engine. The problem was that, in additon to the search results, up popped a nifty banner ad for a competitor -- in a way where you might think it was Playboy's until you clicked through.
Trademark law is based on likelihood of confusion. I don't agree, and the courts won't either, that Playboy can stop all uses of these terms. But I think it's justified here, where someone is using a company's trademark to sell related but non-affiliated goods. This isn't a case of the search results including related goods; here the website brings up a paid-for banner advertisement: "Some consumers, initially seeking Playboy's sites, may initially believe that unlabeled banner advertisements are links to Playboy's sites...Once they follow the instructions to 'click here,' and they access the site, they may well realize that they are not at a Playboy-sponsored site."
I agree that most intellectual property law is subject to abuse (see, e.g., RIAA), but that does not automatically equal the proposition that it is all bad or immoral.That should read "I demand a refund of my $699 you cocksmoking teabaggers!"
(1) Hey, it was the holidays. This lawsuit isn't important enough to bother our directors with over Christmas.
(2) Well, we're pretty sure that they're infringing somehow, but despite the fact that we claim to own this stuff, doggone if we can't find a current version of it. Anyway, once IBM spells it all out for us I'm sure we'll come up with something that looks like that other thing. Probably.
Another FA you can avoid R'ing (link found at Groklaw): the Motley Fool looks at the 'shakedown' of Linux providers: "with the entire computing world putting its money behind Linux, it appears that, for SCO, the apocalypse is now."
Ah, to be able to kick back in the den on a summer's evening, watching the sun sink slowly below the horizon, and then *CLICK* Matrix Re-re-re-reloaded, without even having to move my eyeballs!
. . . are you saying that you're a two-headed alien, or just look like one?
Music of the 70's and 80's == English title
Can you tell what language the recordings are in? Are they even different recordings? Aside from the fact that copyrights last 50 years (or 70 or whatever it is now), the RIAA 'ownership' (or lack thereof) is hardly based on the language of the title.
I think the RIAA is setting itself up for a fall here, and more power to them, but that doesn't mean that what they are doing is inherently illegal.
Congress, that's who (and by extension, you). Making/downloading copies is one thing, but actually making and selling illegal copies is something else entirely. The RIAA would have to get a court order to actually sieze anything that was not voluntarily given up, but if it was pirated they would have a right to do so. You'll also note that the EFF actually supports this activity by the RIAA, as opposed to the harassment of file-sharers.
I don't know -- the RIAA is pretty low, but I don't think even they would want people to confuse them with the LAPD.
Second best quote: "They tried to scare me," Borrayo said. "They told me, 'You're a pirate!' I said, 'C'mon, guys, pirates are all at sea. I just work in a parking lot.'"
This is one of the purposes of the sun dial on the rover, or more specifically, the color dots on the sundial -- for a known quantity for color correction/balance.
To show any Martians that stumble across it an example of the pinnacle of technological achievement on Earth, of course!