Mere capitalization doesn't turn a word from a generic term into a trademarkable one. If "windows" was a term of art in the field of computers, it was legally untrademarkable, and therefore Microsoft has no trademark on "Windows".
If "windows" was generic, "Windows" could not be trademarked, and Microsoft, legally, does not and has never had a trademark on "Windows". In that case it doesn't matter how strongly "Lindows" alludes to it, or how much of an attempt to trade on Microsoft Windows's credibility it is -- it's still legal. And courts deal in law, not ethics.
Linspire® Windows Red Hat® Windows Personal Edition Linux®. SCO® UNIXWindows® Debian GNU/X/BSD/Linux/Windows Apple® Windows X® 10.7 for Macintosh® computers
As the 9th Circuit just ruled, what happens afterward cannot un-generic a term. The Car, Inc. "Car" wouldn't infringe, and the Lar, Inc. "Lar" certainly wouldn't.
I heard the same "you need hardly any proc power to browse the WWW, read e-mail, or do IM chat" type of comments back when 120 MHz chips were high-end and P75s were in the low-end computers. And that was true then, too, but it doesn't seem to stop the standard chips from becoming 25-or-so times faster.
The original story goes to some length about the change-minimization efforts they go to. The central precaution is that the hunted animal is killed where and moments before when it would have died anyway.
Implicitly, it assumes that while time is fragile, under the normal elaborate precautions it's resilient enough that any changes don't reach the point of being noticed by anybody coming back.
Explicitly, it's far more concerned about damage to animals than to plants (so no blade of grass is a bit of an overstatement; the path is more to save the insects that might be crushed underfoot).
Legally, sure, he can comment on it, at least unless he signed an NDA, and even then he's only subject to civil penalties.
It's simply considered somewhere between mildly unethical to moderately ill-mannered to do so before the book is formally released to the public. A gentleman (or a scoundrel who ever wants access to a future pre-release copy ever again) allows the publisher/author to officially release a book before he picks it apart, especially since the "embargo" period is, among other things, used as the last chance to catch and correct mistakes.
If you take the initiative in [verb]ing [item], then you are the first to do it, or you were the leader of it. Therefore, what Gore said has the same meaning as either:
"I was the first to create the Internet", or "I led the creation of the Internet".
The first of which means the exact same thing as "I invented the Internet." If he didn't mean it, he should have said something else, like:
"I took the initiative in funding the Internet." "I was an early supporter of creating the Internet." "I was the leader of Congressional support for the Internet."
Or so on.
Of course, we shouldn't be too hard on Gore. After all, he was a mediocre student in an undergraduate journalism program at a state college, not an MBA from the toughest buisness school in the world. Our standards should be set lower for Mr. Gore.
And? We have a legal system to handle fraud. The DNS system itself can't police this.
If.net didn't exist, the fraudsters could still have used handy-backup.com, handyback-up.com, handy-back-up.com, handibackup.com, handybakup.com, or any others of dozens of minor variants.
Re:I believe that you are wrong.
on
Safe and Insecure?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You're ignoring the fact that he's published what he's done and why -- an element I specifically pointed out.
How did he conspire with the guy in a van? He just told the guy, on a major media website, that he's deliberately disabled everything that might assist in the guy's capture. There's nothing in conspiracy law that requires the communication to be secret.
Now, he says, "I'm not deliberately opening my network to hackers and miscreants bent on downloading copyrighted material. I'm simply choosing not to secure it."
However, that's blatantly false. He said he "turned off all the security features of [his] wireless router", not never secured it. He said he did this so that he has "no way to be certain what kinds of songs, movies and pictures will be downloaded by other people using my IP address," which shows he clearly contemplated people using it illegally.
Now, if he'd not published, then he'd have plausible deniability. But as it stands now, no, he doesn't have a shred of deniability. All one has to do is enter his Salon article into evidence.
The prosecution must prove that you committed a crime
Such as "conspiracy to commit" or "accessory to", laws specifically designed for cases like this.
Having deliberately deactivated his security and explicitly said he did so that criminal activity cannot be traced to any person, all the prosecution need to prove is the activity happened over his connection. He's an accessory, and he's in trouble.
He may have pulled it off if he never told anyone why he unsecured his network -- but he has, and he's now on the hook.
And that non-living entity made up of sheets of paper and a stock prospectus -- that legal construct -- doesn't do anything. At all. It never acts on its own.
Rather, people do things. Their agreements among themselves on how the group will act is written down in those papers, but that doesn't change the fact that all the actions are by people, who have all the rights of people. The corporation-as-person-with-rights is merely a convenient abstraction that simplifies the problems of dealing with large groups of people working together.
It must be remembered that we bother with Euclidian geometry at all because it corresponds simply and closely to the real world.
On the other hand, your set of three axioms require massive contortion to apply to real life, since the existence of a loving creator is, at a glance, inconsistent dozens of natural phenomena, from disasters to disease, and that's only in the "DIS" section of the dictionary. If Euclid's system had required such contortions, it would have been forgotten long ago.
A rational being would dismiss #3 out of hand. It's much simpler to believe that God is either indifferent or sadistic; many difficult problems of the Loving Creator model resolve themselves immediately.
Powell's the wrong one to blame. For that, you have to go to Democratic commission member Michael J. Copps.
Copps was one of the two members of the panel who voted to levy fines in the Bono case, while Powell was one of the three who voted against. Copps is also the dissenter who said there shouldn't just be a fine in the Stern case, but instead license revocation hearings for stations that carried Stern.
Despite "liberal" prudes like Tipper Gore, Joe Lieberman, Catherine MacKinnon, and Andrea Dworkin, there's this continuing unthinking automatic identification of censorship with the Right. So the pro-censorship actions of Democrat Michael J. Copps get blamed on Republican Michael K. Powell. After all, he's a Republican, so he must be the censorious crusader . ..
Okay, Lavosier was killed in the French Revolution, so he was an undergrad in, say, 1900 at the most recent, giving time for the ideas to disseminate in the 18th century. Assume he was a genius who got in at age 10, and had the lecture that year . ..
Hmm. So, Thunderstruck is at least 114 years old; more plausibly, he'd be in his 130s or 140s, but nobody's that old. Call him 120.
No, Google doesn't own your words. You still own them. You're giving Google a non-exclusive license to them.
Now, what does the Google authorizes clause mean? It means Google is using the license you gave it to sublicense it under these conditions. None of the restrictions goes any further than ordinary copyright, and ordinary copyright applies immediately upon your fixing your words in a tangible medium, so all this clause does is restate the conditions of the Universal Copyright Convention. Anything you read on Usenet or Slashdot is, legally, under the same restrictions as the clause, minus Google's ability to give a user written permission to use it in prohibited ways.
You want users to be able to do anything you like with your stuff? Add a bit at the bottom declaring it in the public domain, putting it under one of the Creative Commons licenses, or the like. Since Google's license is non-exclusive, and since as the author you are the copyright holder, you have the right to do that. Since the users now have rights directly from you, the Google restriction on your content doesn't apply.
By the way, if the users want to use content you posted to Slashdot or Usenet in those prohibited ways, you legally have to do the same grant of rights you would in the Google case -- otherwise the users are violating your copyright.
This is for AdSense, not Google proper. Therefore, the images will only run on non-Google web sites.
This will only run on AdSense sites that specifically enable it. So the images wil only run on non-Google sites that specifically choose to run image ads in addition to text.
They're limited to non-animated, 50 KB images in GIF, JPEG, or PNG formats. Small, low-annoyance images.
They're not putting image ads on Google itself. All they're doing is extending AdSense with an option for the third-party AdSense affiliates to run graphical ads if they so choose.
That's merely give options to the users of the AdSense service -- the affiliated web sites. It's then those sites decision whether or not to serve image ads to their users.
Am I the _only_ one that remembers the inspectors being let in, receiving cooperation?
I hope so, given that Blix himself testified Iraq was not giving full cooperation, as required by UN resolution, the cease-fire agreement, and international law.
And wait decades for them to pay off the energy required to lift them to orbit, especially at microwave energy transmission losses . . . except the panels will be rendered inoperative by micrometeorites first.
Solar power satellites are only practical if you either have space manufacturing out of lunar/asteroid material, or a beanstalk.
Slashdot Mirror
Mere capitalization doesn't turn a word from a generic term into a trademarkable one. If "windows" was a term of art in the field of computers, it was legally untrademarkable, and therefore Microsoft has no trademark on "Windows".
If "windows" was generic, "Windows" could not be trademarked, and Microsoft, legally, does not and has never had a trademark on "Windows". In that case it doesn't matter how strongly "Lindows" alludes to it, or how much of an attempt to trade on Microsoft Windows's credibility it is -- it's still legal. And courts deal in law, not ethics.
Linspire® Windows
Red Hat® Windows Personal Edition Linux®.
SCO® UNIXWindows®
Debian GNU/X/BSD/Linux/Windows
Apple® Windows X® 10.7 for Macintosh® computers
As the 9th Circuit just ruled, what happens afterward cannot un-generic a term. The Car, Inc. "Car" wouldn't infringe, and the Lar, Inc. "Lar" certainly wouldn't.
I heard the same "you need hardly any proc power to browse the WWW, read e-mail, or do IM chat" type of comments back when 120 MHz chips were high-end and P75s were in the low-end computers. And that was true then, too, but it doesn't seem to stop the standard chips from becoming 25-or-so times faster.
The original story goes to some length about the change-minimization efforts they go to. The central precaution is that the hunted animal is killed where and moments before when it would have died anyway.
Implicitly, it assumes that while time is fragile, under the normal elaborate precautions it's resilient enough that any changes don't reach the point of being noticed by anybody coming back.
Explicitly, it's far more concerned about damage to animals than to plants (so no blade of grass is a bit of an overstatement; the path is more to save the insects that might be crushed underfoot).
Oh, yes, sure, Czechosolvakia ceased to exist . . . in this timeline. Who knew stepping on a snail would have such an effect?
Well, not I. But when I saw that Simpsons bit, I knew it was a reference to Bradbury's "A Sound of Thunder".
Ah, you see, you saw that PR piece in the other timeline, the one where Czechosolvakia ceased to exist on the first of January, 1993 .
In "Balance of Terror", the Romulan ship was specifically noted as being non-warp-capable, as were the Romulan ships during the Romulan War.
there is no substitute for honest to goodness sleep.
Sure there is. It's called Provigil. It's not a stimulant and it doesn't give you "energy". It just relieves the need for sleep.
Legally, sure, he can comment on it, at least unless he signed an NDA, and even then he's only subject to civil penalties.
It's simply considered somewhere between mildly unethical to moderately ill-mannered to do so before the book is formally released to the public. A gentleman (or a scoundrel who ever wants access to a future pre-release copy ever again) allows the publisher/author to officially release a book before he picks it apart, especially since the "embargo" period is, among other things, used as the last chance to catch and correct mistakes.
Please, can we parse the English plainly?
If you take the initiative in [verb]ing [item], then you are the first to do it, or you were the leader of it. Therefore, what Gore said has the same meaning as either:
"I was the first to create the Internet", or
"I led the creation of the Internet".
The first of which means the exact same thing as "I invented the Internet." If he didn't mean it, he should have said something else, like:
"I took the initiative in funding the Internet." "I was an early supporter of creating the Internet."
"I was the leader of Congressional support for the Internet."
Or so on.
Of course, we shouldn't be too hard on Gore. After all, he was a mediocre student in an undergraduate journalism program at a state college, not an MBA from the toughest buisness school in the world. Our standards should be set lower for Mr. Gore.
And? We have a legal system to handle fraud. The DNS system itself can't police this.
.net didn't exist, the fraudsters could still have used handy-backup.com, handyback-up.com, handy-back-up.com, handibackup.com, handybakup.com, or any others of dozens of minor variants.
If
You're ignoring the fact that he's published what he's done and why -- an element I specifically pointed out.
How did he conspire with the guy in a van? He just told the guy, on a major media website, that he's deliberately disabled everything that might assist in the guy's capture. There's nothing in conspiracy law that requires the communication to be secret.
Now, he says, "I'm not deliberately opening my network to hackers and miscreants bent on downloading copyrighted material. I'm simply choosing not to secure it."
However, that's blatantly false. He said he "turned off all the security features of [his] wireless router", not never secured it. He said he did this so that he has "no way to be certain what kinds of songs, movies and pictures will be downloaded by other people using my IP address," which shows he clearly contemplated people using it illegally.
Now, if he'd not published, then he'd have plausible deniability. But as it stands now, no, he doesn't have a shred of deniability. All one has to do is enter his Salon article into evidence.
The prosecution must prove that you committed a crime
Such as "conspiracy to commit" or "accessory to", laws specifically designed for cases like this.
Having deliberately deactivated his security and explicitly said he did so that criminal activity cannot be traced to any person, all the prosecution need to prove is the activity happened over his connection. He's an accessory, and he's in trouble.
He may have pulled it off if he never told anyone why he unsecured his network -- but he has, and he's now on the hook.
And that non-living entity made up of sheets of paper and a stock prospectus -- that legal construct -- doesn't do anything. At all. It never acts on its own.
Rather, people do things. Their agreements among themselves on how the group will act is written down in those papers, but that doesn't change the fact that all the actions are by people, who have all the rights of people. The corporation-as-person-with-rights is merely a convenient abstraction that simplifies the problems of dealing with large groups of people working together.
It must be remembered that we bother with Euclidian geometry at all because it corresponds simply and closely to the real world.
On the other hand, your set of three axioms require massive contortion to apply to real life, since the existence of a loving creator is, at a glance, inconsistent dozens of natural phenomena, from disasters to disease, and that's only in the "DIS" section of the dictionary. If Euclid's system had required such contortions, it would have been forgotten long ago.
A rational being would dismiss #3 out of hand. It's much simpler to believe that God is either indifferent or sadistic; many difficult problems of the Loving Creator model resolve themselves immediately.
Powell's the wrong one to blame. For that, you have to go to Democratic commission member Michael J. Copps.
.
Copps was one of the two members of the panel who voted to levy fines in the Bono case, while Powell was one of the three who voted against. Copps is also the dissenter who said there shouldn't just be a fine in the Stern case, but instead license revocation hearings for stations that carried Stern.
Despite "liberal" prudes like Tipper Gore, Joe Lieberman, Catherine MacKinnon, and Andrea Dworkin, there's this continuing unthinking automatic identification of censorship with the Right. So the pro-censorship actions of Democrat Michael J. Copps get blamed on Republican Michael K. Powell. After all, he's a Republican, so he must be the censorious crusader . .
Okay, Lavosier was killed in the French Revolution, so he was an undergrad in, say, 1900 at the most recent, giving time for the ideas to disseminate in the 18th century. Assume he was a genius who got in at age 10, and had the lecture that year . . .
Hmm. So, Thunderstruck is at least 114 years old; more plausibly, he'd be in his 130s or 140s, but nobody's that old. Call him 120.
No, Google doesn't own your words. You still own them. You're giving Google a non-exclusive license to them.
Now, what does the Google authorizes clause mean? It means Google is using the license you gave it to sublicense it under these conditions. None of the restrictions goes any further than ordinary copyright, and ordinary copyright applies immediately upon your fixing your words in a tangible medium, so all this clause does is restate the conditions of the Universal Copyright Convention. Anything you read on Usenet or Slashdot is, legally, under the same restrictions as the clause, minus Google's ability to give a user written permission to use it in prohibited ways.
You want users to be able to do anything you like with your stuff? Add a bit at the bottom declaring it in the public domain, putting it under one of the Creative Commons licenses, or the like. Since Google's license is non-exclusive, and since as the author you are the copyright holder, you have the right to do that. Since the users now have rights directly from you, the Google restriction on your content doesn't apply.
By the way, if the users want to use content you posted to Slashdot or Usenet in those prohibited ways, you legally have to do the same grant of rights you would in the Google case -- otherwise the users are violating your copyright.
Hmm?
They're not putting image ads on Google itself. All they're doing is extending AdSense with an option for the third-party AdSense affiliates to run graphical ads if they so choose.
That's merely give options to the users of the AdSense service -- the affiliated web sites. It's then those sites decision whether or not to serve image ads to their users.
There are many icebears in Antarctica. They've just made sure to eat all the witnesses.
Am I the _only_ one that remembers the inspectors being let in, receiving cooperation?
I hope so, given that Blix himself testified Iraq was not giving full cooperation, as required by UN resolution, the cease-fire agreement, and international law.
Make them cheap and light and send them in space
And wait decades for them to pay off the energy required to lift them to orbit, especially at microwave energy transmission losses . . . except the panels will be rendered inoperative by micrometeorites first.
Solar power satellites are only practical if you either have space manufacturing out of lunar/asteroid material, or a beanstalk.