Abortion = illegal is the way things were. Roe vs Wade = the change that "liberals" were seeking.
A valid point, how ever, RvW occurred in 1973. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of protesters where not even politically aware (say, under the age of 18) when that trial took place. So for all intents and purposes, to the current mainstream view, legal abortion is the norm, and making it illegal is a change from that norm.
And thus the reason why the terms Liberal and Conservative have become so worthless over the years. Who once was a Liberal is now a Conservative, and for fear of the label, they never changed their marketing. So we have Liberals with Conservative points of view and Conservatives with Liberal points of view. And that doesn't even get into the "Conservative values" or "Eco-conservative" groups, both of whom are exceptionally liberal in their practices, but often get lumped up into the conservative and liberal political groups.
I do miss a lot of drug commercials that way but I think I cankive (longer?) without that.
Interestingly enough, a friend with a life-long condition was recently introduced to a new drug treatment option through one of those direct to consumer adds (on that thar moving picture box). She looked it up on the internet after seeing the add, took that information in to her doc at her next appointment. He did some research on it and wound up giving her a perscription for it. Turns out that drug has had a huge effect on her life and she has gone from popping pain pills multiple times every day to taking a single pill and having none of the major issues related to her condition.
I'm still torn on the idea of DTC advertisements for drugs, but after working in the medical industry for a while now, I have come to the conclusion that a large number of idiots have found there way through medical school and are in charge of peoples health. That is a rather scary thought, and if some consumer education/awareness can help the issue, so be it.
Being that it is the internet and it tends to attract more clique then a truly diverse set of people who is to say the ranking isn't done by a bunch of people to the left who feel that Fox News and other right outlets has tilted news to the Right so they group up and say the Left articles are fair or vice versa.
If the majority of the population segment leans "left" then the balance IS left. If the two primary stances being argued in the mainstream media for the population segment is over what form of socialized health care to introduce, the balance is a blend of those points of view. The balance would not be those points of view vs privatized health care.
Then there is the statical correlation between Liberal and Conservative (And I am talking about the brawedest sense of the words), being the Liberals want to change things while conservatives want to keep things as they are.
That is a quaint understanding of the terms 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' and as much as I wish it were true, it has long since died. The terms Liberal and Conservative have changed dramatically over the years to have had a wide variety of meanings to the point now where people just lump huge groups of odd political categorizations together and label them according to their opposition of their current opinion.
If Liberal and Conservative meant what you feel they mean, why would Liberals be protesting to maintain Roe vs Wade while Conservatives protest to over turn it? Honestly, the two labels are almost worthless.
I would agree with you on all counts. A knowledgeable person would come to the same conclusion. But a person with out such a familiarity with the IOC, could be lead to believe that the logo is some how associated with the free-Tibet movement.
Just as if someone were to replace the loading screen and logo on their Linux build with the Microsoft Windows splash and logo. Anyone with familiarity with the current situation would be able to immediately identify the satire, but anyone with out such knowledge could easily be lead to believe that Microsoft was indeed producing a new brand of Linux.
If Apple Inc can sue Apple Corp on the grounds that they use an apple as their logo, I'm pretty sure the IOC could get a lawsuit off the ground here.
As for the DMCA, I agree whole heartedly. While I do think there should be some fast acting tool available to intellectual property right holders, the grossly over powered nature of DMCA take down notices combined with the utter lack of oversight leaves them ripe for abuse. Going to the other end of the spectrum forces the holders to go through the court system which could take weeks if not months, and at the end of the day would only profit the lawyers. Some form of middle ground must be found to curb the abuse while not burdening the state and further enriching the lawyers.
As I have said elsewhere in this thread, if it were only the 5-rings handcuffs, I wouldn't see the value in the take down, but at the start of the video they show the actual 5-rings trade mark. The goal of using the logo is to sell an idea, to cause consumer confusion, and to link the IOC trademark to the human rights violations occurring in China.
With the actual IOC logo at the start of the video, it is a trademark violation. If it were just the handcuffs logo, it would be fine.
Ehh, I don't think it's that bad most of the time. I do think Corporations have enjoyed a bit more lax regulation that I would have liked over the last 12 years, but all in all, the contribution to society on average is likely worth it. I wouldn't mind seeing more accountability on behalf of management and share owners for criminal acts taken by the corporation entity though, tossing a couple controlling interest investors into jail for a month or two might give other major investors pause when debating between the right/legal choice and the most profitable and likely illegal choice.
Is the system perfect? No. Is it better than nothing? Yeah.
And I can't concur with your statement "we really don't have much going for us anymore." As that would imply that we at one point did. But if you flip back through history, the mythical golden years never really seam to materialize. There was always something bad going on, and looking back longingly at a 'simpler time' is usually nothing more than wishful thinking and selective memories.
On a side note, I ran into a similar situation a few days ago. I was toying around with the idea of writing my own forum years ago when I was in school with way too much free lab time. I was smart enough to use validate parameters before passing them to stored procs, but when I ran out of time to play with it I just pulled down the posting and listing pages, so that people going to the website could no longer browse or post. What I forgot to pull down though, was the actual script that posted pages. Someone had managed to stumble across it and was using it to submit posts containing javascript redirects. Then they would link directly to the post page. The result being that they had managed to use my site as a un-blocked re-director. And since I had pulled off all the public facing pages for it, I didn't even notice it until I went to do some database maintenance and found an absurd number of posts in the forum tables.
Not a SQL injection issue, but another example of how a smart person can make a dumb mistake;) And yes, I pulled down the script and post viewing page immediately before scrubbing the database.
Again, this part is false. It is only actionable if the investors were made to invest under false pretenses.
Exactly why I said "could be actionable". Google's Investor Relations puts their #1 priority as long term financial gains. The "Don't Be Evil" motto is only in place because the existing management feels that by following that creed they will experience better long term profits.
IF, YouTube, and by extension Google, told the IOC to piss off (as I believe someone in this thread has recommended), it could lead to the IOC attempting to leverage Google out of a position to profit off of the Olympics, it could also strain the highly profitable relationship Google is attempting to court with China. Losing out on the ability to index Olympics related imagery and the market of China could have huge ramifications for Google's long term profits, and thus, long term share performance.
Taking actions to get Google locked out of the Chinese market could very well be actionable, even if it was due to a "don't be evil" decision on behalf of the senior management. IANAL, and I wouldn't want to be the one arguing for either side, but there is a very strong tie between almost all publicly traded corporations and stock value performance.
So, if marketing a new fork of Linux that had the MS Window's logo and boot screen as your own version of Linux is clearly a violation (as it sounds like we would both agree that it is). Why would it not be a violation that shows the IOC's 5-ring trademark prior to a few minute long video?
The Olympics are in China right now, China has a history of human rights violations, and the IOC has been working with their government for some time now to arrange for the games. Using the original and unaltered logo on this video, when the combination of the IOC, China, and human rights are of timely and geographical relevance, could and likely IS intended to cause consumer confusion as to the ownership of the video and the human rights violations occurring in China.
They are using the IOC's trademark to imply that the IOC is in part responsible for those human rights violations. Which, accuracy aside, is an infringement of the IOC's trademark.
The later satirical use of the 5-rings as hand-cuffs logo, I believe is covered under fair use, but the initial display of the IOC's trademark sure looks like a clear cut case of infringement.
I didn't read the article, but it doesn't sound like they are getting paid to develop was of thwarting, only detecting, based on monitoring network traffic.
Even if the attacker changes their vector and packages, the goal would appear to be to pick up on the trends of network traffic in assaults to better identify weak points, communications bottle necks, sources, etc...
Who's to say that the IOC has even noticed it? Who's to say they haven't already received a complaint and decided to disregard it? Who's to say that the IOC didn't look at it and say 'that is clearly satire' and decide not to pursue it?
I'm not a member of the IOC, so I can't speak to what or when they choose to enforce their trademark over. What I can say is that they do seem to be quite resolute in protecting their trademark.
Corporations exist, in part, to limit the liability of the investors.
Corporation's management is beholden to its owners.
The vast majority of share holders have a strong interest in not losing their investment.
If the corporation's management fails to move the company in the direction the investors desire, it could be actionable.
And from each state and country there are different laws that apply a wide range of specifics.
So all in all my statement may have been a bit too blunt, perhaps I should have said "Limiting their liability is something that is very much in their best interested to do." or "Failing to limiting their could result in legal repercussions." or any number of other phrasings that all have relatively the same meaning.
There are two different logos shown in the video, one being the 5 rings as handcuffs in black and white, which should be protected under fair use. But at the beginning of the projection, there is a full color illustration of the IOC's trademark 5-rings.
Now, if someone where to clip out that 1/2 a second of frames and re-post the video, I would be hard pressed to defend the IOC's actions.
The IOC will throw notices at any and all unlicensed uses of it's trademarks, regardless of legality or the context in which it stands. In the case of trademark protection, it is their safest bet to ensure that their world wide recognized logo does not lose its protections. If they did not go after each and every unlicensed use, it wouldn't take long at all for the logo to become unprotected.
YouTube, as per their apparent standards, will pull down any video that they get a complaint on, review it, and decide later what to do about it, as a means of limiting their liability. Limiting their liability is something they are legally required to do for their share holders.
So the two companies are just doing the dance that all companies do. Give it a few days to shake out and the legal pros over at youtube time to determine their liability, and if the risk of lawsuit is low enough, they'll put the video back up.
Gotta wonder about the people at You-Tube, they really seem to hate freedom.
Anyone who claims that another party "hates freedom" based on nothing more than an uninformed opinion deserves to be culled from the heard. It's just idiotic rhetoric that serves no purpose but to instill fear/anger in the minds of those lemmings to dim to realize there are other people in the world besides themselves.
Right up there with statements like "Obama hates America", "Liberals want higher gas prices", and "Republicans want another terrorist attack". Freaking retarded.
I've got this great idea for a movie. It's called "Vampirates 2: Vampirates in Space!" With the tag line "In space, everything sucks!" and it would be a continuation of the Vampirates vs Ninja Mutants saga that started in Vampirates 1. So if ya find anyone with resources to throw around, point them over my way when you're done with 'em, I want to see some hot Vampirate vs cat-man ninja action on the big screen!
The simple fact of the matter is that Some Americans will no longer be able to afford to own and operate an Internal Combustion Engine powered automobile.
Fixed. There is a finite amount of all resources on this planet, so you are correct that at some point, not everyone is going to be able to do everything they currently take for granted. And transportation is going to go through some 'exciting' times in the near future. But the immediate impact is not going to dramatically change the life style of the vast majority of Americans.
As much as I wish that was true, I have never managed to get my hands on a widely distributed talking points memo for the Democrat party. If you know of an organization that distributes such talking points, please post it, I'd be interested in finding out what political mantra they would have people saying these days.
As I stated above, my wording was a tad more negative than intended. The majority of the Nintendo hardware patents, so far as I know, have expired, although much of the copyrights on the games and marketing distributed with that system are still standing. So the company producing the package is ripping off someone.
The question still stands though, what does any of this have to do with MIT?
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. I just don't understand what MIT's angle on it is and why their lack of angle is note worthy. I suppose my wording was a bit on the negative side though, so I can understand where you were coming from.
Step 1: Rip off 20 year old patented technology Step 2: Cram into smaller container Step 3: Get MIT guys to give you free press Step 4: ??? Step 5: Profit
I mean, what's the actual deal here? Some manufacturer in China is producing a miniaturized clone of the Nintendo skipping out on the licensing fees so they can get it to market in the $12 range, MIT students/alumni are smiling at it around a table. So what exactly is MIT doing?
Is it suddenly dawning on them that if you strip all of the patent protection and licensing from a project that a $100+ chunk of electronics is only $12 worth of components, shipping and handling, and Chinese labor?
Slashdot Mirror
Abortion = illegal is the way things were.
Roe vs Wade = the change that "liberals" were seeking.
A valid point, how ever, RvW occurred in 1973. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of protesters where not even politically aware (say, under the age of 18) when that trial took place. So for all intents and purposes, to the current mainstream view, legal abortion is the norm, and making it illegal is a change from that norm.
And thus the reason why the terms Liberal and Conservative have become so worthless over the years. Who once was a Liberal is now a Conservative, and for fear of the label, they never changed their marketing. So we have Liberals with Conservative points of view and Conservatives with Liberal points of view. And that doesn't even get into the "Conservative values" or "Eco-conservative" groups, both of whom are exceptionally liberal in their practices, but often get lumped up into the conservative and liberal political groups.
-Rick
I do miss a lot of drug commercials that way but I think I cankive (longer?) without that.
Interestingly enough, a friend with a life-long condition was recently introduced to a new drug treatment option through one of those direct to consumer adds (on that thar moving picture box). She looked it up on the internet after seeing the add, took that information in to her doc at her next appointment. He did some research on it and wound up giving her a perscription for it. Turns out that drug has had a huge effect on her life and she has gone from popping pain pills multiple times every day to taking a single pill and having none of the major issues related to her condition.
I'm still torn on the idea of DTC advertisements for drugs, but after working in the medical industry for a while now, I have come to the conclusion that a large number of idiots have found there way through medical school and are in charge of peoples health. That is a rather scary thought, and if some consumer education/awareness can help the issue, so be it.
-Rick
Being that it is the internet and it tends to attract more clique then a truly diverse set of people who is to say the ranking isn't done by a bunch of people to the left who feel that Fox News and other right outlets has tilted news to the Right so they group up and say the Left articles are fair or vice versa.
If the majority of the population segment leans "left" then the balance IS left. If the two primary stances being argued in the mainstream media for the population segment is over what form of socialized health care to introduce, the balance is a blend of those points of view. The balance would not be those points of view vs privatized health care.
Then there is the statical correlation between Liberal and Conservative (And I am talking about the brawedest sense of the words), being the Liberals want to change things while conservatives want to keep things as they are.
That is a quaint understanding of the terms 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' and as much as I wish it were true, it has long since died. The terms Liberal and Conservative have changed dramatically over the years to have had a wide variety of meanings to the point now where people just lump huge groups of odd political categorizations together and label them according to their opposition of their current opinion.
If Liberal and Conservative meant what you feel they mean, why would Liberals be protesting to maintain Roe vs Wade while Conservatives protest to over turn it? Honestly, the two labels are almost worthless.
-Rick
An evening of navel gazing with CowboyNeal!
-Rick
I would agree with you on all counts. A knowledgeable person would come to the same conclusion. But a person with out such a familiarity with the IOC, could be lead to believe that the logo is some how associated with the free-Tibet movement.
Just as if someone were to replace the loading screen and logo on their Linux build with the Microsoft Windows splash and logo. Anyone with familiarity with the current situation would be able to immediately identify the satire, but anyone with out such knowledge could easily be lead to believe that Microsoft was indeed producing a new brand of Linux.
If Apple Inc can sue Apple Corp on the grounds that they use an apple as their logo, I'm pretty sure the IOC could get a lawsuit off the ground here.
As for the DMCA, I agree whole heartedly. While I do think there should be some fast acting tool available to intellectual property right holders, the grossly over powered nature of DMCA take down notices combined with the utter lack of oversight leaves them ripe for abuse. Going to the other end of the spectrum forces the holders to go through the court system which could take weeks if not months, and at the end of the day would only profit the lawyers. Some form of middle ground must be found to curb the abuse while not burdening the state and further enriching the lawyers.
-Rick
...
How could they perform with those giant cocks and balls though!?!?
-Rick
As I have said elsewhere in this thread, if it were only the 5-rings handcuffs, I wouldn't see the value in the take down, but at the start of the video they show the actual 5-rings trade mark. The goal of using the logo is to sell an idea, to cause consumer confusion, and to link the IOC trademark to the human rights violations occurring in China.
With the actual IOC logo at the start of the video, it is a trademark violation. If it were just the handcuffs logo, it would be fine.
-Rick
Ehh, I don't think it's that bad most of the time. I do think Corporations have enjoyed a bit more lax regulation that I would have liked over the last 12 years, but all in all, the contribution to society on average is likely worth it. I wouldn't mind seeing more accountability on behalf of management and share owners for criminal acts taken by the corporation entity though, tossing a couple controlling interest investors into jail for a month or two might give other major investors pause when debating between the right/legal choice and the most profitable and likely illegal choice.
Is the system perfect? No. Is it better than nothing? Yeah.
And I can't concur with your statement "we really don't have much going for us anymore." As that would imply that we at one point did. But if you flip back through history, the mythical golden years never really seam to materialize. There was always something bad going on, and looking back longingly at a 'simpler time' is usually nothing more than wishful thinking and selective memories.
-Rick
I LOL'd
On a side note, I ran into a similar situation a few days ago. I was toying around with the idea of writing my own forum years ago when I was in school with way too much free lab time. I was smart enough to use validate parameters before passing them to stored procs, but when I ran out of time to play with it I just pulled down the posting and listing pages, so that people going to the website could no longer browse or post. What I forgot to pull down though, was the actual script that posted pages. Someone had managed to stumble across it and was using it to submit posts containing javascript redirects. Then they would link directly to the post page. The result being that they had managed to use my site as a un-blocked re-director. And since I had pulled off all the public facing pages for it, I didn't even notice it until I went to do some database maintenance and found an absurd number of posts in the forum tables.
Not a SQL injection issue, but another example of how a smart person can make a dumb mistake ;) And yes, I pulled down the script and post viewing page immediately before scrubbing the database.
-Rick
Again, this part is false. It is only actionable if the investors were made to invest under false pretenses.
Exactly why I said "could be actionable". Google's Investor Relations puts their #1 priority as long term financial gains. The "Don't Be Evil" motto is only in place because the existing management feels that by following that creed they will experience better long term profits.
IF, YouTube, and by extension Google, told the IOC to piss off (as I believe someone in this thread has recommended), it could lead to the IOC attempting to leverage Google out of a position to profit off of the Olympics, it could also strain the highly profitable relationship Google is attempting to court with China. Losing out on the ability to index Olympics related imagery and the market of China could have huge ramifications for Google's long term profits, and thus, long term share performance.
Taking actions to get Google locked out of the Chinese market could very well be actionable, even if it was due to a "don't be evil" decision on behalf of the senior management. IANAL, and I wouldn't want to be the one arguing for either side, but there is a very strong tie between almost all publicly traded corporations and stock value performance.
-Rick
So, if marketing a new fork of Linux that had the MS Window's logo and boot screen as your own version of Linux is clearly a violation (as it sounds like we would both agree that it is). Why would it not be a violation that shows the IOC's 5-ring trademark prior to a few minute long video?
The Olympics are in China right now, China has a history of human rights violations, and the IOC has been working with their government for some time now to arrange for the games. Using the original and unaltered logo on this video, when the combination of the IOC, China, and human rights are of timely and geographical relevance, could and likely IS intended to cause consumer confusion as to the ownership of the video and the human rights violations occurring in China.
They are using the IOC's trademark to imply that the IOC is in part responsible for those human rights violations. Which, accuracy aside, is an infringement of the IOC's trademark.
The later satirical use of the 5-rings as hand-cuffs logo, I believe is covered under fair use, but the initial display of the IOC's trademark sure looks like a clear cut case of infringement.
-Rick
I didn't read the article, but it doesn't sound like they are getting paid to develop was of thwarting, only detecting, based on monitoring network traffic.
Even if the attacker changes their vector and packages, the goal would appear to be to pick up on the trends of network traffic in assaults to better identify weak points, communications bottle necks, sources, etc...
-Rick
/shrug
Who's to say that the IOC has even noticed it? Who's to say they haven't already received a complaint and decided to disregard it? Who's to say that the IOC didn't look at it and say 'that is clearly satire' and decide not to pursue it?
I'm not a member of the IOC, so I can't speak to what or when they choose to enforce their trademark over. What I can say is that they do seem to be quite resolute in protecting their trademark.
-Rick
Okay, so it was a bit of an over simplification.
Corporations exist, in part, to limit the liability of the investors.
Corporation's management is beholden to its owners.
The vast majority of share holders have a strong interest in not losing their investment.
If the corporation's management fails to move the company in the direction the investors desire, it could be actionable.
And from each state and country there are different laws that apply a wide range of specifics.
So all in all my statement may have been a bit too blunt, perhaps I should have said "Limiting their liability is something that is very much in their best interested to do." or "Failing to limiting their could result in legal repercussions." or any number of other phrasings that all have relatively the same meaning.
-Rick
There are two different logos shown in the video, one being the 5 rings as handcuffs in black and white, which should be protected under fair use. But at the beginning of the projection, there is a full color illustration of the IOC's trademark 5-rings.
Now, if someone where to clip out that 1/2 a second of frames and re-post the video, I would be hard pressed to defend the IOC's actions.
-Rick
The IOC will throw notices at any and all unlicensed uses of it's trademarks, regardless of legality or the context in which it stands. In the case of trademark protection, it is their safest bet to ensure that their world wide recognized logo does not lose its protections. If they did not go after each and every unlicensed use, it wouldn't take long at all for the logo to become unprotected.
YouTube, as per their apparent standards, will pull down any video that they get a complaint on, review it, and decide later what to do about it, as a means of limiting their liability. Limiting their liability is something they are legally required to do for their share holders.
So the two companies are just doing the dance that all companies do. Give it a few days to shake out and the legal pros over at youtube time to determine their liability, and if the risk of lawsuit is low enough, they'll put the video back up.
-Rick
Gotta wonder about the people at You-Tube, they really seem to hate freedom.
Anyone who claims that another party "hates freedom" based on nothing more than an uninformed opinion deserves to be culled from the heard. It's just idiotic rhetoric that serves no purpose but to instill fear/anger in the minds of those lemmings to dim to realize there are other people in the world besides themselves.
Right up there with statements like "Obama hates America", "Liberals want higher gas prices", and "Republicans want another terrorist attack". Freaking retarded.
-Rick
Check http://dsireusa.org/ to find your own state's initiatives.
-Rick
I've got this great idea for a movie. It's called "Vampirates 2: Vampirates in Space!" With the tag line "In space, everything sucks!" and it would be a continuation of the Vampirates vs Ninja Mutants saga that started in Vampirates 1. So if ya find anyone with resources to throw around, point them over my way when you're done with 'em, I want to see some hot Vampirate vs cat-man ninja action on the big screen!
-Rick
The simple fact of the matter is that Some Americans will no longer be able to afford to own and operate an Internal Combustion Engine powered automobile.
Fixed. There is a finite amount of all resources on this planet, so you are correct that at some point, not everyone is going to be able to do everything they currently take for granted. And transportation is going to go through some 'exciting' times in the near future. But the immediate impact is not going to dramatically change the life style of the vast majority of Americans.
-Rick
As much as I wish that was true, I have never managed to get my hands on a widely distributed talking points memo for the Democrat party. If you know of an organization that distributes such talking points, please post it, I'd be interested in finding out what political mantra they would have people saying these days.
-Rick
As I stated above, my wording was a tad more negative than intended. The majority of the Nintendo hardware patents, so far as I know, have expired, although much of the copyrights on the games and marketing distributed with that system are still standing. So the company producing the package is ripping off someone.
The question still stands though, what does any of this have to do with MIT?
-Rick
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. I just don't understand what MIT's angle on it is and why their lack of angle is note worthy. I suppose my wording was a bit on the negative side though, so I can understand where you were coming from.
-Rick
Step 1: Rip off 20 year old patented technology
Step 2: Cram into smaller container
Step 3: Get MIT guys to give you free press
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Profit
I mean, what's the actual deal here? Some manufacturer in China is producing a miniaturized clone of the Nintendo skipping out on the licensing fees so they can get it to market in the $12 range, MIT students/alumni are smiling at it around a table. So what exactly is MIT doing?
Is it suddenly dawning on them that if you strip all of the patent protection and licensing from a project that a $100+ chunk of electronics is only $12 worth of components, shipping and handling, and Chinese labor?
-Rick
You are correct, I brain farted while typing that. It should have said:
Asbestos is like organics, when you get it hot enough ... it will out gas
-Rick