"What else can you do?" Really? This sounded like a completely routine school disciplinary matter to me. Even taking your swipe at "our lawsuit-happy culture" at face value, which do you think is riskier from a lawsuit standpoint: 1) giving a student a suspension; or 2) having her arrested?
The parent post puts it harshly, but in my view is pretty spot-on in spirit. You should be analyzing literature of "high quality" (academically/pedagogically weighty) rather than mass-market stuff which may not have much substance.
There's plenty that's mathematically interesting in, for example, poetry... You can study the structure of different types of poems mathematically and play games with that. Have students figure out which meters "work" (sound good) and which don't. Try to have them come up with a theory of meter they can use. Relate it to actual poetry meters or the work of some poets.
It doesn't have to be poetry, either -- you can play the same games with simple grammar. What's the shortest grammatically correct sentence they can write? The longest they can write (that is grammatically correct) without punctuation marks? Can they write a computer program that generates mad/ad lib sentences? (Cover this after showing how to diagram sentences, for example).
It needn't all be creative, either. I'm sure if you're worth your salt as an English teacher you probably already know about some authors that have done things like this in their work. Lewis Carroll springs to mind, but I'm sure there are many, many others.
Plus, since math/science have been partly behind many burning social issues (driving all kinds of controversial changes in society) I'm sure authors have discussed these things. I bet you can pull passages from Mark Twain or Aldous Huxley or others that discuss numbers in some way to make points about political or other issues. Math and science don't come from "somewhere else," they're interwoven into society, so they will be reflected in society's literature.
In other words, look at the material you're already teaching from a different standpoint and you may find what you're looking for. You don't "bring math and science into English/literature"... it's already there! I think the parent poster is concerned because you seem not to notice this.
Excuse me, but WTF are you talking about? This is about NHTSA employees being told by their employer to refer reporters' questions to the appropriate person. You can BS on the record all you want about shoddy bridges, as long as you're not an employee of the NHTSA. Amazingly enough, this is exactly the policy that the grandparent post was referring to.
In our overlitigious society, this is a good policy, because otherwise, a carelessly-made remark by an engineer representing the NHTSA could result in some other party being dragged into a costly and unnecessary court battle.
I'm not trying to escalate here... my point is that even where employee/employer relationships are concerned, there's a difference between your ordinary average everyday company and a federal agency, in that one of them runs a business and the other runs part of our government. That's all.
Keeping employees on message and channeling every public comment through a PR spokesperson is very helpful. In a government agency, though, employees have a second boss: the public. So the standard is/should be a little different. What that standard should be, I haven't said. I'm not implying, for example, that every single employee of the agency should be able to go on record with their personal opinions, etc. I just felt that the parent post's position (that he/she had the same policy at work so what was the big deal) glossed over an important distinction: this isn't "just another company".
Meh... I don't agree with it, but my company has the same terms for employment. If we are contacted by the media, all we can do is refer them to our PR division.
Yes, but I don't have to live by the rules your company's HR department promulgates, and even you can leave the firm if you wish. So, you can't be suggesting there's no difference, can you?
To state the obvious, citizenship in a country (or simply being subject to the jurisdiction of its laws and policies regardless of my citizenship) is not an "employer/employee" relationship. "We the people..." ring a bell? Maybe even a particular bell?
Yeah but you're operating under a close proximity assumption here.
Say instead that the photon pulse for Device A is being fired are from Earth to Mars and then back again on a round trip, or around the earth many times in a flawless optical cable. Meanwhile Device B's laser is earth bound over a short distance. You can extend this range to whatever is needed to make the photons in Device A take 1 minute or longer to reach the detector.
You could then fiddle with Device A, see result in Device B way before Device A detects it's result, and have lots of time to turn off Device A, thus creating the paradox.
Well, I see what you're saying... and I guess I was thinking of "close proximity" but my point remains. For example, it may be that in setting up an experimental system large enough to allow for the creation of these paradoxes (a beam passing through either millions of miles of space, which is filled with quantum vacuum fluctuations, or millions of miles worth of fiber), we would also set up a system that will spontaneously create false signals at B with just enough probability that it becomes practically impossible to tell whether we've actually created any "paradoxes" or not.
At least, that sounds more plausible than actually creating a paradox, to me, and certainly has the feel of a quantum mechanical "solution" to such a paradox. But I'd love to hear from someone who actually has some experience with experiments involving entangled quantum states... anyone?
Does this mean that once the effect shows up in the one light beam, before he does it in the other light beam, he is somehow locked in to his future actions? If not, what happens if he just turns off the device?
I'd guess we could never create such a paradox even if the effect is real.
Classical relativity imposes one set of constraints, and quantum mechanics another. Einstein was bothered because it seemed like the classical limits (think "light cone") would be inapplicable here. Quantum physics requires us to consider the actual mechanisms by which we measure and communicate as PART of the experiment.
Even if it works out that information at point B shows up "before" (in the same reference frame) an action at point A causes that message to be sent... it's possible that there's no practical way to detect this fact and use it in any way that would make for a "paradox." It may be that the best we can do is *record* the fact that such a backward transmission happened.
Example: Your instrument records a signal at B "before" the timestamp of the interference of the beam at A. This shows that entanglement is real, and gets you out of the "light cone" limits of classical relativity, which is what bothered Einstein. But if you go further and try to create a logical paradox, by using this information at A to stop the sending of the signal, then you will likely run into other, quantum mechanical limits... E.g. the actual means by which you detect the signal at B and send that information back to A will likely overwhelm or destroy whatever time differences we're talking about, bringing them back within classical limits...
This would be similar to things like the particle/wave experiments, where the experimental apparatus itself affects the outcome of the experiment.
So while something like "instantaneous" or even slightly "backward in time" messages may seem spooky in some ways may be possible, I'd bet that the time differences we're talking about wouldn't be large enough to make for any of the paradoxes people imagine using sci-fi based "time travel" notions.
Well, or maybe not. After all, the trademark of the product itself isn't being infringed, only the ads are similar, and the ads aren't the product.
Furthermore, the question is not whether the item or ads are "similar", the question is whether buyers are likely to confuse the origin of the products. That's a hard argument for Apple to make. First, the product is in a completely different product category, a category that Apple has never sold anything in. Second, there are many products that are far more confusable with Apple products than this.
You're right that it's easier for Apple to win if iGasm is something that competes directly with iPod. But my understanding is that the touchstone is simply "consumer confusion" in a broader sense. Example: The iGasm is obviously designed to be used WITH the iPod. The commercial looks very much like a commercial for the iPod. It has music and people dancing. In fact the folks in the commercial have iPods as well, along with their dildonics. Since the ad looks so much like Apple's, and it's clearly hawking an iPod accessory, it's not beyond imagining that some people might be asking for these things in Apple stores. That would be direct, and pretty damning evidence of confusion.
Lots of other factors involved, obviously, and I'm not saying who I think is right... just trying to clarify how TM law handles these things.
To others in the thread: I think US law and UK law are relatively comparable on general principles of TM. One recent area of possible divergence is the whole mess of "dilution" law, which we haven't really talked about here.
You can trademark almost anything that creates a connection in a consumer's mind between a product/service and its origin. Historically this has included logos, words, sounds (Harley Davidson's engine noise), images, even colors (Corningware's "pink" insulation), shapes of products (Weber Grill), type of decoration in a restaurant, called "trade dress" (Taco Cabana).
If whenever you see commercials of a certain "style" and you think "Apple/iPod", then the style is likely trademark material. If another company's using the same style to sell a similar/related product (as opposed to engaging in satire or public comment which is more protected) then I'd put my money on the trademark holder.
...You also have to apply for a trademark(unlike copyright where it's automatically a given)...
Wrong again, at least in the US. Most trademark rights come from using the trademark, not from applying for it. The Trademark office register the mark for you, which gives you some considerable procedural advantages (hence there is a process sort of like patent application that you need to go through), but there's no requirement to register your mark in order to have a trademark. All of which is probably beside the point in this instance, since I bet Apple registered something related to whatever they're suing over.
Sometimes you just have to make an example of someone, and when you do you go for the harshest penalty you can for effect. Sucks to be them, but they shouldn't have done it. Maybe this will save some other little jackasses some problems. I hope they lose the case and the suspension stays in place...
I understand why people say things like this, but it seems to me that the whole notion of "making an example" of someone is fundamentally unjust if the punishment exceeds what would be given otherwise. The way to "make an example" should be spreading awareness of the (deserved) punishment, not upping the penalty to the point where the school's judgment is being questioned along with the kid's. That actually sends a very mixed message, to which the mixed opinions in this thread can attest. Certainly, if he had been given a three-day suspension or something appropriate, the kid would receive little sympathy. Now, instead, far from an "example", he's probably a folk hero among those "other little jackasses" for being treated so severely.
You consented to let the intended receiver do whatever they want with your letter when you send it. Even before gmail they could quite legally put in on their home page, and still have Google (and every other search engine) scan it. Email privacy only covers the steps between the sender and receiver, not the end points.
Exactly. That's my point: that Google's (and the GP's) insistence on the magic of the "terms of use" and the user's ability to simply "Go to Yahoo" is an illusory fix. Business models that rely on getting consent from just one "endpoint" (as you put it) are extremely suspect. This is the type of thing that made Doubleclick so unpopular.
I worry that Google is holding out the gmail "terms of use" with one hand, trying to entice as many people as possible to use the service by saying that it shows how Google respects privacy and isn't "evil," while with the other hand it is really operating on an assumption much more like the one you have set forth: anything sent through email is largely fair game as long as someone at an "endpoint" somewhere signs on with Google.
Simply "going to Yahoo" wouldn't address the core concern here, any more than Doubleclick's "opt out" webpage protected the privacy interests of users that didn't even know Doubleclick was tracking their surfing activity. Companies that rely on such things for their business model are inherently suspect from a privacy standpoint. Google may not be evil, but my belief is that we should, perhaps, start with that assumption.
> > "they can argue you volunteered to have your emails scanned."
> Well, you agreed to the Terms of Use. Don't like 'em? Go to Yahoo.
This viewpoint only holds water if gmail is a self-contained universe, which it isn't.
For example: I don't use gmail. I didn't agree to let Google scan anything. And yet, when gmail users send me mail, then mail intended for my inbox is scanned by Google. If I send a gmail user mail (either directly or if someone forwards their other domain to a gmail account) then mail from my outbox is scanned by Google.
Tell me again how I consented to this...?
Addressing the larger concern, underneath the shiny, "non-evil" exterior of Google, is a targeted marketing company. Yes, an Internet-age, geek-friendly and trendy targeted marketing company with a less worrisome history than, say, Microsoft, but a targeted marketing company just the same, with all the privacy risks that entails. Make no mistake, Google is in the business of collecting and selling information about you for its own gain. And it will do so with your consent or without it.
I admit to a large amount of cluelessness in this area, so can someone enlighten me on a semantic distinction?
I know that all things "nano" are hot right now, but if this had been invented 15 years ago, would it just have been called a "drug"? In other words, is this simply an engineered molecule or substance or whatever that binds to specific receptors in certain ways for certain effects... what makes it "nano" other than its size? If that's the only criteria, then why aren't ALL drugs "nanoparticles"? Are these particles bigger or produced in a different way?
I'm just confused - when I first heard of nanotechnology I imagined little machines. That may be a misconception on my part, but I still feel that simply being a little grain of something (even if that something was engineered to have useful properties) doesn't quite seem to warrant the designation.
I can easily take the document to a point 10 minutes back by using the command: :earlier 10m
Or for that matter, move to a point 5 seconds ahead by using the command: :later 5s
AWESOME! Need to finish writing a paper? Normally take about 2 hours? Just type in
You ignore the most devastating part of the parent post's critique, which is the use (and re-use) of other people's tests and handy grading schemes. My dad does in fact write his own tests and grades them himself.
I don't know about the parent post, but I'm not asking you to write your own textbook. I'm asking you to write your own testing material since your job is both to explain the material and assess students' mastery of it.
And before you accuse, I never, not once, cheated in college or grad school.
You're right, I didn't address the "most devastating" part of the parent's critique much... I agree with much of what was said there. Many of the habits of lazy instructors can contribute to the problems created by cheating.
What I disagree most strongly with was the implication that the bad habits of lazy instructors somehow excuse student cheating. Context is very important: Students are in class to learn, and to be evaluated, as you point out. Therefore the work they do for the purpose of being evaluated must be their own work -- pure and simple. By trying to "trick" that system, they undermine the value of the very credentials they are trying to obtain for their own benefit.
I admit I am of two minds on the "original materials for testing purposes" issue. Your father and I take the same approach, apparently: I write my own tests. But, for better or for worse, many professors know next to nothing (and most less than they think they do) about proper curriculum design or test question drafting. Indeed, unless they are in education or perhaps psychology, that is not their "field". So what should they do? Test banks (which most textbooks come with nowadays) are one option, or sharing questions with colleagues. Some departments have professors get together to develop departmental question pools for introductory courses. At what point does the time spent on such things, however, start to detract from time that should more properly be spent on research in their primary field of study? These aren't easy questions and I don't pretend to have an answer. All I know is that I find it very hard to live up to even my own ideals in this regard.
Finally, despite all these interesting issues, NONE of this garners sympathy from me for a student who blatantly plagiarizes or cheats. Should an instructor feel that they can't assign a classic "game of life" programming assignment to their students, for example, because the danger of plagiarism is too high? I fear that the answer to that question might be "yes... such an assignment would be unwise" but I also hope that if I choose to "re-use" a classic assignment like that, I'm not branded as "lazy" or "contributing" to the problem of cheating for doing so...
I can't tell you the number of times I saw diagrams, figures, and tables stripped from other literature or sources, included in Powerpoint presentations prepared by professors and delivered to the class. Talk about academic dishonesty - presenting information to your students that isn't yours and not citing the source is just as bad.
...
The answer: professors need to stop being so damned lazy, and then perhaps their students will follow suit.
IAAP, for what that's worth.
I may be wrong, but your post reads like a rationalization from a "guilty" student. Do you have any IDEA how much time it would take to put together a quality course, with nothing but original materials? Not to mention grading students' work? I mean REALLY grading it - paying attention to the individual foibles of each student and trying to treat them like distinct human beings and not just a row of numbers on a grade sheet?
I hate to break it to you, but most of what you in lecture does not originate with your professor. Your prof is there to EXPLAIN it to you, not to CREATE it for you. When your professor publishes original work in their field (i.e. something similar to an assignment for which they get "professional" credit), you bet your ASS they would get in trouble for "borrowing" without citing sources. Their lectures and your assignments therefore belong in very different categories, as far as the standards applied.
I usually tell my students, at the beginning of a course, that I will pull in materials from many different sources in order to create the course lectures and assignments and to give them the best educational experience possible. I explain what I expect from them in terms of academic integrity, and if I catch them cheating, they suffer the consequences. I put my heart and soul into teaching my courses, and when students turn in copied or plagiarized work, that is a slap in the face, especially considering all the effort that I put into the course.
Yes, there are lazy teachers, and that DOES exacerbate the problem, but not in the way that you claim. Lazy teachers are actually much LESS likely to notice cheating. If students run into many teachers like this, and notice that cheating carries no consequences, they may start to feel that it's an under-the-table "accepted" practice, and just part of "the game." THAT is what really damages the credibility of professors, the academic institutions, and formalized learning in general.
So now, instead of "stealing" when I download music without permission, I will be "stealing" when I skip the ads without permission, right? Just checking.
I've got a MUCH better idea, RIAA. How about, instead, we just skip the ads altogether? No, really. I'll just download the music like I did before. You pretend you sent some ads to me, and I'll pretend I watched them if anyone asks. Honest! You go collect some cash from the advertising companies for "showing" me the ads, wink wink. (If they don't pay, sue them -- you're pretty practiced at suing your customers/clients now!). With the extra cash, you can even keep on pretending to pay your artists something, just like you pretend to do now!
No, no, it's not racketeering, it's a business plan! Besides, when did YOU start drawing such peksy distinctions? Sheesh.
...imagine how convenient it would be for a typical Joe User to be able to find a clip from CNN he saw earlier and use it for a research project he's working on. Wouldn't it be great if his daughter could find a clip of her favorite program as easily as searching for web pages?
"Imagine"? I don't have to imagine it. Napster (the original) was well on its way there. P2P networks are clearly doing this already. In fact, P2P networks distribute content in ways that efficiently spread out distribution costs among users (disproving the notion that the cost of "hosting" is supposedly the biggest "challenge" facing content owners --- a falsehood that nevertheless will become an excuse for many annoyances, such as unwanted advertising, and network non-neutrality).
Media companies are no friend in this regard, and neither is Google. Bottom line, people. That's all these companies "care" about. They see one another as foes and/or partners in the effort to control your access to information and the distribution of that information for their own profit.
In fact, in this regard I would say that the content owners, for all that many of us rail against them, are actually better actors, in a sense, than Google, here. Why? Because they are actually in the content creation business to some extent --- part of their argument has always been that the free distribution of content, while nice in theory, would come back to hit the artists, since historically the artists (creators) have been paid using a system that depends on royalties related to distribution (sales of individual copies). Thus they at least claim to be benefitting us by consolidating their control over the distribution of content.
Google, on the other hand, has never been about controlling distribution or content -- its business is based on providing as much access and utility as possible, as a means of sucking in information, which can then be used for marketing and advertising purposes. This is why a deal like this is a sign that Google is getting into bed with content owners, and changing its core business.
>The CIA is a *JOB*. The president is your *BOSS*. If you dont agree with the boss and speak out
> against him ( or the company ), you can/should be fired. Regardless of what industry you work in.
> Be it flipping hamburgers, building cars or protecting the country.
Damn straight. Years later when you're asked about your time at the company, you want to be able to say that you were "just following orders."
TFA doesn't to a good job of defining things (in fact it's a bit misleading). "Compulsory licensing" does NOT simply mean taxing everyone for blank CDs and giving the money to publishers/artists/whoever. Compulsory licensing means YOU GET A LICENSE (permission to make copies), regardless of what the media companies want. It's the rights holders who are "compelled," not the users. The tax itself is the presumed "cost" of that license. There's supposed to be a quid pro quo here.
Truth be told, I'd be pretty happy to pay a few cents extra for each blank CD, etc., if it meant that all my (and others') private copying in unprotected formats was presumed to be legal/licensed. That's a good trade-off, and the resulting market pressures would likely cause a decrease in prices and a lack of DRM ($1.00 for a single restricted audio track? Come on!). My bet is that this would likely save lots of money in the long run.
But the parent poster is right -- the media companies are trying to get it both ways: getting this money without giving me any substantial license to DO anything. What are the Spanish people getting in return for this? Anyone care to elaborate?
In everyday language, we call that a "freeloader".
No, you're missing my point. I'm willing to pay a FLAT fee. I just don't want to be metered as I go.
"Freeloading" would be if I wanted to pay nothing for extra work on E-Music's part or on the label's part or on the artist's part due to my downloading another copy.
Instead, I want a pricing structure that better approximates the true cost structure. This would probably be a flat fee, if copyright licensing wasn't all @#%@#ed up and predicated on a "per copy" license model. That model is just a holdover from the days of physical recordings, for which people already paid on a per unit basis, so adding a little bit on to the cost of each one made sense. But it doesn't make sense with downloads.
Gee, a pricing structure which approximates the cost structure. In everyday language, we call that a "market."
TFM mentions that EMusic used to have a subscription with unlimited downloads, but that since it cost them around 8 cents/download the revenue model didn't scale up for high-volume downloaders. Thus they adopted tiered rates and limited downloads.
They're oh, so close! They just went the wrong direction:
They need an E-Music file-sharing application! It could be just like (the original) Napster, run off their own servers, checking a custom ID3 tag to verify that shared files on the network are all legit E-Music files (this would also enable them to track download stats for various songs).
This would make it profitable to remove the download limit, and let people share songs directly. Just like the original Napster, but all legitimate, non-RIAA stuff. I'D PAY $10/month for that, no question.
THIS IS HOW THEY GET THEIR MILLION SUBSCRIBERS! (Not that they're listening to/. rants.)
As the service now stands, however, I tried a month of E-Music, but cancelled after that. I hate feeling "on the meter" with song downloads. I want to browse, listen, follow my stream of musical interest whereever it leads, and not have to worry about racking up ten bucks' worth of charges in the process.
If we want an economy that even approximates a 'free-market', then we need legislation.
You're spot on. Without regulations, a market is impossible. Particularly in matters concerning infrastructure, information flow, etc. But I agree the majority of Congressfolks are pretty clueless about technology, so I always cringe when I see bills relating to technology, fearing the worst.
One reason to be hopeful, though: Rick Boucher, one of this bill's sponsors, strikes me as a person who "gets" tech and the "public-good" benefits of online culture more than most. I sat in on some of the DMCA subcommittee hearings, and he was the sole member of the House subcommittee at that time who actually understood the issues (and as a result opposed most of the DMCA, ultimately unsuccessfully). He's also one who has been behind several efforts to blunt the harshest provisions of the DMCA.
So let's not write off his efforts and those of his cosponsors out of hand, just because we "don't like legislation." Let's take a look at the specifics.
Slashdot Mirror
"What else can you do?" Really? This sounded like a completely routine school disciplinary matter to me. Even taking your swipe at "our lawsuit-happy culture" at face value, which do you think is riskier from a lawsuit standpoint: 1) giving a student a suspension; or 2) having her arrested?
The parent post puts it harshly, but in my view is pretty spot-on in spirit. You should be analyzing literature of "high quality" (academically/pedagogically weighty) rather than mass-market stuff which may not have much substance.
There's plenty that's mathematically interesting in, for example, poetry... You can study the structure of different types of poems mathematically and play games with that. Have students figure out which meters "work" (sound good) and which don't. Try to have them come up with a theory of meter they can use. Relate it to actual poetry meters or the work of some poets.
It doesn't have to be poetry, either -- you can play the same games with simple grammar. What's the shortest grammatically correct sentence they can write? The longest they can write (that is grammatically correct) without punctuation marks? Can they write a computer program that generates mad/ad lib sentences? (Cover this after showing how to diagram sentences, for example).
It needn't all be creative, either. I'm sure if you're worth your salt as an English teacher you probably already know about some authors that have done things like this in their work. Lewis Carroll springs to mind, but I'm sure there are many, many others.
Plus, since math/science have been partly behind many burning social issues (driving all kinds of controversial changes in society) I'm sure authors have discussed these things. I bet you can pull passages from Mark Twain or Aldous Huxley or others that discuss numbers in some way to make points about political or other issues. Math and science don't come from "somewhere else," they're interwoven into society, so they will be reflected in society's literature.
In other words, look at the material you're already teaching from a different standpoint and you may find what you're looking for. You don't "bring math and science into English/literature"... it's already there! I think the parent poster is concerned because you seem not to notice this.
I'm not trying to escalate here... my point is that even where employee/employer relationships are concerned, there's a difference between your ordinary average everyday company and a federal agency, in that one of them runs a business and the other runs part of our government. That's all.
Keeping employees on message and channeling every public comment through a PR spokesperson is very helpful. In a government agency, though, employees have a second boss: the public. So the standard is/should be a little different. What that standard should be, I haven't said. I'm not implying, for example, that every single employee of the agency should be able to go on record with their personal opinions, etc. I just felt that the parent post's position (that he/she had the same policy at work so what was the big deal) glossed over an important distinction: this isn't "just another company".
Yes, but I don't have to live by the rules your company's HR department promulgates, and even you can leave the firm if you wish. So, you can't be suggesting there's no difference, can you?
To state the obvious, citizenship in a country (or simply being subject to the jurisdiction of its laws and policies regardless of my citizenship) is not an "employer/employee" relationship. "We the people..." ring a bell? Maybe even a particular bell?
RIAA: "...and I would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for those MEDDLING KIDS!!!"
Well, I see what you're saying... and I guess I was thinking of "close proximity" but my point remains. For example, it may be that in setting up an experimental system large enough to allow for the creation of these paradoxes (a beam passing through either millions of miles of space, which is filled with quantum vacuum fluctuations, or millions of miles worth of fiber), we would also set up a system that will spontaneously create false signals at B with just enough probability that it becomes practically impossible to tell whether we've actually created any "paradoxes" or not.
At least, that sounds more plausible than actually creating a paradox, to me, and certainly has the feel of a quantum mechanical "solution" to such a paradox. But I'd love to hear from someone who actually has some experience with experiments involving entangled quantum states... anyone?
I'd guess we could never create such a paradox even if the effect is real.
Classical relativity imposes one set of constraints, and quantum mechanics another. Einstein was bothered because it seemed like the classical limits (think "light cone") would be inapplicable here. Quantum physics requires us to consider the actual mechanisms by which we measure and communicate as PART of the experiment.
Even if it works out that information at point B shows up "before" (in the same reference frame) an action at point A causes that message to be sent... it's possible that there's no practical way to detect this fact and use it in any way that would make for a "paradox." It may be that the best we can do is *record* the fact that such a backward transmission happened.
Example: Your instrument records a signal at B "before" the timestamp of the interference of the beam at A. This shows that entanglement is real, and gets you out of the "light cone" limits of classical relativity, which is what bothered Einstein. But if you go further and try to create a logical paradox, by using this information at A to stop the sending of the signal, then you will likely run into other, quantum mechanical limits... E.g. the actual means by which you detect the signal at B and send that information back to A will likely overwhelm or destroy whatever time differences we're talking about, bringing them back within classical limits...
This would be similar to things like the particle/wave experiments, where the experimental apparatus itself affects the outcome of the experiment.
So while something like "instantaneous" or even slightly "backward in time" messages may seem spooky in some ways may be possible, I'd bet that the time differences we're talking about wouldn't be large enough to make for any of the paradoxes people imagine using sci-fi based "time travel" notions.
Here's a video (of the lizard not the robot):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhsxo7vY8ac
Professional Image Manipulation Program...
Oh, never mind.
You're right that it's easier for Apple to win if iGasm is something that competes directly with iPod. But my understanding is that the touchstone is simply "consumer confusion" in a broader sense. Example: The iGasm is obviously designed to be used WITH the iPod. The commercial looks very much like a commercial for the iPod. It has music and people dancing. In fact the folks in the commercial have iPods as well, along with their dildonics. Since the ad looks so much like Apple's, and it's clearly hawking an iPod accessory, it's not beyond imagining that some people might be asking for these things in Apple stores. That would be direct, and pretty damning evidence of confusion.
Lots of other factors involved, obviously, and I'm not saying who I think is right... just trying to clarify how TM law handles these things.
To others in the thread: I think US law and UK law are relatively comparable on general principles of TM. One recent area of possible divergence is the whole mess of "dilution" law, which we haven't really talked about here.
Some clarity on TM, at least in US...
You can trademark almost anything that creates a connection in a consumer's mind between a product/service and its origin. Historically this has included logos, words, sounds (Harley Davidson's engine noise), images, even colors (Corningware's "pink" insulation), shapes of products (Weber Grill), type of decoration in a restaurant, called "trade dress" (Taco Cabana).
If whenever you see commercials of a certain "style" and you think "Apple/iPod", then the style is likely trademark material. If another company's using the same style to sell a similar/related product (as opposed to engaging in satire or public comment which is more protected) then I'd put my money on the trademark holder.
Wrong again, at least in the US. Most trademark rights come from using the trademark, not from applying for it. The Trademark office register the mark for you, which gives you some considerable procedural advantages (hence there is a process sort of like patent application that you need to go through), but there's no requirement to register your mark in order to have a trademark. All of which is probably beside the point in this instance, since I bet Apple registered something related to whatever they're suing over.
I understand why people say things like this, but it seems to me that the whole notion of "making an example" of someone is fundamentally unjust if the punishment exceeds what would be given otherwise. The way to "make an example" should be spreading awareness of the (deserved) punishment, not upping the penalty to the point where the school's judgment is being questioned along with the kid's. That actually sends a very mixed message, to which the mixed opinions in this thread can attest. Certainly, if he had been given a three-day suspension or something appropriate, the kid would receive little sympathy. Now, instead, far from an "example", he's probably a folk hero among those "other little jackasses" for being treated so severely.
Exactly. That's my point: that Google's (and the GP's) insistence on the magic of the "terms of use" and the user's ability to simply "Go to Yahoo" is an illusory fix. Business models that rely on getting consent from just one "endpoint" (as you put it) are extremely suspect. This is the type of thing that made Doubleclick so unpopular.
I worry that Google is holding out the gmail "terms of use" with one hand, trying to entice as many people as possible to use the service by saying that it shows how Google respects privacy and isn't "evil," while with the other hand it is really operating on an assumption much more like the one you have set forth: anything sent through email is largely fair game as long as someone at an "endpoint" somewhere signs on with Google.
Simply "going to Yahoo" wouldn't address the core concern here, any more than Doubleclick's "opt out" webpage protected the privacy interests of users that didn't even know Doubleclick was tracking their surfing activity. Companies that rely on such things for their business model are inherently suspect from a privacy standpoint. Google may not be evil, but my belief is that we should, perhaps, start with that assumption.
> > "they can argue you volunteered to have your emails scanned."
> Well, you agreed to the Terms of Use. Don't like 'em? Go to Yahoo.
This viewpoint only holds water if gmail is a self-contained universe, which it isn't.
For example: I don't use gmail. I didn't agree to let Google scan anything. And yet, when gmail users send me mail, then mail intended for my inbox is scanned by Google. If I send a gmail user mail (either directly or if someone forwards their other domain to a gmail account) then mail from my outbox is scanned by Google.
Tell me again how I consented to this...?
Addressing the larger concern, underneath the shiny, "non-evil" exterior of Google, is a targeted marketing company. Yes, an Internet-age, geek-friendly and trendy targeted marketing company with a less worrisome history than, say, Microsoft, but a targeted marketing company just the same, with all the privacy risks that entails. Make no mistake, Google is in the business of collecting and selling information about you for its own gain. And it will do so with your consent or without it.
I admit to a large amount of cluelessness in this area, so can someone enlighten me on a semantic distinction?
I know that all things "nano" are hot right now, but if this had been invented 15 years ago, would it just have been called a "drug"? In other words, is this simply an engineered molecule or substance or whatever that binds to specific receptors in certain ways for certain effects... what makes it "nano" other than its size? If that's the only criteria, then why aren't ALL drugs "nanoparticles"? Are these particles bigger or produced in a different way?
I'm just confused - when I first heard of nanotechnology I imagined little machines. That may be a misconception on my part, but I still feel that simply being a little grain of something (even if that something was engineered to have useful properties) doesn't quite seem to warrant the designation.
FTFA:
AWESOME! Need to finish writing a paper? Normally take about 2 hours? Just type in
:later 2h
No muss, no fuss.
You're right, I didn't address the "most devastating" part of the parent's critique much... I agree with much of what was said there. Many of the habits of lazy instructors can contribute to the problems created by cheating.
What I disagree most strongly with was the implication that the bad habits of lazy instructors somehow excuse student cheating. Context is very important: Students are in class to learn, and to be evaluated, as you point out. Therefore the work they do for the purpose of being evaluated must be their own work -- pure and simple. By trying to "trick" that system, they undermine the value of the very credentials they are trying to obtain for their own benefit.
I admit I am of two minds on the "original materials for testing purposes" issue. Your father and I take the same approach, apparently: I write my own tests. But, for better or for worse, many professors know next to nothing (and most less than they think they do) about proper curriculum design or test question drafting. Indeed, unless they are in education or perhaps psychology, that is not their "field". So what should they do? Test banks (which most textbooks come with nowadays) are one option, or sharing questions with colleagues. Some departments have professors get together to develop departmental question pools for introductory courses. At what point does the time spent on such things, however, start to detract from time that should more properly be spent on research in their primary field of study? These aren't easy questions and I don't pretend to have an answer. All I know is that I find it very hard to live up to even my own ideals in this regard.
Finally, despite all these interesting issues, NONE of this garners sympathy from me for a student who blatantly plagiarizes or cheats. Should an instructor feel that they can't assign a classic "game of life" programming assignment to their students, for example, because the danger of plagiarism is too high? I fear that the answer to that question might be "yes... such an assignment would be unwise" but I also hope that if I choose to "re-use" a classic assignment like that, I'm not branded as "lazy" or "contributing" to the problem of cheating for doing so...
IAAP, for what that's worth.
I may be wrong, but your post reads like a rationalization from a "guilty" student. Do you have any IDEA how much time it would take to put together a quality course, with nothing but original materials? Not to mention grading students' work? I mean REALLY grading it - paying attention to the individual foibles of each student and trying to treat them like distinct human beings and not just a row of numbers on a grade sheet?
I hate to break it to you, but most of what you in lecture does not originate with your professor. Your prof is there to EXPLAIN it to you, not to CREATE it for you. When your professor publishes original work in their field (i.e. something similar to an assignment for which they get "professional" credit), you bet your ASS they would get in trouble for "borrowing" without citing sources. Their lectures and your assignments therefore belong in very different categories, as far as the standards applied.
I usually tell my students, at the beginning of a course, that I will pull in materials from many different sources in order to create the course lectures and assignments and to give them the best educational experience possible. I explain what I expect from them in terms of academic integrity, and if I catch them cheating, they suffer the consequences. I put my heart and soul into teaching my courses, and when students turn in copied or plagiarized work, that is a slap in the face, especially considering all the effort that I put into the course.
Yes, there are lazy teachers, and that DOES exacerbate the problem, but not in the way that you claim. Lazy teachers are actually much LESS likely to notice cheating. If students run into many teachers like this, and notice that cheating carries no consequences, they may start to feel that it's an under-the-table "accepted" practice, and just part of "the game." THAT is what really damages the credibility of professors, the academic institutions, and formalized learning in general.
So now, instead of "stealing" when I download music without permission, I will be "stealing" when I skip the ads without permission, right? Just checking.
I've got a MUCH better idea, RIAA. How about, instead, we just skip the ads altogether? No, really. I'll just download the music like I did before. You pretend you sent some ads to me, and I'll pretend I watched them if anyone asks. Honest! You go collect some cash from the advertising companies for "showing" me the ads, wink wink. (If they don't pay, sue them -- you're pretty practiced at suing your customers/clients now!). With the extra cash, you can even keep on pretending to pay your artists something, just like you pretend to do now!
No, no, it's not racketeering, it's a business plan! Besides, when did YOU start drawing such peksy distinctions? Sheesh.
"Imagine"? I don't have to imagine it. Napster (the original) was well on its way there. P2P networks are clearly doing this already. In fact, P2P networks distribute content in ways that efficiently spread out distribution costs among users (disproving the notion that the cost of "hosting" is supposedly the biggest "challenge" facing content owners --- a falsehood that nevertheless will become an excuse for many annoyances, such as unwanted advertising, and network non-neutrality).
Media companies are no friend in this regard, and neither is Google. Bottom line, people. That's all these companies "care" about. They see one another as foes and/or partners in the effort to control your access to information and the distribution of that information for their own profit.
In fact, in this regard I would say that the content owners, for all that many of us rail against them, are actually better actors, in a sense, than Google, here. Why? Because they are actually in the content creation business to some extent --- part of their argument has always been that the free distribution of content, while nice in theory, would come back to hit the artists, since historically the artists (creators) have been paid using a system that depends on royalties related to distribution (sales of individual copies). Thus they at least claim to be benefitting us by consolidating their control over the distribution of content.
Google, on the other hand, has never been about controlling distribution or content -- its business is based on providing as much access and utility as possible, as a means of sucking in information, which can then be used for marketing and advertising purposes. This is why a deal like this is a sign that Google is getting into bed with content owners, and changing its core business.
>The CIA is a *JOB*. The president is your *BOSS*. If you dont agree with the boss and speak out > against him ( or the company ), you can/should be fired. Regardless of what industry you work in. > Be it flipping hamburgers, building cars or protecting the country. Damn straight. Years later when you're asked about your time at the company, you want to be able to say that you were "just following orders."
TFA doesn't to a good job of defining things (in fact it's a bit misleading). "Compulsory licensing" does NOT simply mean taxing everyone for blank CDs and giving the money to publishers/artists/whoever. Compulsory licensing means YOU GET A LICENSE (permission to make copies), regardless of what the media companies want. It's the rights holders who are "compelled," not the users. The tax itself is the presumed "cost" of that license. There's supposed to be a quid pro quo here.
Truth be told, I'd be pretty happy to pay a few cents extra for each blank CD, etc., if it meant that all my (and others') private copying in unprotected formats was presumed to be legal/licensed. That's a good trade-off, and the resulting market pressures would likely cause a decrease in prices and a lack of DRM ($1.00 for a single restricted audio track? Come on!). My bet is that this would likely save lots of money in the long run.
But the parent poster is right -- the media companies are trying to get it both ways: getting this money without giving me any substantial license to DO anything. What are the Spanish people getting in return for this? Anyone care to elaborate?
No, you're missing my point. I'm willing to pay a FLAT fee. I just don't want to be metered as I go.
"Freeloading" would be if I wanted to pay nothing for extra work on E-Music's part or on the label's part or on the artist's part due to my downloading another copy.
Instead, I want a pricing structure that better approximates the true cost structure. This would probably be a flat fee, if copyright licensing wasn't all @#%@#ed up and predicated on a "per copy" license model. That model is just a holdover from the days of physical recordings, for which people already paid on a per unit basis, so adding a little bit on to the cost of each one made sense. But it doesn't make sense with downloads.
Gee, a pricing structure which approximates the cost structure. In everyday language, we call that a "market."
TFM mentions that EMusic used to have a subscription with unlimited downloads, but that since it cost them around 8 cents/download the revenue model didn't scale up for high-volume downloaders. Thus they adopted tiered rates and limited downloads.
They're oh, so close! They just went the wrong direction:
They need an E-Music file-sharing application! It could be just like (the original) Napster, run off their own servers, checking a custom ID3 tag to verify that shared files on the network are all legit E-Music files (this would also enable them to track download stats for various songs).
This would make it profitable to remove the download limit, and let people share songs directly. Just like the original Napster, but all legitimate, non-RIAA stuff. I'D PAY $10/month for that, no question.
THIS IS HOW THEY GET THEIR MILLION SUBSCRIBERS! (Not that they're listening to /. rants.)
As the service now stands, however, I tried a month of E-Music, but cancelled after that. I hate feeling "on the meter" with song downloads. I want to browse, listen, follow my stream of musical interest whereever it leads, and not have to worry about racking up ten bucks' worth of charges in the process.
You're spot on. Without regulations, a market is impossible. Particularly in matters concerning infrastructure, information flow, etc. But I agree the majority of Congressfolks are pretty clueless about technology, so I always cringe when I see bills relating to technology, fearing the worst.
One reason to be hopeful, though: Rick Boucher, one of this bill's sponsors, strikes me as a person who "gets" tech and the "public-good" benefits of online culture more than most. I sat in on some of the DMCA subcommittee hearings, and he was the sole member of the House subcommittee at that time who actually understood the issues (and as a result opposed most of the DMCA, ultimately unsuccessfully). He's also one who has been behind several efforts to blunt the harshest provisions of the DMCA.
See, for example, http://news.com.com/2010-1071-825335.html.
So let's not write off his efforts and those of his cosponsors out of hand, just because we "don't like legislation." Let's take a look at the specifics.