"Absolutely, a mistake was made here, and we've updated our training to account for that."
What would you like to bet that said training update centers on "yes, there are communities that use the word 'gay' in their name", but misses the fact that ANY proscribed word can fall prey to this error?
Dildo, Newfoundland Frog Suck, Wyoming Horneytown, North Carolina Fanny, West Virginia Dicktown, New Jersey
Wikileaks didn't have to publish their names clear and simple.
Y'know, people keep saying wikileaks published names of informants. I'm willing to bet that none of the people who've said that here can point to a particular page on wikileaks that provides sufficient information to identify one.
Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. But do you know for sure? Failing that, can you name someone particular who DOES know for sure? Or are you just taking it as a given, and forming your opinion based on that?
You certainly can be prosecuted by your own country for breaking their laws anywhere on the planet. And you can be prosecuted for breaking one country's laws without ever having been there. Cf. all those folks sitting in Gitmo right now, waiting for trial.
Some right bits, some wrong bits. Any nation will try to prosecute you for (perceived) offenses against it or its citizens. If the crime (or "crime") is against someone else, other nation's laws usually apply. IE, you (US citizen) murder a spaniard in Paris, jurisdiction is most likely to be French, though Spain might have a say in it.
Countries can and have bent over backwards to apply their laws to non-citizens in foreign countries doing things with and to foreigners. For instance Manuel Noriega, where we invaded an entire country, brought him back as a prisoner of war, then went looking for charges to hang on him. There's not a lot of doubt he DID all that he was accused of, but the charges were an afterthought - an excuse after the fact.
Gitmo is a similar situation. They aren't criminals, precisely, in that they are "prisoners of war"... but the conventions of war only exist between nations, and non-governmental entities like the Taliban or Al-Qaeda are not subscribers to things like the Geneva Conventions on war. More, Guantanamo was established precisely to prevent USA law from applying to those prisoners. On US soil, they have certain rights under US law, that the government didn't want to extend to them.
Your answer on "illegal in Iran" applies to the US as well. Consider the case of Dmitry Sklyarov as a practical example.
My statement was not limited to that one possible event, but for the sake of argument...
The particular "one in a million occurrence" of an oil rig blowing up would happen daily if there were a million oil rigs out there. There aren't.
Fixed that for you. But even with a million (or as you said, 'millions'), you aren't guaranteed to get an explosion daily. That's the thing with statistics. It's only "statistically likely" to happen on a daily basis, over some period, you are likely to have yay many explosion.
It's not like the judge had any actual legal leeway. He's only allowed to rule on what is presented before the courts. Without even a token appearance, it's an uncontested case. Federal rules of civil procedure require he enter a default judgment for whatever relief the plaintiff asks.
IE, if you don't respond, the court is required to fine you "the moon and the stars", if that's what the plaintiff asks for.
Planning further in advance would, I presume, mean "looking behind me sooner". That would be an error, though, in that it would mean it is more, not less, likely that I fail to see someone coming up in the lane beside me.
I'm puzzled at your suggestion of slowing down. The only practical time a biker needs to "change lanes" is when preparing for a left-hand turn. If near the intersection, speeds should already be slow to the point where a bicycle is competitive with the autos. Slowing down would seem to make a collision more likely rather than less.
Could you expand on that "appropriate eyewear" comment? Are you suggesting that I need to change to wearing contacts? (Given that that option is already available, the fact that I am not currently using contacts should tell you that making that change is unlikely for one reason or another.) Or did you have something else in mind? Are there actual "wrap around prescription glasses"?
1) A number of other have suggested this. Yep, it's a solution. I might even buy one.
2) Will. Not. Help. A bigger lens still won't wrap around my face, won't reduce the angle I need to turn my head by any appreciable angle.
3) One does get fairly adept at recognizing fuzzy shapes as cars, since they tend to move relative to the background. As you mention in (4). It is the motion more than anything else visible that I note.
It's not the gray blobs, usually. It's the tan blobs, or sometimes white blobs. And more, it's the blobs that move into that viewing angle after you've already turned your head back to face forwards. Things moving faster than you do that, on occasion.... I suppose you could consider Silver to be gray (And technically, both White and Black count in a nerd fashion.)
I was going to say, "does it matter, if they've got a registered trademark",... but it does.
Trademarks can be opposed, and even cancelled. From Wikipedia:
The advantage of having a registered mark is that after five years of unopposed use, the mark becomes "incontestable". An incontestable mark cannot be attacked on the grounds that it is merely descriptive (even if it is). This means that the defendant in a trademark infringement suit cannot directly attack the plaintiff's mark, but must instead focus on showing a lack of a likelihood of confusion. Even without incontestability, a registered mark has a presumption of being a valid trademark, placing the burden on the defendant to attack the plaintiff's mark.
Opposing a trademark is either a prelude to a civil suit, or undertaken during/after one.... so given that preexisting trademarks did not oppose the registry of Facebook, in a few years, it could become "incontestable".
Note also that Facebook has a number of registered trademarks of "Facebook" (SN 77189479, 78981126, 78962629, 77125103) although SN 78920322 is probably the 'main' one. (And yes, it's a kitchen sink 'goods and services' mark, as the GP said.) While some of these marks were filed in 2010, many of them were filed in 2006. Want to challenge? Got a short window, and a big set of lawyers to hurdle...
Wrote the answer to that above, before I saw your post here. To repeat: if it's a hostile environment, you need your own CYA audit, with witnesses. Your replacement could be Evil, or simply Incompetent. And either way, you don't want the blame falling on you.
And as the Childs case points out quite clearly: if you're an IT admin, means and opportunity are part of the job description; and you only have to look at motive.
Which means that as an exiting IT admin in a hostile atmosphere, you need to document the state of the system with witnesses to have evidence proving that the logic bomb wasn't yours. Once you leave, you lose the access to evidence that would prove your innocence.
Jury: Hmm... 48hour shadow, rumpled clothes, yep, he's a villain.
> It's not like trying to listen to a cat sneaking up behind you on a carpeted floor.
You're quite right. Cats seldom cause gross physical damage when they hit you.
I bicycle, and I wear glasses. If I don't hear the car (on a recently swept street right next to a freeway - lots of masking noises), I could well lose the audible cue that there's a car behind me. When I turn my head to look for traffic behind me (when making a left turn), most often I can only afford to turn enough to look out the corner of my eye, where my glasses don't reach. Odds are not long that I would miss seeing the fuzzy object coming up behind me.
And as the driver of one such fuzzy object told me, "it doesn't matter how much you signal, nor how much right-of-way you had, if the car can not or does not react to it, you're still going to end up as a pancake." IE, don't put yourself in harms way. Which for me becomes harder if I can't ALSO hear the car approaching.
And yes, as I get older, my hearing continues to suffer. It's called "aging". Get accustomed to the concept. You'll be one of us, soon.
And Obscure Reference Man captures my brain again...... Next time I encounter someone hysterical ("Child porn! Child porn!"), the urge to throw a glass of water on them and quote The Producers ("Okay, now you're hysterical AND your wet") will be nearly irresistable.
> (something) - in which case their secrecy is blown... so they won't do that
The possibility of punishment has been shown not to be a deterrent to crime, as the criminals simply do not entertain the possibility that they may be caught.
How much less of a deterrent is it going to be to a government agency that has SHOWN it can get away with this sort of crap?
I'm pretty sure that if I pre-sue John and Jane Doe for a fatal accident, I won't be conducting any prosecution after the fact. Except by Ouiji Board, perhaps.
Slashdot Mirror
Here I was just hearing about the man who lied to his laptop just yesterday. This morning I wake up to the new that the computer is lying back to him.
Makes me so proud! Little AMD is all grown up!
"Absolutely, a mistake was made here, and we've updated our training to account for that."
What would you like to bet that said training update centers on "yes, there are communities that use the word 'gay' in their name", but misses the fact that ANY proscribed word can fall prey to this error?
Dildo, Newfoundland
Frog Suck, Wyoming
Horneytown, North Carolina
Fanny, West Virginia
Dicktown, New Jersey
The list goes on and on...
Wikileaks didn't have to publish their names clear and simple.
Y'know, people keep saying wikileaks published names of informants. I'm willing to bet that none of the people who've said that here can point to a particular page on wikileaks that provides sufficient information to identify one.
Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. But do you know for sure? Failing that, can you name someone particular who DOES know for sure? Or are you just taking it as a given, and forming your opinion based on that?
Check your assumptions.
I am sure your expletives do wonders to improve the power of your argument.
You certainly can be prosecuted by your own country for breaking their laws anywhere on the planet. And you can be prosecuted for breaking one country's laws without ever having been there. Cf. all those folks sitting in Gitmo right now, waiting for trial.
Some right bits, some wrong bits. Any nation will try to prosecute you for (perceived) offenses against it or its citizens. If the crime (or "crime") is against someone else, other nation's laws usually apply. IE, you (US citizen) murder a spaniard in Paris, jurisdiction is most likely to be French, though Spain might have a say in it.
Countries can and have bent over backwards to apply their laws to non-citizens in foreign countries doing things with and to foreigners. For instance Manuel Noriega, where we invaded an entire country, brought him back as a prisoner of war, then went looking for charges to hang on him. There's not a lot of doubt he DID all that he was accused of, but the charges were an afterthought - an excuse after the fact.
Gitmo is a similar situation. They aren't criminals, precisely, in that they are "prisoners of war"... but the conventions of war only exist between nations, and non-governmental entities like the Taliban or Al-Qaeda are not subscribers to things like the Geneva Conventions on war. More, Guantanamo was established precisely to prevent USA law from applying to those prisoners. On US soil, they have certain rights under US law, that the government didn't want to extend to them.
Your answer on "illegal in Iran" applies to the US as well. Consider the case of Dmitry Sklyarov as a practical example.
If so, the section of the phone book for commercial listings by category must be "Yellow Journalism".
I think that he's saying that both Drudge Report and John Stewart's Daily Show do the "holding feet to fire" thing.
My statement was not limited to that one possible event, but for the sake of argument...
The particular "one in a million occurrence" of an oil rig blowing up would happen daily if there were a million oil rigs out there. There aren't.
Fixed that for you. But even with a million (or as you said, 'millions'), you aren't guaranteed to get an explosion daily. That's the thing with statistics. It's only "statistically likely" to happen on a daily basis, over some period, you are likely to have yay many explosion.
And there are more rigs out there than I, at least, thought. On the order of 3500 according to this article (agreeing with other sources +-300).
It's not like the judge had any actual legal leeway. He's only allowed to rule on what is presented before the courts. Without even a token appearance, it's an uncontested case. Federal rules of civil procedure require he enter a default judgment for whatever relief the plaintiff asks.
IE, if you don't respond, the court is required to fine you "the moon and the stars", if that's what the plaintiff asks for.
One-in-a-million occurrences happen every day.
What are the odds you'll win the Daily Lotto jackpot? Someone does, therefore...
Und Sie taten nicht korrekt dieses?
they're as dangerous as misspelled plurals
Woosh!
Are you REALLY going to make us look for prior art?
Nice troll, but you forgot one.
"Maybe you're just too stiff-necked"
Planning further in advance would, I presume, mean "looking behind me sooner". That would be an error, though, in that it would mean it is more, not less, likely that I fail to see someone coming up in the lane beside me.
I'm puzzled at your suggestion of slowing down. The only practical time a biker needs to "change lanes" is when preparing for a left-hand turn. If near the intersection, speeds should already be slow to the point where a bicycle is competitive with the autos. Slowing down would seem to make a collision more likely rather than less.
Could you expand on that "appropriate eyewear" comment? Are you suggesting that I need to change to wearing contacts? (Given that that option is already available, the fact that I am not currently using contacts should tell you that making that change is unlikely for one reason or another.) Or did you have something else in mind? Are there actual "wrap around prescription glasses"?
1) A number of other have suggested this. Yep, it's a solution. I might even buy one.
2) Will. Not. Help. A bigger lens still won't wrap around my face, won't reduce the angle I need to turn my head by any appreciable angle.
3) One does get fairly adept at recognizing fuzzy shapes as cars, since they tend to move relative to the background. As you mention in (4). It is the motion more than anything else visible that I note.
It's not the gray blobs, usually. It's the tan blobs, or sometimes white blobs. And more, it's the blobs that move into that viewing angle after you've already turned your head back to face forwards. Things moving faster than you do that, on occasion. ... I suppose you could consider Silver to be gray (And technically, both White and Black count in a nerd fashion.)
I was going to say, "does it matter, if they've got a registered trademark", ... but it does.
Trademarks can be opposed, and even cancelled. From Wikipedia:
Opposing a trademark is either a prelude to a civil suit, or undertaken during/after one. ... so given that preexisting trademarks did not oppose the registry of Facebook, in a few years, it could become "incontestable".
Note also that Facebook has a number of registered trademarks of "Facebook" (SN 77189479, 78981126, 78962629, 77125103) although SN 78920322 is probably the 'main' one. (And yes, it's a kitchen sink 'goods and services' mark, as the GP said.) While some of these marks were filed in 2010, many of them were filed in 2006. Want to challenge? Got a short window, and a big set of lawyers to hurdle...
Wrote the answer to that above, before I saw your post here. To repeat: if it's a hostile environment, you need your own CYA audit, with witnesses. Your replacement could be Evil, or simply Incompetent. And either way, you don't want the blame falling on you.
And as the Childs case points out quite clearly: if you're an IT admin, means and opportunity are part of the job description; and you only have to look at motive.
Which means that as an exiting IT admin in a hostile atmosphere, you need to document the state of the system with witnesses to have evidence proving that the logic bomb wasn't yours. Once you leave, you lose the access to evidence that would prove your innocence.
Jury: Hmm... 48hour shadow, rumpled clothes, yep, he's a villain.
> It's not like trying to listen to a cat sneaking up behind you on a carpeted floor.
You're quite right. Cats seldom cause gross physical damage when they hit you.
I bicycle, and I wear glasses. If I don't hear the car (on a recently swept street right next to a freeway - lots of masking noises), I could well lose the audible cue that there's a car behind me. When I turn my head to look for traffic behind me (when making a left turn), most often I can only afford to turn enough to look out the corner of my eye, where my glasses don't reach. Odds are not long that I would miss seeing the fuzzy object coming up behind me.
And as the driver of one such fuzzy object told me, "it doesn't matter how much you signal, nor how much right-of-way you had, if the car can not or does not react to it, you're still going to end up as a pancake." IE, don't put yourself in harms way. Which for me becomes harder if I can't ALSO hear the car approaching.
And yes, as I get older, my hearing continues to suffer. It's called "aging". Get accustomed to the concept. You'll be one of us, soon.
And Obscure Reference Man captures my brain again... ... Next time I encounter someone hysterical ("Child porn! Child porn!"), the urge to throw a glass of water on them and quote The Producers ("Okay, now you're hysterical AND your wet") will be nearly irresistable.
Hey, it worked for ISO/microsoft, it should work for the RIAA.
You probably meant "Force majeure". Sure, it's French for "force major", but if it's written in French, it has that certain Je ne sais quoi...
> (something) - in which case their secrecy is blown ... so they won't do that
The possibility of punishment has been shown not to be a deterrent to crime, as the criminals simply do not entertain the possibility that they may be caught.
How much less of a deterrent is it going to be to a government agency that has SHOWN it can get away with this sort of crap?
I'm pretty sure that if I pre-sue John and Jane Doe for a fatal accident, I won't be conducting any prosecution after the fact. Except by Ouiji Board, perhaps.
Not real? Then what WAS it we spotted while on patrol, circling Uranus?