Seriously. People in the Valley have notoriously short memories, but they do remember the Netscape/AOL/Time-Warner goat rodeo. They also know that the fact that Yahoo! is the #2 search provider doesn't make it a good fit with MSN. Struggling + Struggling != Successful. Nobody has explained how this actually makes any sense for Microsoft, beyond absurd, vague talk of efficiency. We'll see how efficient it is when Yahoo, which has had a hard enough time pulling in all its acquisitions, will be merged with MSN (if the deal in fact occurs).
This is the bean-counters getting excited at the size of the deal and not looking at the technology, culture, and competitive landscape of the two companies. This has desperation written all over it.
The US District Court for the District of Idaho...
One district court decision does not a nationwide judicial consensus make. Every time a bad ruling comes down in a federal district court, it does not mean that the entire justice system is screwed up, or that the final word has been said about the issue in question.
The key word here is "unreasonable." When you're talking about searches and seizures, the legal precedent has long been that when an officer of the law is already making an arrest, searching and seizing effects is no longer "unreasonable" because it is incident to arrest. However, that still doesn't give the officer a free pass to gather and examine whatever he wants from the party being arrested. The intensity of the searching has to be commensurate with the threat the officer is acting to mitigate.
If you yell into your iPhone, "Yeah, I'll kill him, boss," turn around and shoot someone, a cop who witnesses the event wouldn't need a search warrant to take a look at your iPhone to see who you were just talking to. A plain reading reveals that the requirement that a warrant requires probable cause plus an oath or affirmation comes after the broad initial statement. It was put in place to keep the government from arbitrarily issuing warrants to search homes and persons. A search of an arrested person's effects is not inherently arbitrary or unreasonable if it stems from a probable cause.
The price of selling something has nothing to do with the price of producing it when you have a monopoly. You either don't know what you are talking about, or you think piracy is a legitimate competitor to selling music online. The cost of making a CD is under $1. That didn't stop the industry from selling them for over $15. Get a clue.
What monopoly? Even in this era of media consolidation there are several major labels and dozens if not hundreds of indies. Some of them use DRM, and some of them don't. There is no monopoly on the production or distribution of music in digital form. Even if your contention is that an oligopoly controls the music business, there is considerable evidence that the major labels have less power to control pricing than ever before.
As for the cost of production, the physical cost of a blank CD may be under $1, but that is the least important factor. Up-front recording costs, marketing costs, and distribution costs add to total cost for the label. They also have to make a profit as well. Whether you think the labels are making an exorbitant profit on each unit sold or not, it is disingenuous to state that it only costs them $1 per CD.
At a guess, I'd say the difference has nothing to with anyone's "sophisticated understanding" of anything.
I agree. But I do think that the American legal, political and social tradition is more sophisticated than Europe's, because the American tradition of religious tolerance stemmed from the desire of so many early American emigrants to escape persecution in Europe.
I also agree that large minorities tend to segregate. But the point remains that there is something about European societies that makes it more difficult for Muslims in Europe to "fit in" with the larger society while maintaining their religious traditions. The isolation you speak of is a two-way street, no doubt. But America has had more than two centuries of experience folding new religions into the national fabric, while wars over religion are still bubbling in Europe.
"The likelihood of a catastrophic global nuclear conflagration has gone down over the last 50 years."
No. It is only a matter of time until nuclear weapons find their way into terrorist hands. Think of a bomb smuggled into New York or LA, detonated, with no one claiming responsibility.
You didn't read closely. One bomb does not make a catastrophic global nuclear conflagration.
"Perhaps if you studied the history of systematic racism and sexism in Europe and America, you might recognize why equality of opportunity still doesn't exist in those places."
Equality of opportunity exists nowhere on this planet. Nice of you to single out Europe and America though. You betray your own bigotry there.
The focus of your (I assume it's you, but I'm not sure because both you and the original poster are ACs) initial discussion was on America, and I brought in Europe by way of comparison. By using two cultures as points of comparison, I may be betraying bias, but not bigotry. if I were a Brazilian having a discussion about racism I'd likely talk about the racism and sexism I see in my own country. I wouldn't be bigoted in doing so.
"America also has a far more sophisticated understanding of religious tolerance than Europe"
Anti-religious intolerance is everywhere. No place is more "sophisticated" than any other regarding this.
I see. So the level of religious intolerance is the same across the globe. Although the United States has enshrined religious freedom in its constitution, and has a long tradition of diverse religions, the U.S. is no more tolerant of religion than China. And although Hindus and Muslims have been killing each other on the Indian subcontinent for decades, they're no less tolerant of religious differences than Singaporeans. I guess I'm just missing the obvious.
"why is it that Western Europe is having such a difficult time integrating Muslim immigrants?"
Take a look at your own borders. And don't you know that "integrating" immigrants is "racist"? Why should their languages and culture have to give way to yours?
Nice deflection. I was talking about religion. Integrating immigrants into a society economically, while not attempting to strip them of their religious beliefs is not racist. Besides, I don't have a problem with people speaking Spanish or French or Swahili inside the U.S. and keeping their own cultural traditions. Spend any amount of time in the the southwestern United States? It's a quite different culture from the American midwest or east coast.
"women that act like men"
Haven't you heard of the term, "Female Chauvinist Pig"? I'll bet you've heard of "Male Chauvinist Pig" though. Ask yourself, why the double standard.
I still don't really understand what you mean by "women that act like men." Besides, why do you care what women act like? Do you have a great deal of concern about how other men act? Do you seriously think of yourself as a victim of some sort of assault on male rights? You can't honestly believe that men don't still call the shots pretty much everywhere and in pretty much all the things that matter.
"When Shrub was elected the first time, half the country voted against him. When he was elected the second time, a slightly smaller percentage, but still almost half the voting public voted against him. Domestic opposition to this most pathetic American government has been loud and angry."
Your point? You merely illustrate that you are a member of the whining minority refered to in the OP.
Ah, I see. You'd have been out on the streets throwing bombs. You're disgusted that there wasn't armed revolution here in America when Bush won a second time. I guess the wheels of representative democracy move too slowly for some, but the violent overthrow of governments is overrated, too.
Nobody gets fooled this badly, unless they WANT to be fooled. Unless they're TOO WEAK to face the truth.
We've been reaping our foul harvest, no doubt about it. Laziness breeds laziness. Indifference breeds indifference. It's only when our slot gets us in serious trouble that we face up to our problems. The sad part is that the rest of the world has to pay for it, too.
Hiding behind screwups is a classic government maneuver to hide malfeasance. I don't understand how AsciiNaut's statement is trolling. It's very annoying to see moderators knocking someone down for voicing an opinion different from their own. If you don't think "the cock-up theory of history is widely believed" than debate AsciiNaut. Don't mod him down.
The world is full of problems. No doubt about it. But it's a mixed bag, too. Life expectancy has gone up everywhere but in sub-Saharan Africa over the last 50 years. You're too young to remember the Cold War, but for those of us who were around, it sucked. The likelihood of a catastrophic global nuclear conflagration has gone down over the last 50 years.
You're not alone in being sick of the status quo, but I find it humorous that you equate anyone who doesn't share your opinion as being a whiner or someone with a low IQ. For example, you wrote:
I'm sick of fat people, ugly people, stupid people, gay people, coloured people, female people, whiny people all complaining they don't have the opportunities in life they would like and it must be someone else's fault. I'm sick of women that act like men and femininity being a crime, unless you're a man in which case you're a new man which nobody ever wanted because there was nothing wrong with the old one.
Perhaps if you studied the history of systematic racism and sexism in Europe and America, you might recognize why equality of opportunity still doesn't exist in those places. Civil rights are not where they should be, but they have been advancing in the western world. America, for all its faults, has been trying to move beyond racism and sexism. America also has a far more sophisticated understanding of religious tolerance than Europe. For all the talk of naive and barbaric Americans, why is it that Western Europe is having such a difficult time integrating Muslim immigrants?
As for your bizarre comment about "women that act like men," what is that supposed to mean? Are you saying that you and those who follow your beliefs should be the arbiters of what constitutes acceptable female behavior?
If you're sick of lame TV, here's a newsflash: You don't have to watch television. Believe it or not, some of those moronic Americans (such as myself) have elected to get their news and most of their entertainment not from the idiot box, but from other sources like news magazines (one of the best is even produced in Britain) and international websites. Nobody is forcing you to watch the crap on TV.
I'm sick of Americans who cry that people hate them or are jealous of them or who are anti them because someone dares to point out that the America they've been programmed to believe in from birth bears no relation to the one that exists in real life.
There is nothing daring about anonymously pointing out in an online forum that the American government has been fearmongering and failing in its relations with the rest of the world. Here's another newsflash: When Shrub was elected the first time, half the country voted against him. When he was elected the second time, a slightly smaller percentage, but still almost half the voting public voted against him. Domestic opposition to this most pathetic American government has been loud and angry. The last seven years have been terribly divisive times in America. With any luck, this time around we'll elect a much more capable president, and we'll start restoring our reputation around the world.
Here's a tip: The next time you go ranting about hypocrisy, examine your own hypocrisy first. Then try posting with an account. It's still just a pseudonym, but at least it's a small form of taking responsibility for your writing.
The thing is, your "observant, well-trained professionals" are the SAME GOAT RODEO CLOWNS that are currently "responsible" for "security". They're just getting a different vocabulary to justify detaining and harassing people.
Actually, no. The TFA's poor hiring practices are well-known. Staffing people to sit behind scanning machines is a lot different from providing truly in-depth security training. If the TFA hired and trained security professionals, instead of monitor-watchers, it wouldn't be the same goat rodeo clowns doing the security work.
To a very good approximation, 0% of travelers are terrorists. Treating 100% of travelers like suspected terrorists is simply unacceptable.
To a very good approximation, 0% of all bombs dropped in all wars were nuclear weapons. One black swan is all it takes, and you can bet the Japanese government thought the bomb at Hiroshima was never going to happen. As for treating 100% of travelers like suspected terrorists, using more sophisticated security techniques is less invasive than using the broad-brush techniques in use now.
How would you stop airline terrorism? Or since by approximation 0% of travelers are terrorists, would you simply do away with all airport security?
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means proof, as in, you either have a sample of the alcohol, or a cop was there and testified that he looked, smelled, and tasted it and yep, it was alcohol.
Wrong. Eyewitness testimony, assuming the witness(es) were reliable, plus the photos could very well be enough. There is no requirement that the evidence by scientific or that it come from a police officer. Defendants get convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time, regardless of what CSI might tell you. In fact, most convictions result from circumstantial evidence.
That's not proof. I know it's unlikely, but unlikely is not how the law works.
The burden of proof in a misdemeanor case for underage drinking is beyond a reasonable doubt. If you saw a photo with a room full of people drinking out of cans and bottles clearly labeled as containing alcohol, in what appeared to be a party setting, what would you think? I think it would take an effort of willful blindness to buy the notion that they weren't drinking alcoholic beverages.
The mere fact that Cutts can't prove definitively that there is a correlation between use of blackhat SEO techniques and cutting corners in other areas doesn't mean that his statement is without merit. Anecdotal evidence has shown me that in the business world if you cut corners in one place, you're likely to do the same in others. Hire undocumented workers. Pay people under the table. Don't divulge some earnings. Mix your personal and business accounts. Tarnish other businesses with innuendo. Hire a blackhat SEO specialist.
I think it is important to recognize that SEO is in the mainstream of most big business operations these days, and it is no longer appropriate to think of blackhat SEO as just a "geek topic." It's a front and center business ethics issue.
Nice analysis, Mike. I appreciate you taking the time.
You actually looked at the claims and based your opinion about prior art on what you saw in the claims. This is in contrast to the posters I was referring to, who start firing off salvos about prior art without any factual basis.
Until you've read the actual claims in a patent, it is impossible to know what Apple is actually attempting to patent. The fact that the description is of an OLED keyboard doesn't mean that prior art will negate the claims any more than the existence of LCD screens would necessarily invalidate a patent on an LCD screen.
Now to settle in and watch the ill-informed rants about patent law multiply like rodents. Anyone have any popcorn?
Amen, brother. The gestalt view in Slashdot seems to be that any act of trying to stop terrorist acts before they occur is totalitarian, while any time a terrorist act occurs, it's the fault of a bumbling security apparatus. I'd rather have observant, well-trained professionals watching what's going on in an airport than the current goat rodeo we have "protecting" our airports.
With apple you're paying more for what they think is stylish looks and a brand name.
You nailed that one right on the head. I've been using Macs since the late 1980s.
At first I paid more because the Mac had that whole "GUI" thing, and I thought it was important. Of course, the "GUI" was just a bunch of hooey, until Microsoft brought Windows 3.1 to market. Then the "GUI" actually was worthwhile.
But I still stubbornly continued to use the Mac because I thought I could get a lot done with it, using flashy, stupid tools like HyperCard and AppleScript. I realize now that they were just hogwash, but for a long time I thought I was really productive with them. I ran a 1,200 page website with BBEdit and AppleScript, but I was just fooling myself. Deep inside, I was just transfixed by the smooth beige of the PowerMac series of desktops and towers.
Then the G3 and G4 machines came out, and I was transfixed by the colors and the spicy new advertising. Again I was confused. They *seemed* like reliable computers. When OS X came out, it seemed like a more powerful and stable OS, but in retrospect, I was just taken in by the fact that the hardware and the software *seemed* to work so well together. But of course, that was just an illusion.
Now that I use a Mac laptop and Leopard, it's the same thing, only worse. All of the Mac-only apps really suck, and I'm only keeping my Mac because of those bitchin' "'I'm a PC.' 'And I'm a Mac!'" ads. Goddammit! I just wish Apple would stop messing with my teenie little brain! Give me strength so I can escape the grip of their stylish good looks and that overwhelmingly powerful brand name! Please! Help me!
- the use of affiliate links to a product they claim not to like
- the possibility of paid reviews
- keyword pollution to get traffic to their site/blog/etc, when they may have not even used the device
I'm not sure how affiliate links matter if they are saying they don't like the product. Why would I, as a reader, follow one of those links if the review itself pans the product?
You also mention the possibility of paid reviews. I suppose there is always a possibility of paid reviews, but without any evidence that a particular publication is taking money on the sly from product vendors, it seems the only thing we have to go on is the overall credibility of the publication. I'm not sure if you're indicting the credibility of these particular reviewers, or of all tech review publications.
Keyword pollution is advertising, pure and simple. They want to get people to their sites so they can sell adds, make money, and keep the business going. I don't see how that poisons their reviews.
I'm still not sure if you have a general mistrust of review sites, or of these ones in particular. Slashdot definitely delivers unfiltered opinions. I hope you gleaned some valuable info amid the noise.
Clinton is trying to keep the Republicans from taking the "Family Values" high ground this election. This is a throw-away issue, one that a candidate can take a stand on without fear of ever having to deliver. She knows as well as anyone that every attempt to censor video game content has been shut down hard by the courts. She also has to know that establishing more federal bureaucracy in order to watch over video game content would never make it past Congress.
Hillary Clinton is just a politician attempting to get elected. I find it difficult to believe that there are actually single-issue voters whose single issue is video games, but based on what I've seen in this thread, it's obvious that such people exist. I'd prefer to focus on education, the economy, policing terrorists, and reasserting the rule of law in America, but it seems video game ratings are a more important issue.
Building plugins, variations on the Six Apart codebase, etc. If people know the licensing is no longer at the whim of Six Apart, they'll be more likely to invest their time in projects built around the codebase.
Yes, but the shirts in question did not have "Best Buy" trademarks.
That doesn't necessarily matter. The point is that if consumers may be confused as to the origin of the shirts, that may be enough to prove dilution. Check out Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. v. Novak (8th Cir.1987) (PDF). A guy was selling "Mutant of Omaha's Mutant Kingdom" t-shirts, which were upon close examination not associated with Mutual of Omaha insurance. The court found likelihood of confusion, and the First Amendment parody defense didn't work
Will they think people wearing the shirts are Best Buy employees, representing Best Buy? An interesting question, but irrelevant. In most places you can buy facsimile police or army uniforms freely. Should a shop have greater protection? If the person wearing the "uniform" so attempts to pass himself off as a BB employee, he would be in trouble, but not the person selling him the pseudo-uniform.
Police and army uniforms are not protected by trademark, as they are not used "in commerce", which is a necessary component of unfair competition (of which trademark is a subset).
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously. People in the Valley have notoriously short memories, but they do remember the Netscape/AOL/Time-Warner goat rodeo. They also know that the fact that Yahoo! is the #2 search provider doesn't make it a good fit with MSN. Struggling + Struggling != Successful. Nobody has explained how this actually makes any sense for Microsoft, beyond absurd, vague talk of efficiency. We'll see how efficient it is when Yahoo, which has had a hard enough time pulling in all its acquisitions, will be merged with MSN (if the deal in fact occurs).
This is the bean-counters getting excited at the size of the deal and not looking at the technology, culture, and competitive landscape of the two companies. This has desperation written all over it.
Americans killed millions of Italians and Germans in World War II. Can't get much whiter than Germany.
The US District Court for the District of Idaho...
One district court decision does not a nationwide judicial consensus make. Every time a bad ruling comes down in a federal district court, it does not mean that the entire justice system is screwed up, or that the final word has been said about the issue in question.
The key word here is "unreasonable." When you're talking about searches and seizures, the legal precedent has long been that when an officer of the law is already making an arrest, searching and seizing effects is no longer "unreasonable" because it is incident to arrest. However, that still doesn't give the officer a free pass to gather and examine whatever he wants from the party being arrested. The intensity of the searching has to be commensurate with the threat the officer is acting to mitigate.
If you yell into your iPhone, "Yeah, I'll kill him, boss," turn around and shoot someone, a cop who witnesses the event wouldn't need a search warrant to take a look at your iPhone to see who you were just talking to. A plain reading reveals that the requirement that a warrant requires probable cause plus an oath or affirmation comes after the broad initial statement. It was put in place to keep the government from arbitrarily issuing warrants to search homes and persons. A search of an arrested person's effects is not inherently arbitrary or unreasonable if it stems from a probable cause.
The price of selling something has nothing to do with the price of producing it when you have a monopoly. You either don't know what you are talking about, or you think piracy is a legitimate competitor to selling music online. The cost of making a CD is under $1. That didn't stop the industry from selling them for over $15. Get a clue.
What monopoly? Even in this era of media consolidation there are several major labels and dozens if not hundreds of indies. Some of them use DRM, and some of them don't. There is no monopoly on the production or distribution of music in digital form. Even if your contention is that an oligopoly controls the music business, there is considerable evidence that the major labels have less power to control pricing than ever before.
As for the cost of production, the physical cost of a blank CD may be under $1, but that is the least important factor. Up-front recording costs, marketing costs, and distribution costs add to total cost for the label. They also have to make a profit as well. Whether you think the labels are making an exorbitant profit on each unit sold or not, it is disingenuous to state that it only costs them $1 per CD.
At a guess, I'd say the difference has nothing to with anyone's "sophisticated understanding" of anything.
I agree. But I do think that the American legal, political and social tradition is more sophisticated than Europe's, because the American tradition of religious tolerance stemmed from the desire of so many early American emigrants to escape persecution in Europe.
I also agree that large minorities tend to segregate. But the point remains that there is something about European societies that makes it more difficult for Muslims in Europe to "fit in" with the larger society while maintaining their religious traditions. The isolation you speak of is a two-way street, no doubt. But America has had more than two centuries of experience folding new religions into the national fabric, while wars over religion are still bubbling in Europe.
You didn't read closely. One bomb does not make a catastrophic global nuclear conflagration.
The focus of your (I assume it's you, but I'm not sure because both you and the original poster are ACs) initial discussion was on America, and I brought in Europe by way of comparison. By using two cultures as points of comparison, I may be betraying bias, but not bigotry. if I were a Brazilian having a discussion about racism I'd likely talk about the racism and sexism I see in my own country. I wouldn't be bigoted in doing so.
I see. So the level of religious intolerance is the same across the globe. Although the United States has enshrined religious freedom in its constitution, and has a long tradition of diverse religions, the U.S. is no more tolerant of religion than China. And although Hindus and Muslims have been killing each other on the Indian subcontinent for decades, they're no less tolerant of religious differences than Singaporeans. I guess I'm just missing the obvious.
Nice deflection. I was talking about religion. Integrating immigrants into a society economically, while not attempting to strip them of their religious beliefs is not racist. Besides, I don't have a problem with people speaking Spanish or French or Swahili inside the U.S. and keeping their own cultural traditions. Spend any amount of time in the the southwestern United States? It's a quite different culture from the American midwest or east coast.
I still don't really understand what you mean by "women that act like men." Besides, why do you care what women act like? Do you have a great deal of concern about how other men act? Do you seriously think of yourself as a victim of some sort of assault on male rights? You can't honestly believe that men don't still call the shots pretty much everywhere and in pretty much all the things that matter.
Ah, I see. You'd have been out on the streets throwing bombs. You're disgusted that there wasn't armed revolution here in America when Bush won a second time. I guess the wheels of representative democracy move too slowly for some, but the violent overthrow of governments is overrated, too.
Nobody gets fooled this badly, unless they WANT to be fooled. Unless they're TOO WEAK to face the truth.
We've been reaping our foul harvest, no doubt about it. Laziness breeds laziness. Indifference breeds indifference. It's only when our slot gets us in serious trouble that we face up to our problems. The sad part is that the rest of the world has to pay for it, too.
Hiding behind screwups is a classic government maneuver to hide malfeasance. I don't understand how AsciiNaut's statement is trolling. It's very annoying to see moderators knocking someone down for voicing an opinion different from their own. If you don't think "the cock-up theory of history is widely believed" than debate AsciiNaut. Don't mod him down.
I'm sick of hypocrisy and two facedness.
So am I.
The world is full of problems. No doubt about it. But it's a mixed bag, too. Life expectancy has gone up everywhere but in sub-Saharan Africa over the last 50 years. You're too young to remember the Cold War, but for those of us who were around, it sucked. The likelihood of a catastrophic global nuclear conflagration has gone down over the last 50 years.
You're not alone in being sick of the status quo, but I find it humorous that you equate anyone who doesn't share your opinion as being a whiner or someone with a low IQ. For example, you wrote:
Perhaps if you studied the history of systematic racism and sexism in Europe and America, you might recognize why equality of opportunity still doesn't exist in those places. Civil rights are not where they should be, but they have been advancing in the western world. America, for all its faults, has been trying to move beyond racism and sexism. America also has a far more sophisticated understanding of religious tolerance than Europe. For all the talk of naive and barbaric Americans, why is it that Western Europe is having such a difficult time integrating Muslim immigrants?
As for your bizarre comment about "women that act like men," what is that supposed to mean? Are you saying that you and those who follow your beliefs should be the arbiters of what constitutes acceptable female behavior?
If you're sick of lame TV, here's a newsflash: You don't have to watch television. Believe it or not, some of those moronic Americans (such as myself) have elected to get their news and most of their entertainment not from the idiot box, but from other sources like news magazines (one of the best is even produced in Britain) and international websites. Nobody is forcing you to watch the crap on TV.
I'm sick of Americans who cry that people hate them or are jealous of them or who are anti them because someone dares to point out that the America they've been programmed to believe in from birth bears no relation to the one that exists in real life.
There is nothing daring about anonymously pointing out in an online forum that the American government has been fearmongering and failing in its relations with the rest of the world. Here's another newsflash: When Shrub was elected the first time, half the country voted against him. When he was elected the second time, a slightly smaller percentage, but still almost half the voting public voted against him. Domestic opposition to this most pathetic American government has been loud and angry. The last seven years have been terribly divisive times in America. With any luck, this time around we'll elect a much more capable president, and we'll start restoring our reputation around the world.
Here's a tip: The next time you go ranting about hypocrisy, examine your own hypocrisy first. Then try posting with an account. It's still just a pseudonym, but at least it's a small form of taking responsibility for your writing.
The thing is, your "observant, well-trained professionals" are the SAME GOAT RODEO CLOWNS that are currently "responsible" for "security". They're just getting a different vocabulary to justify detaining and harassing people.
Actually, no. The TFA's poor hiring practices are well-known. Staffing people to sit behind scanning machines is a lot different from providing truly in-depth security training. If the TFA hired and trained security professionals, instead of monitor-watchers, it wouldn't be the same goat rodeo clowns doing the security work.
To a very good approximation, 0% of travelers are terrorists. Treating 100% of travelers like suspected terrorists is simply unacceptable.
To a very good approximation, 0% of all bombs dropped in all wars were nuclear weapons. One black swan is all it takes, and you can bet the Japanese government thought the bomb at Hiroshima was never going to happen. As for treating 100% of travelers like suspected terrorists, using more sophisticated security techniques is less invasive than using the broad-brush techniques in use now.
How would you stop airline terrorism? Or since by approximation 0% of travelers are terrorists, would you simply do away with all airport security?
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means proof, as in, you either have a sample of the alcohol, or a cop was there and testified that he looked, smelled, and tasted it and yep, it was alcohol.
Wrong. Eyewitness testimony, assuming the witness(es) were reliable, plus the photos could very well be enough. There is no requirement that the evidence by scientific or that it come from a police officer. Defendants get convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time, regardless of what CSI might tell you. In fact, most convictions result from circumstantial evidence.
That's not proof. I know it's unlikely, but unlikely is not how the law works.
The burden of proof in a misdemeanor case for underage drinking is beyond a reasonable doubt. If you saw a photo with a room full of people drinking out of cans and bottles clearly labeled as containing alcohol, in what appeared to be a party setting, what would you think? I think it would take an effort of willful blindness to buy the notion that they weren't drinking alcoholic beverages.
Yeah, non-issue; move along
The mere fact that Cutts can't prove definitively that there is a correlation between use of blackhat SEO techniques and cutting corners in other areas doesn't mean that his statement is without merit. Anecdotal evidence has shown me that in the business world if you cut corners in one place, you're likely to do the same in others. Hire undocumented workers. Pay people under the table. Don't divulge some earnings. Mix your personal and business accounts. Tarnish other businesses with innuendo. Hire a blackhat SEO specialist.
I think it is important to recognize that SEO is in the mainstream of most big business operations these days, and it is no longer appropriate to think of blackhat SEO as just a "geek topic." It's a front and center business ethics issue.
Nice analysis, Mike. I appreciate you taking the time.
You actually looked at the claims and based your opinion about prior art on what you saw in the claims. This is in contrast to the posters I was referring to, who start firing off salvos about prior art without any factual basis.
Until you've read the actual claims in a patent, it is impossible to know what Apple is actually attempting to patent. The fact that the description is of an OLED keyboard doesn't mean that prior art will negate the claims any more than the existence of LCD screens would necessarily invalidate a patent on an LCD screen.
Now to settle in and watch the ill-informed rants about patent law multiply like rodents. Anyone have any popcorn?
Amen, brother. The gestalt view in Slashdot seems to be that any act of trying to stop terrorist acts before they occur is totalitarian, while any time a terrorist act occurs, it's the fault of a bumbling security apparatus. I'd rather have observant, well-trained professionals watching what's going on in an airport than the current goat rodeo we have "protecting" our airports.
Film at eleven.
With apple you're paying more for what they think is stylish looks and a brand name.
You nailed that one right on the head. I've been using Macs since the late 1980s.
At first I paid more because the Mac had that whole "GUI" thing, and I thought it was important. Of course, the "GUI" was just a bunch of hooey, until Microsoft brought Windows 3.1 to market. Then the "GUI" actually was worthwhile.
But I still stubbornly continued to use the Mac because I thought I could get a lot done with it, using flashy, stupid tools like HyperCard and AppleScript. I realize now that they were just hogwash, but for a long time I thought I was really productive with them. I ran a 1,200 page website with BBEdit and AppleScript, but I was just fooling myself. Deep inside, I was just transfixed by the smooth beige of the PowerMac series of desktops and towers.
Then the G3 and G4 machines came out, and I was transfixed by the colors and the spicy new advertising. Again I was confused. They *seemed* like reliable computers. When OS X came out, it seemed like a more powerful and stable OS, but in retrospect, I was just taken in by the fact that the hardware and the software *seemed* to work so well together. But of course, that was just an illusion.
Now that I use a Mac laptop and Leopard, it's the same thing, only worse. All of the Mac-only apps really suck, and I'm only keeping my Mac because of those bitchin' "'I'm a PC.' 'And I'm a Mac!'" ads. Goddammit! I just wish Apple would stop messing with my teenie little brain! Give me strength so I can escape the grip of their stylish good looks and that overwhelmingly powerful brand name! Please! Help me!
I'm not sure how affiliate links matter if they are saying they don't like the product. Why would I, as a reader, follow one of those links if the review itself pans the product?
You also mention the possibility of paid reviews. I suppose there is always a possibility of paid reviews, but without any evidence that a particular publication is taking money on the sly from product vendors, it seems the only thing we have to go on is the overall credibility of the publication. I'm not sure if you're indicting the credibility of these particular reviewers, or of all tech review publications.
Keyword pollution is advertising, pure and simple. They want to get people to their sites so they can sell adds, make money, and keep the business going. I don't see how that poisons their reviews.
I'm still not sure if you have a general mistrust of review sites, or of these ones in particular. Slashdot definitely delivers unfiltered opinions. I hope you gleaned some valuable info amid the noise.
Clinton is trying to keep the Republicans from taking the "Family Values" high ground this election. This is a throw-away issue, one that a candidate can take a stand on without fear of ever having to deliver. She knows as well as anyone that every attempt to censor video game content has been shut down hard by the courts. She also has to know that establishing more federal bureaucracy in order to watch over video game content would never make it past Congress.
Hillary Clinton is just a politician attempting to get elected. I find it difficult to believe that there are actually single-issue voters whose single issue is video games, but based on what I've seen in this thread, it's obvious that such people exist. I'd prefer to focus on education, the economy, policing terrorists, and reasserting the rule of law in America, but it seems video game ratings are a more important issue.
I've read some reviews, but their motives can be somewhat suspect.
I'm actually more curious about why you wrote that than I am about the eBook readers in question.
Yeah, it's arguable
I agree. Trademark law is very fact-dependent. I was simply pointing out that to infringe, an item need not be a slavish copy of a trademark.
A licensing framework for what?
Building plugins, variations on the Six Apart codebase, etc. If people know the licensing is no longer at the whim of Six Apart, they'll be more likely to invest their time in projects built around the codebase.
Yes, but the shirts in question did not have "Best Buy" trademarks.
That doesn't necessarily matter. The point is that if consumers may be confused as to the origin of the shirts, that may be enough to prove dilution. Check out Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. v. Novak (8th Cir.1987) (PDF). A guy was selling "Mutant of Omaha's Mutant Kingdom" t-shirts, which were upon close examination not associated with Mutual of Omaha insurance. The court found likelihood of confusion, and the First Amendment parody defense didn't work
Will they think people wearing the shirts are Best Buy employees, representing Best Buy? An interesting question, but irrelevant. In most places you can buy facsimile police or army uniforms freely. Should a shop have greater protection? If the person wearing the "uniform" so attempts to pass himself off as a BB employee, he would be in trouble, but not the person selling him the pseudo-uniform.
Police and army uniforms are not protected by trademark, as they are not used "in commerce", which is a necessary component of unfair competition (of which trademark is a subset).