DDG can even handle that part for you. Check into their bangs. They have "!g" to automatically run your search through Google for you, saving you the hassle of navigating there yourself. I miss the inline map results when searching for addresses, so I'll use a !g on those to save myself the hassle of pulling up Google Maps directly...and I just noticed they have a !gmap, so I'll likely start using that instead.

Honest question: how do you think that product reviews exist? Ads demonstrating that one company's product trumps the competitors? News sites dedicated to a particular brand of products? Have you thought up until now that they're all illicit operations being operated on the run from the feds, or did you have the sense to recognize that (most of the time) those uses are perfectly legal and acceptable?

Your belief for how this law works doesn't match up with reality whatsoever. I'm frankly shocked that I'm having to explain any of this.

That's not correct. You absolutely can use it generically to mean a large-format movie, just the same as many folks use "Band-Aid" to mean an adhesive bandage and "Kleenex" to mean a tissue. There's nothing in trademark law stopping you, as a regular person, from using protected marks in your everyday speech in whatever manner you desire. You can disparage them, you can conflate them with a knock-off, or you can even use the names incorrectly. Trademark law doesn't cover any of that.

What trademark law does (and what your own quote even says, though you seem to have missed it) is prevent the use of protected marks in commerce. You cannot make a large-format movie product and brand it with "IMAX", any more than you can make a tissue product and call it "Kleenex" or make an adhesive bandage and call it "Band-Aid", because doing so would cause customer confusion regarding which product is the legitimate one and which ones are knock-offs.

A news article providing a quote from a person that makes mention of a protected mark does not mean that the mark is being used in commerce. The article is simply quoting someone who mentioned the mark. Were the site called "IMAX's Ars Technica", IMAX would have a valid claim against Ars, but merely using the term, even incorrectly, in a quotation from someone else is in no way engaging in commerce, and as such does not fall under the quotation you provided.

It's more likely that a new F-Zero will close in on your vision before Mario Kart does, I'd wager.

Tell that to the Chinese folks who were electrocuted as a result of using faulty clone cables and chargers with their iDevices. Apple really tightened up its MFi program after those incidents and even provided a trade-in program where knock-off products could be exchanged for the legit ones for $10, rather than the full retail price.

Having seen some dissections for the legitimate items and the clone ones, I can understand why they would do so, since the differences between the construction and parts in the two were night and day. It's no wonder people were dying with the clone ones.

If you're packing up for gigs on a regularly basis or otherwise putting a lot of stress on cables, that can definitely be worth it. But for most people, that's not the case.

I once had a big box retail store employee try to sell me on an expensive HDMI cable for the TV I was buying by arguing that it was more durable than the cheaper stuff I'd pick up online. He may have been right, but it was a non-factor for me, since my TV was going to be stationary. Even if the cheaper cable had a 50% chance to break every time I touched it, I'd still come out ahead since I'd only touch it once or twice every 10 years, yet it cost a 1/10 of the price of the cable he was trying to sell me on. Even if I bought a new cable every time I touched the HDMI input, I'd still come out ahead.

Again, for some folks, particularly musicians, investing in more durable cables makes a lot of sense, simply for their better durability. The last thing you want is for your primary and your backup cable to fail when you're setting up for a gig. But for most folks, durability should be a lower concern, or not a concern at all, since even the cheapest of cables will be durable enough to meet their needs.

It's not just the built-in Keychain that's compromised. They've also managed to use these attacks to snoop on inter-process communication when they shouldn't be able to, such as that between the 1Password Mini extension that runs in the browser and the 1Password app that's responsible for the encrypted vault with all of a user's passwords. By doing so at the right time, they can capture any information exchanged between the two.

Of course, there are easier ways to capture that particular data, such as simply making a malicious browser extension that captures usernames and passwords. You could likely get better distribution by doing so, not to mention avoiding any scrutiny that might come from the review process for the Mac App Store or iOS App Store.

Even so, the fact that this is possible opens up a whole variety of attacks, many of which can compromise more significant amounts of data. For instance, they demonstrated an attack on Evernote that compromises all of the user's notes. Many people keep way too much sensitive information in Evernote, and an attack like this could really burn them.

Fair use generally is a cut and dry issue, though there certainly are cases that push the boundaries. This is not one of them. I agree that the content owner is indeed well within their rights to contest the usage, just as they always are, but their doing so won't amount to anything, since this usage, as I said before, easily falls under fair use.

No disagreement from me that the DMCA is being served between two American entities (i.e. I agree with your three points). Where I will disagree, however, is with the implication that the DMCA would be valid in being applied to a UK-based entity. Just because American copyrights are recognized in the UK and vice versa, it doesn't mean that national copyright laws, such as the DMCA, are recognized across those borders too. As a quick example of that fact that we're likely all familiar with, fair use (i.e. exceptions in copyright law for Americans) and fair dealing (i.e. exceptions in copyright law for Commonwealth citizens) are already slightly different from one another. Just because something may fall under fair use in the US does not mean that it would fall under fair dealing in the UK, so the use of a copyrighted work may be infringing in one location but perfectly legitimate in the other.

In this case, where The Intercept is based really doesn't matter much (though, once again, you and I are in agreement on your points, but stick with me for the sake of argument). If they're based in the UK, the DMCA doesn't apply to them. If they're based in the US, their use of the image easily falls under fair use. Either way, they are well within their rights to refuse the DMCA takedown notice.

Whoever told you that is clearly incorrect. The coolness dropped off later.

He wasn't suggesting it was safer. He was suggesting it was billed as being safer. The article supports his point, since it mentions that historically the stuff was used as a substitute for butter and lard, both because it was cheaper, and because it was a means of reducing saturated fats in our food. They specifically called out the switch from butter to margarine (which is (was?) made with trans fats) as an example of this trend to treat trans fats as being healthier than the alternatives.

I'd say he read his article just fine, since it supports what he's saying. It also supports what you're saying, which is that modern research is showing the stuff is ridiculously bad for you, despite what we were told in the past. You're both correct.

I'm with you in your griping about people thinking that every product is a failure if it isn't intended for them, but at the same time, you have to wonder just who this product is intended for. Those paddles on the back? They weren't there when the system launched. What's their purpose? What games support them or ever will support them? Racing games, I suppose, for use with shifting gears, but if you're a racing fan looking to drop $150 on a peripheral, you're already better served getting a racing wheel controller instead of this controller.

It's sound strategy to release hardware aimed at a different segments of the market, but this item seems to aim at...people with too much money and no sense? I'm really not sure. It's entirely possible I'm missing something obvious, so if someone can clue me in, I'd certainly appreciate it.

As others points out already (and someone else even beat me to parroting your own line back at you), he's suggesting it's greater than the summary said and that it accounts for far more than the summary was giving it credit for.

Moreover, in looking through the data for the last 30 minutes, I have yet to figure out where the CBS article is pulling their numbers from, since they linked to a very general page, rather than one with specific details, and the only weight data I can find either doesn't go back that far, doesn't contain any specifics (i.e. it'll give overweight/obese/extremely obese percentages, but no exact weights), or doesn't provide any averages based on gender. I'm guessing the data is in there somewhere, but darned if I can find it so that I can verify any of the claims being made by either side.

The one does not suggest the other.

Just taking it at its face value, we know that what you've said is wrong, since the whole situation in California involves making farmland out of desert. Clearly, that is NOT the natural habitat to which almonds or many of these other crops belong. They may grow better there than in their natural habitat because we're able to artificially produce a habitat that is more suitable to them, but that doesn't mean that they can't grow elsewhere.

Moreover, they may even be able to grow elsewhere more economically. The costs for farmers are being pushed down artificially by the heavy subsidies on the price of water. Should the prices rise to be commensurate to use, it could quickly become the case that almond production moves to some other place where it's more cost effective. Even with a shorter growing season elsewhere (after all, it's hard to compete with the ideal conditions provided by deserts once you find a way around the pesky "no water" issue), farmers will at some point find it to be cheaper to move elsewhere, since we have no shortage of land suitable for almonds.

This. So much. Google used to be run by the engineers. These days the engineers are run by Google. They earned their place at the top, but they're actively sabotaging themselves with the various moves they're making, such as the one you cited. I tried DuckDuckGo last year and was unimpressed at the time. I tried again a few months ago and found it to be much better than before, so I went ahead and switched all of my devices over. The only two things I miss from Google Search are map results when I search for addresses and the ability to specify a date range for my search (e.g. quite often, coverage over a news topic will change over time, so I like to have it just check the first week that something happened, that way I can see the initial coverage in the news).