Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Most don't buy Pandora services app installed, NBC (Score 1) 136

Most people don't buy Pandora services at the time they install the app. The revenue-generating commmercial activity, the trade, occurs when you use the service. You literally trade ads for music. Speaking of "hence the term", hence the term service mark, applicable when you're using a service.

Were that not true, your argument would imply it's okay for me to make a TV network called NBC, amd there would be no trademark or service mark issues because viewers don't pay with CASH when they watch, they pay by watching ads.

Comment Much less than that - deceptive marking alone (Score 1) 136

Imagine if another app had an icon that looked EXACTLY like your favorite web browser, perhaps Firefox. So every time you tried to use the web you have a 50/50 chance of getting Facebook's app instead. That would be a) highly annoying and b) unfair for Facebook to trick users into opening the Facebook app instead of their web browser. If they did that by copying the Chrome or Firefox logo, that would be trademark violation.

> Brand confusion is you walk out of the store having purchased a confusingly-labelled product, take it home, and attribute your experience to the other product.

Not according to any court, anywhere. When you want Coca-Cola, and you pick up a bottle that appears to be marked with Coke's trademark and put it into your basket, that's brand confusion. That would be a problem, even if when you got home you realized they had tricked you into buying Cocka-Colla. Consumers shouldn't be tricked into using, buying, installing, etc products and services by deceptive markings.

Note that "oh but our red and and white bottle says Coka, not Coke" doesn't make it not deceptive. If it fools people into picking up the wrong product, it's deceptive.

Comment Supposed to protect consumer from wrong product (Score 1) 136

> However, Trademark law is not around to prevent you from accidentally launching the wrong program on your computer. Or is it?

That's an interesting question. Launching or installing (Roughly using or buying). It's supposed to be primarily* to protect the consumer from getting a product or service other than the one the think they are getting. If you're trying to get Paypal, and you make a selection based on the Paypal trademark / service mark, but end up with the wrong service due to a confusingly similar mark, there is a case to be made.

I take no position on who should win, but given Paypal has documented many examples of actual consumer confusion, it's not a ridiculous case.

* also it is supposed to protect those who spend years providing a quality service in order to build a trusted brand. But mostly it's supposed to be about if the consumer ends up with something other than what they are trying to get.

Comment Tldr: Can't sell red and white Coke clothing (Score 1) 136

Here's the short form of what he above poster said:

Yes, a trademark only covers the types of things you sell.
Apple can sell computers, while Apple sells records, with no problem. Buyers won't confuse Apple records with Apple computers.

The problem only arises when Apple (computers) starts selling music (itunes) or a possibly a music workstation.

HOWEVER, if you see a red shirt with white lettering that says COKE, or Coca Cola, buyers will likely associate that with the beverage company. A brand as famous and strong as Coke could cause confusion on most any merchandise.

Comment If network engineers think it's dumb, must be good (Score 1) 141

> You just can look at all the worried lobbying telcos

So you're thinking is that if the people who actually run the networks, the people who know what they are talking about, think it's a horribly stupid idea, that proves that it's a great idea?

One early draft of the rules made it illegal to block spam - all smtp traffic had to be treated equally. Ensuing drafts were dumb in a similar, but more complex way. All traffic is NOT the same. Sometimes you WANT your packets delayed, because early packets are dropped in real-time streaming. Yeah they would have had effects - effects like prohibiting proper handling of real time flows, thereby worsening the customer experience.

Comment What, exactly, was so great about 2016? (Score 1) 141

Okay so apparently your theory is that although the FCC regulations hadn't gone into effect, they still had some great benefit on the internet. 2016, which had NN regulations written, was somehow much better than 1992-2014, with no such regulations, right?

What *exactly* was so great, what did the new regulations accomplish that was better than what we've always had? Added expenses certainly slowed price reductions, what eas this great benefit that was worth it?

Comment Content + access: AOL, CompuServe, Prodigy (Score 1) 141

People are concerned that a few major ISPs will provide just their content or make deals with a few content companies to provide the content. That is as opposed every ISP providing access to all web sites and internet services. That *could* happen. That *did* happen. The ISPs were called AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy. When others offered free and open access to everything on the internet, that beat the pants off the "ISP as content provider" model. People did in fact abandon Prodigy and instead signed up with companies that provide open access to everything.

We need not predict how things would go if ISPs favored sponsored content, that already happened. AOL and Prodigy are the past, so we can see that idea did fail. Open internet access did win in the market, without any fiat from Washington.

Comment No need to predict the past. I was there, in IETF (Score 2) 141

> that the outcomes from an academic exercise will be remotely similar

Regulation by the FTC, without net neutrality regulations, isn't an academic exercise. It's what we had until late 2015. It's what built the goddamn internet. I don't have to predict how that make work, that's the past. And I wad there, a member of the Internet Engineering Task Force drafting protocol standards such as HTTP (aka the web). I'd say our little web project went pretty damn well without Washington telling us how to route packets.

Comment Net neutrality lasted less than 18 months (Score 1, Interesting) 141

The FCC (who created the phone company monstrosities) took over and neutrality regulations were released in 2015. They have never been enforced yet. So those decades of innovation building the world wide web - that was all without net neutrality micromanaging networks, with just FTC regulations.

Comment Yo dawg that b phat ya feel me. (Score 4, Insightful) 486

yo dawg that b phat n shit
ya feel me dawg

Words have two types of meaning, both connotation and denotation. Two words may have the exact same denotation, but quite different connotation.

The primary purpose of clothing is clothing is to cover the skin. Other purposes of clothing, such as "saggin" pants, dress shirts, and lab coats include communicating information about one's values, role in the current context, and standards of behavior. Certain clothing suggests that the wearer believes snitches get stiches, other clothing indicates the opposite.

Similarly, the tone of language communicates all of the above and much more. If you are unable to understand the difference between "yo dawg u b trippin" and "Sir, I believe your perspective may lack appropriate context", you may be lacking an essential skill. The two sentences convey quite different connotations, though the same denotation.

Comment Drug dogs debunked. Doesn't pass the sniff test (Score 4, Interesting) 143

Talking about the number of genes is a bit silly, agreed. If you want to compare the two, compare them directly. There are humans and dogs trained in smelling things (in the fragrance industry, for example). Run a direct comparison test. Also of course you could directly test having untrained humans and dogs smell for food and other items.

DRUG dogs, specifically, have not fared well in blind in blind tests. While *some* dogs are probably quite good, in testing the typical police dog consistently "alerts" on wherever the handler thinks the drugs are. Tests have been done in which the drugs are in box #1, nothing is in box #2, and the police handler is *told* the drugs are in box #3. A police dog is more likely to alert on #3, where the cop thinks the drugs are, then box #1, where the drugs actually are.

Comment Corning has been there, done that for 165 years (Score 4, Informative) 34

Corning has already had a short period in which Apple tried a different supplier. They've also has similar deals come and go over their 165 year history. Corning is a major supplier and leading innovator in speciality glass and ceramic products, and optics, used in many different industries.

Apple is an important customer, for sure, but far from their only customer. Corning was a leader in their industry long before Apple even existed. They wouldn't be going out of business without Apple, just R&Ding their next big thing. Just like Corningware was great for Corning for a while, then that levelled off.

Comment Truth is timeless. "I am the truth" (Score 1) 305

> God has a moral component being either the source of moral goodness or its arbitrator (depending on your view)

The biblical God, from all I've read, *is* truth, not the arbiter of truth. "I am the way, the truth, and the light". (The word "am" here is the permanent "am"). Anywhere in that big old Bible does it say "I am the arbiter of morality? If so I haven't seen it.

To whatever extent morality is true, whatever moral laws are fixed and permanent, those are *part of* the biblical God because God *is* truth, according to the Bible. Whatever laws of physics are true, always true, are of course part of "I am the truth".

I haven't taken a survey of how "most people" understand things, but the biblical God is truth - all truth.

Comment On the contrary, say quantum physicists (Score 5, Interesting) 305

I heard a quantum astro physicist speak on this recently. It was interesting that what he said the requirements for the big bang would be just happened to match up to some things outside of physics.

You mentioned:
> It all comes down to relativity: If the universe started as a single dimensionless point, then the gravity would have been so strong that time didn't exist. If time didn't exist

If time didn't exist within that point, if the gravity was so strong nothing could escape, then *nothing* could happen, within a basic understanding of relatively. For anything to happen, for the big bang to happen, you need either something outside pf physics (something meta-physical) or certain laws of quantum physics must be present in a very particular way.

Biblically, when God is asked who he is, the answer is basically "I am what it timeless" or "I am what has always been and always will be" (English doesn't have exactly the right words because we give several meanings to the word "is/am" Spanish comes closer with es vs esta). Also "I am the truth". So God states he is, essentially, timeless truth. Whatever has always been true, that's God.

And the physicists say that *before* the big bang can happen, quantum physics must *already* be true. Quantum physics must be timeless truth in order to get the big bang, or else the big bang has to be caused by something beyond physics, something meta-physical.

Therefore reading the plain words, the laws pf physics are timeless truth that must have existed before the big bang, and that's what God is - timeless truth that existed before the big bang. The founders of the US would then have been correct to call the laws of nature the laws of God, acts of nature are called acts of God. They are one and the same. They are timeless truth.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.

Working...