Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Trademark infringement mostly (Score 1) 68

If they're basing this on owning the copyright to the Olympics, this isn't going to work - owning a copyright on the name of a thing doesn't mean that you can prevent anyone from talking about your thing, just that nobody else can sell it.

It's not only a copyright but a trademark too. They Olympics and symbols relating to it are all trademarks so the primary argument would be trademark infringement though in many cases their argument would be a weak one. Often they don't have a solid legal leg to stand on but they have demonstrated in the past that they will no hesitate to sick their flesh eating lawyers on anyone who crosses them.

Basically they are trying to protect the (substantial) money they get from their "official sponsors".

Comment Not an idle threat (Score 1) 68

You can bluster and threaten as much as you want, but reporting on the facts is perfectly legal.

That's true but the IOC and USOC don't care. They will sue you even if you did nothing illegal and I don't think this is an idle threat. They (mistakenly) think they are protecting their corporate sponsors by doing this. They sued Wizards of the Coast for using a symbol that could not possibly have been mistaken for the Olympic rings.

Comment Well... (Score 1) 275

If the US government fails to care about blatant disregard of law because...it's a Clinton and she's a Democrat...then perhaps it's legitimate to appeal to other state-level actors to help throw aside the veil of secrecy?

At what point are the people of the US entitled to recognize that their government directly serves the interests of a small coterie of oligarchs, and try to work around it?

Again, let's recall:
"I don't have a private email server"
"It was only private and family correspondence"
"Well nothing secret went on that server"
"Nothing I knew was secret was on that server"
"Nothing ACTUALLY MARKED SECRET was on that server"
and then, after at least a week of denials, a carefully vetted pile of emails was 'given' to the FBI/DOJ and there were STILL secret things found in the correspondence.

And yet, the response from half the electorate and most of the major news organizations is "What me worry?" and "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy*"
*now including Red Scare 2016(tm)

Comment Corrupt bastards (Score 1) 68

Commercial entities may not post about the Trials or Games on their corporate social media accounts

Good luck with that.

Apparently the letter says that any company whose primary mission isn't media is forbidden from using any pictures taken at the Olympics, sharing, and even reposting anything from the official Olympics account.

Reminds me of the time when the IOC decided the card game Legend of the Five Rings somehow infringed on their trademarks.

This from the same crowd that refuses to ban Russia in the face of clear evidence of a state sponsored doping program.

Comment Re:Why not? (Score 1) 275

You just made the case that Hillary Clinton exposed National Security with her private email server, and isn't qualified to be president.

Because the "classification system" we have for government was subverted by Hillary, meaning SHE did exactly what you're accusing Trump of doing.

Vote Gary Johnson, and be done with the Clintrump criminals.

Comment Re:The basest, vilest (Score 3, Informative) 275

Valarie Plame was not a "undercover" agent. And Dick Cheney didn't out her, it was a well known secret.

The ONLY people offended by her "outing" were people who hate Cheney. Hate him all you want, just don't do it for this, it is a non-issue. I also find it simply amazing that this is a huge deal to certain people, while at the same time, those same people are voting Clinton, who has done much much worse.

Comment Accountability (Score 1) 156

The bean counters would still do it without the CEO's direction, since it directly affects the company's ability to pay the employees (including said bean counters) salaries.

Company wide tax mitigation does not happen without C-suite executives being involved. Period. Virtually everything accountants do affects the financial statements and those are reviewed closely by the CEO and his direct reports if they care to keep their jobs. As such it does not happen without oversight with the head of the company leading that oversight.

And they would be under less pressure to do illegal tax dodges, since they would bear direct responsibility for those decisions instead of "just following orders.

Accountants DO bear direct responsibility for their actions and can (and occasionally do) go to jail for "illegal tax dodges". They are the first ones thrown under the bus if something shady is going on. Most tax dodges are 100% legal and there is a cottage industry in finding clever ways to legally reduce tax. The only ones who do it illegally are the ones who are too dumb to know better.

Hang the CEOs, watch the company do better as the people who actually know their jobs do them without outside interference.

If you want to see what a company looks like when you let the accounting and finance people do their jobs "without outside interference" I direct your attention to Enron. What you are proposing is a one way ticket to Fraudtown. A CEO who isn't keeping a close eye on the where the money goes in the company is not doing his/her job and should be fired.

Comment Watch the video - he does NOT like Russia! (Score 4, Insightful) 275

It was not only obviously a joke, but he suggested the hack could also be China or some other private hacker.

He also said that Russia and China have no respect for the United States.

Finally, fuck any link to Gawker. Slashdot deserves much better than this, even if such a ridiculous leading headline will falsely stoke the Hillary supporters without any further context. I mean, what's next? "Hillary shit herself regularly..." (...at one year old)?

Comment Wishful thinking (Score 1) 462

But airplanes have been flying with Autopilot for decades, and the legal situation is quite clear - the pilot is responsible for flying the plane, and the Autopilot is just an assist that automates some of the boring stuff.

And that is exactly how it should be in automobiles as well. The driver is the responsible party. When we get to fully automated vehicles things might get a little more complicated but for now it's pretty simple who is liable. The only real question is if Tesla has some sort of contributory negligence style liability as well.

Exactly the same as Tesla's Autopilot - probably why they named it Autopilot was to remind people of that.

Problem there is that to fly a plane you need to demonstrate a high level of competency and substantial amounts of training with tests to fly even the simplest of aircraft which lack autopilot. They don't let you use autopilot until they are damn sure you know what you are doing. The only tests we give to drive are some ridiculously easy tests that most teenagers can pass and we never evaluate their driving competency ever again even though many are seriously lacking in driving competence. Trusting that drivers will understand the connection to the use of the term in aviation is wishful thinking.

Comment Re: Er (Score 1) 462

What does the engineering difference between those two styles of air brakes have to do with the judgement call of when or whether to apply brakes in the first place? Is the fact that a guy in Nice, France chose to run down 84 people with an air-brake-equipped truck just an engineering failure, as far as you're concerned?

Slashdot Top Deals

"You must have an IQ of at least half a million." -- Popeye

Working...