Also worth considering: does anyone believe that they would have chosen that particular name, with that specific ungrammatical construction, were it not for Toys R Us being a household name that's been familiar to most Americans since childhood?
I dunno; I can see a legitimate chance of consumer confusion here, especially if you heard about Hair Are Us verbally (a radio ad, for example) and didn't see that their name was spelled differently. Any reasonable person's first thought in that situation would be that the people behind Toys R Us were expanding into a new market.
Encryption is based on one thing only: mathematics.
The determination of who are the good guys and who are the bad guys is based on something very different: morality.
Morality is not mathematics. The equations don't change depending on whether a good guy or a bad guy is calculating them. Therefore, there's no such thing as an encryption backdoor that only the good guys can use.
No, but if you need a name for that, it sounds like a highly specific application of the Bystander Effect to me. OpenSSL was an extreme outlier though, and hardly typical.
If the court finds the FBI's actions lawful, it will serve notice that any public area is no place to hold a private conversation, even if the participants make every effort to ensure their relative privacy. This would be at odds with previous court decisions.
...but not with Techdirt's clearly-expressed opinion about "in public" being the very antithesis of "having a legitimate expectation of privacy". (See, for example, any article dealing with police officers asserting a right to privacy in an attempt to rid themselves of the scrutiny of citizens with cameras.)
We're all now painfully aware that many eyeballs don't necessarily make deep bugs shallow
I assume you're referring to Heartbleed? That could actually be written up as a textbook failure of the open-source development process: in the OpenSSL project, the many eyeballs simply weren't there. People who looked into it found that very few people besides the authors were actually doing anything to review the code before news of Heartbleed became public.
Many (though not all!) of the most widely-used scientific and numerical computing libraries are open-source packages that anyone can look into. This is known as Linus's law: "with enough eyes, all bugs are shallow [ie. easy to detect]", and it explains the high quality of popular open-source software.
Yeah, I kind of wonder how long this will last. The whole point of cable used to be that unlike broadcast TV, which sent its signal out for free to its viewers and was supported by ads, cable was supported by the viewers and didn't need to degrade the audience's experience with commercial breaks.
That lasted a while, but now... yeah. And so now people are turning to services like Netflix, because they're supported by the viewers and don't need to degrade the audience's experience with commercial breaks...
Understanding that "doctors" practice "medicine" and how humans are NOT graded for purity, I type "define medicine" into a search engine and got: the science or practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease
Please tell me you're not really that dense. Medication (also known as "medicine" in colloquial speech, not to be confused with "the practice of medicine," which shouldn't need to be pointed out because no one actually confuses them) is pharmaceutical drugs in the modern age. It's stuff that's been properly studied and understood by scientists, rather than the traditional or "well I heard it works" folk remedies of the dark ages.
Its a good thing then all the doctors who prescribed the drugs that adverse side effects resulting in lawsuits have had their doctoring licences pulled. Vioxx, Phen-Phen, et al must have just left only responsible doctors in the field.
OK, you're just being intentionally disingenuous here. There's a huge difference between a doctor prescribing something that they believe is safe but actually isn't because the doctor was lied to and something that they know full well isn't proper medication. (Worth looking up: the concept of mens rea.
Really? Taking in vapours of a set of chemicals to achieve a dosing is bad? It is too darn bad the makers of nebulizers, inhalers, or even vaporizers don't know about the liability minefield they are entering.
No, and that's not what I said. I said smoking is bad for reasons that need not be explained, and if you seriously do need an explanation and you're not just trolling, then please go away and let the grown-ups talk.
Yes, just about any argument can be made to look ridiculous by horribly oversimplifying it and taking it completely out of context. That's why mockery is frequently considered an automatic "whoever does this first loses the debate" point, right up there with Godwin's Law.
If people in general were smart enough to be convinced by the evidence of a history book, we wouldn't have a well-known maxim about people not learning from history and thus being doomed to repeat it.
Because "medical" marijuana is a joke. Any responsible doctor can tell you that smoking pot is completely antithetical to the practices of modern medicine, for several reasons:
1) Real medicine is produced to a laboratory-certified grade of purity, generally mixed with inert fillers, and dispensed at a controlled dose. Weed is... well... a weed. It's not a medicinal drug; it's a plant that contains a (supposedly) medicinal drug.
2) Speaking of laboratory-purified medicinal drugs, studies have shown that patients do not receive the same therapeutic benefits from laboratory-purified THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) that "medicinal marijuana" proponents claim the plant confers. There are really only two possible explanations for this. Either "medicinal marijuana" proponents are flat-out lying, simply looking for an excuse to get stoned, or they're telling the truth, which means there's another active ingredient in there and we don't know what it is or what its properties are yet. If the first is true, explanation then there's no such thing as medicinal marijuana, and if the second is true, then it's something no responsible doctor would ever prescribe due to unknown drug risks. (Allergies, interactions, etc.)
3) Marijuana is frequently (though not always) ingested by smoking. Again, this is something no responsible doctor would ever prescribe, for reasons that I hope do not need to be elaborated upon in 21st century America.
There's medicine, and then there's marijuana, but the idea of conflating the two is absolutely ridiculous to anyone who knows anything about medicine.
The foundation’s officials said that their aim is to “make sure that Anne Frank stays Anne,” Mr. Kugelmann said, by maintaining control and avoiding inappropriate exploitation of the work. “When she died, she was a young girl who was not even 16. We are protecting her. That is our task.”
...and now she's 70 years dead. Hate to break it to you, Mr. Kugelmann, but if there's anyone out there with the desire and the means to harm her, she needs protection that a lawyer or an administrator can't provide. And if there isn't, then you're full of crap.
Of course, rushing in to regulate will almost certainly cause problems, blocking off potential innovations in this field that could be much better for all involved.
Why would blocking off "potential innovations" in the field of illegal online gambling be a problem? Not everything innovative is automatically good.
Remember, there are two great fools. One says "this is old, therefore it is good," and the other says "this is new, therefore it is better."
What exactly is being advertised just below the thing where it says "Content is advertising, advertising is content"? I don't know; the ad has no content. (Or, perhaps more accurately, no context.)
Our workforce is 59% diverse, our 2014 hires were 69% diverse,
...huh? What does "[specific percentage] diverse" even mean? What exactly is the 49% "non-diverse" segment of their workforce composed of? A clone army?
T-Mobile wants to suggest it’s saving customers by exempting video from its data caps. But we have to remember that T-Mobile imposed these caps in the first place. It’s a cheap sales trick: First you fabricate a problem for customers; then you make that problem go away and act like you’ve done them a huge favor.
As I've said before, would anyone think Superman was a hero for rescuing a bunch of people from a burning building, if he had used his heat vision to start the fire?
On the post: A Weave Is Not A Toy: Toys R Us Opposes Hair Extension Company Trademark
Re:
On the post: A Weave Is Not A Toy: Toys R Us Opposes Hair Extension Company Trademark
On the post: Hillary Clinton Joins The 'Make Silicon Valley Break Encryption' Bandwagon
Important distinction
The determination of who are the good guys and who are the bad guys is based on something very different: morality.
Morality is not mathematics. The equations don't change depending on whether a good guy or a bad guy is calculating them. Therefore, there's no such thing as an encryption backdoor that only the good guys can use.
It really is that simple.
On the post: Frequent Errors In Scientific Software May Undermine Many Published Results
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Defense Lawyers Claim FBI Illegally Bugged Outside Steps Of County Courthouse
...but not with Techdirt's clearly-expressed opinion about "in public" being the very antithesis of "having a legitimate expectation of privacy". (See, for example, any article dealing with police officers asserting a right to privacy in an attempt to rid themselves of the scrutiny of citizens with cameras.)
On the post: Frequent Errors In Scientific Software May Undermine Many Published Results
Re: Detectability of software defects
I assume you're referring to Heartbleed? That could actually be written up as a textbook failure of the open-source development process: in the OpenSSL project, the many eyeballs simply weren't there. People who looked into it found that very few people besides the authors were actually doing anything to review the code before news of Heartbleed became public.
On the post: Frequent Errors In Scientific Software May Undermine Many Published Results
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: TV Industry Starts Running Fewer Ads To Combat Netflix, Cord Cutting
Re:
That lasted a while, but now... yeah. And so now people are turning to services like Netflix, because they're supported by the viewers and don't need to degrade the audience's experience with commercial breaks...
On the post: The Ridiculous Rush To Try To Patent Pot
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Ridiculous Rush To Try To Patent Pot
Re: Re: Re:
Please tell me you're not really that dense. Medication (also known as "medicine" in colloquial speech, not to be confused with "the practice of medicine," which shouldn't need to be pointed out because no one actually confuses them) is pharmaceutical drugs in the modern age. It's stuff that's been properly studied and understood by scientists, rather than the traditional or "well I heard it works" folk remedies of the dark ages.
OK, you're just being intentionally disingenuous here. There's a huge difference between a doctor prescribing something that they believe is safe but actually isn't because the doctor was lied to and something that they know full well isn't proper medication. (Worth looking up: the concept of mens rea.
No, and that's not what I said. I said smoking is bad for reasons that need not be explained, and if you seriously do need an explanation and you're not just trolling, then please go away and let the grown-ups talk.
On the post: The Ridiculous Rush To Try To Patent Pot
Re: Re:
On the post: Is There Any Evidence In The World That Would Convince Intelligence Community That More Surveillance Isn't The Answer?
Re:
If people in general were smart enough to be convinced by the evidence of a history book, we wouldn't have a well-known maxim about people not learning from history and thus being doomed to repeat it.
On the post: The Ridiculous Rush To Try To Patent Pot
Re:
1) Real medicine is produced to a laboratory-certified grade of purity, generally mixed with inert fillers, and dispensed at a controlled dose. Weed is... well... a weed. It's not a medicinal drug; it's a plant that contains a (supposedly) medicinal drug.
2) Speaking of laboratory-purified medicinal drugs, studies have shown that patients do not receive the same therapeutic benefits from laboratory-purified THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) that "medicinal marijuana" proponents claim the plant confers. There are really only two possible explanations for this. Either "medicinal marijuana" proponents are flat-out lying, simply looking for an excuse to get stoned, or they're telling the truth, which means there's another active ingredient in there and we don't know what it is or what its properties are yet. If the first is true, explanation then there's no such thing as medicinal marijuana, and if the second is true, then it's something no responsible doctor would ever prescribe due to unknown drug risks. (Allergies, interactions, etc.)
3) Marijuana is frequently (though not always) ingested by smoking. Again, this is something no responsible doctor would ever prescribe, for reasons that I hope do not need to be elaborated upon in 21st century America.
There's medicine, and then there's marijuana, but the idea of conflating the two is absolutely ridiculous to anyone who knows anything about medicine.
On the post: Pure Copyfraud: Anne Frank Foundation Trying To Pretend Her Father Wrote Her Diary... To Extend Its Copyright
Re: Re: Copyright should end at the author's death.
On the post: Pure Copyfraud: Anne Frank Foundation Trying To Pretend Her Father Wrote Her Diary... To Extend Its Copyright
...and now she's 70 years dead. Hate to break it to you, Mr. Kugelmann, but if there's anyone out there with the desire and the means to harm her, she needs protection that a lawyer or an administrator can't provide. And if there isn't, then you're full of crap.
On the post: NY Attorney General Shuts Down Daily Fantasy Sports Sites, Because Grandstanding
Why would blocking off "potential innovations" in the field of illegal online gambling be a problem? Not everything innovative is automatically good.
Remember, there are two great fools. One says "this is old, therefore it is good," and the other says "this is new, therefore it is better."
On the post: FBI's Top Lawyer Says Locking Law Enforcement Out Of Cellphones Is The Public's Choice To Make
Seen in this article
What exactly is being advertised just below the thing where it says "Content is advertising, advertising is content"? I don't know; the ad has no content. (Or, perhaps more accurately, no context.)
On the post: Comcast Keeps Scolding Me For Calling Its Top Lobbyist A Lobbyist
Re:
from the no-seriously-we-need-a-edit-comments-button-already dept
On the post: Comcast Keeps Scolding Me For Calling Its Top Lobbyist A Lobbyist
...huh? What does "[specific percentage] diverse" even mean? What exactly is the 49% "non-diverse" segment of their workforce composed of? A clone army?
On the post: T-Mobile Exempts Video Streams From Wireless Data Caps, Sets A Horrible Precedent
As I've said before, would anyone think Superman was a hero for rescuing a bunch of people from a burning building, if he had used his heat vision to start the fire?
Next >>