That reminds me of when it was time to replace our company's Nortel phone system.
It wasn't just that the Nortel reps couldn't arrange a simple demo for their newer system. It's that they refused to confirm whether certain features even existed until AFTER we signed an agreement to purchase it. They acted like they had a total monopoly.
We went with Mitel instead, whose reps had no trouble arranging a demo and answering questions. Not long after, Nortel became the largest bankruptcy case in Canadian history.
The DVD Copy Control Association had a monopoly too, briefly, or at least thought they thought they did. Like Nortel, it only really made the case for consumers to seek alternatives.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
Lefties?
The head of the FBI is Trump appointee Christopher Wray, who Trump said is "a man of impeccable credentials." Wray himself says that the Republican House memo is false and misleading.
The renewal of the Carter Page FISA warrant was done by Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General appointed by Trump. Trump said that Rosenstein is "highly respected, very good guy, very smart guy. Democrats like him; the Republicans like him." He worked on Ken Starr’s Whitewater investigation into Bill and Hillary’s real estate dealings.
Rosenstein wrote the memo for Trump that Trump used to fire James Comey. Comey is a registered Republican who served in the Bush Administration and donated to the Presidential campaigns of John McCain and Mitt Romney.
All 11 FISA judges were appointed by Republican appointee John Roberts
Robert Mueller is a Republican, appointed the Director of the FBI by President George W. Bush in 2001.
AND YET, Hillary Clinton and the actual "Uranium One" scandal goes without notice from certain types!
Incorrect. Those "certain types" had a look to see what the "Uranium One scandal" is about, and are still waiting for any evidence of wrong-doing by Hillary Clinton. Anything at all.
You clowns can deny all you want, but FACT is that the FBI went to FISA with known FALSE and highly suspect "information", known to be paid-for
You've STILL never given any reason why - in an investigation that was already running - it was wrong to look into the report. From a source with such non-partisan credibility that its reports on Trump were commissioned by both Republicans and Democrats. You wouldn't take it on blind faith, but with a mountain of other sources and evidence there was no need to.
You've yet to explain how it invalidates all those other sources and evidence.
And since you drag Hillary into this, is it wrong to investigate the Uranium One deal because Republicans demanded it? Was it wrong for the FBI to investigate Hillary based on the partisan hit piece Clinton Cash, written by Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer and commissioned by Trump Campaign Manager Steve Bannon?
Because you'd look damned hypocritical if you claim otherwise.
NO, the sheer fact that the "intelligence" was PAID-FOR means it's unreliable to start with.
Well, sure. That's why it's called an investigation, and opposed to a blind acceptance. With a mountain of evidence from other sources, there's no need to blindly accept the report's contents.
Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
So Techdirt is OKAY with FISA warrants being paid for by opposition candidate, for "research" that duplicates prior outline, even though the FBI knew Steele hadn't actually talked to any informants, let alone from the Kremlin, and that it was paid-for.
Let's see if I've got this straight:
No FISA warrants "were paid for" by an opposition candidate.
Steele's Fusion GPS Trump dossier on the other hand was paid for. First by Republicans, and then by Democrats.
Accusations in it were investigated by the FBI....
...but the FBI investigation isn't based on it. There's a mountain of evidence from other sources.
Investigating such accusations - even when privately funded - is normal. For example Hillary Clinton was investigated by the FBI based on the partisan hit piece Clinton Cash, written by Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer and commissioned by Trump Campaign Manager Steve Bannon.
But you're firm believer in IOKIYAR. (It's OK if You're A Republican.) How dare they investigate accusations against anyone but Democrats.
...by which a person may use the trademark of another as a reference to describe the other product, or to compare it to their own.
The nominative use test essentially states that one party may use or refer to the trademark of another if:
The product or service cannot be readily identified without using the trademark (e.g. trademark is descriptive of a person, place, or product attribute).
The user only uses as much of the mark as is necessary for the identification (e.g. the words but not the font or symbol).
The user does nothing to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder. This applies even if the nominative use is commercial.
Furthermore, if a use is found to be nominative, then by the definition of non-trademark uses, it can not dilute the trademark.
There's more relevant information - including a couple commercial use examples - none of it supporting the NFL's claims.
so am I breaking the law when I view that Canadian-legal James Bond story?
In the US, if the US says so. It would be up to US law to stop you.
It should be like the US attitude towards freedom of speech. If Iran doesn't like what an American posts on the internet, they don't have the right to censor that American in the US. "If you don't like it, block it in your own country."
Likewise US shouldn't have the right to prevent post-copyright publishing in Life+50 countries. In reality they provide enough of a threat that they do.
Every year a whole lot of books, movies and other works go into the public domain here in Canada.
But thanks to a lack of good references on the subject, it's the US rules that, er, rule. It's hard to find a definitive answer on whether a work has entered the public domain in Canada. It's much harder than in the US to find a definitive set of rules on the subject.
If a Canadian wants to post say, off-copyright James Bond stories on their Canadian web site on their Canadian server, good luck confirming whether it's legally OK. And even if it's legally OK, that doesn't mean you won't be sued or have your site taken down by a US complaint regardless.
Which is why US's Life+70+Extensions standard is not made irrelevant by works showing up on web servers in Life+50 countries. If that doesn't change, expect more 20-year extensions in the US.
Kelly / Warner have already released a statement claiming the named lawyers knew nothing about the fraudulent claims contained in the documents they served to the court, nor are they required to.
"We don't know what we're doing, nor are we required to."
A small segment of highway that runs through Waldo requires drivers to speed up and slow down six times: 65 mph becomes 55 mph; 55 becomes 45; then goes back to 55; then back down to 45; to 55 again and eventually, 35 mph.
The ticket revenue contributed nearly half of the city's budget.
According to the "little speed trap that could" link above, "As of the end of April the village has been billed more than $260,000 by its attorneys and had paid $253,537." Those figures are probably much higher nine months later, now that the case has made it to court.
If you go after town officials responsible - who were acting in their official capacity - to claw the money back, they'll fight it in court. The taxpayers will be paying the legal fees for BOTH sides.
I would suggest that there are other classifications not covered above:
1) You're non-religious, going by the evidence, not taking anything on faith. Suddenly you find yourself in Heaven standing before God.
So you then believe in the existence of God. But this is entirely consistent with your previous stance; you've been handed the evidence, and adjusted your beliefs accordingly. But are you truly religious, since you're still not taking anything on faith?
2) You're non-religious, going by the evidence, not taking anything on faith. Suddenly you find yourself in Heaven standing before God.
You're *still* not religious. What you've been handed evidence of is a much more technologically advanced being. As above, you're still not taking anything on faith.
3) You've been raised without religion. You've never heard of any "god" claims. And so you're neither Gnostic nor Agnostic.
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts
Even for all that, I wouldn't claim to fit into either of your Atheist definitions. If Cdaragorn tells me that there's an invisible elephant in the room, no evidence presented, I wouldn't believe it. But that doesn't make me a "Gnostic Invisible Elephant Denier" or an "Agnostic Invisible Elephant Denier."
I find that the religious tend to say "You're atheist, so you believe _____!!!" Citing something that some atheist somewhere may have once actually said. Claiming that Richard Dawkins or someone else speaks for me.
On the post: Devin Nunes Releases Memo That Doesn't Show The Surveillance Abuses He Hypocritically 'Cares' About
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
Not being a Trump sycophant does not make one a "lefty."
Accusations from Trump staff are not the same as facts. The memo makes clear only that they're as partisan as expected.
Uh huh. Just like your crowd was demanding #ReleaseTheMemo. And (see the First Word post) it's turned into an "own goal."
Criminal investigations don't broadcast all their evidence. At least not before it's presented in court.
On the post: 'Catalog Of Missing Devices' Compiles The Useful Tech Products DRM Is Preventing Us From Owning
Re: Kaleidescape
It wasn't just that the Nortel reps couldn't arrange a simple demo for their newer system. It's that they refused to confirm whether certain features even existed until AFTER we signed an agreement to purchase it. They acted like they had a total monopoly.
We went with Mitel instead, whose reps had no trouble arranging a demo and answering questions. Not long after, Nortel became the largest bankruptcy case in Canadian history.
The DVD Copy Control Association had a monopoly too, briefly, or at least thought they thought they did. Like Nortel, it only really made the case for consumers to seek alternatives.
On the post: Devin Nunes Releases Memo That Doesn't Show The Surveillance Abuses He Hypocritically 'Cares' About
Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
In any case the source of the funding wasn't hidden from the FISA court. That's a false narrative from the Trump crowd.
Washington Post: Justice Dept. told court of source’s political influence in request to wiretap ex-Trump campaign aide, officials say
On the post: Devin Nunes Releases Memo That Doesn't Show The Surveillance Abuses He Hypocritically 'Cares' About
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
The head of the FBI is Trump appointee Christopher Wray, who Trump said is "a man of impeccable credentials." Wray himself says that the Republican House memo is false and misleading.
The renewal of the Carter Page FISA warrant was done by Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General appointed by Trump. Trump said that Rosenstein is "highly respected, very good guy, very smart guy. Democrats like him; the Republicans like him." He worked on Ken Starr’s Whitewater investigation into Bill and Hillary’s real estate dealings.
Rosenstein wrote the memo for Trump that Trump used to fire James Comey. Comey is a registered Republican who served in the Bush Administration and donated to the Presidential campaigns of John McCain and Mitt Romney.
All 11 FISA judges were appointed by Republican appointee John Roberts
Robert Mueller is a Republican, appointed the Director of the FBI by President George W. Bush in 2001.
Yeah, the lefties really stacked the deck there.
On the post: 'Catalog Of Missing Devices' Compiles The Useful Tech Products DRM Is Preventing Us From Owning
Re: Re: And it's all WEENIE CRAP we are better off without.
On the post: Devin Nunes Releases Memo That Doesn't Show The Surveillance Abuses He Hypocritically 'Cares' About
Re: Re: Two key points from the Nunes memo
Incorrect. Those "certain types" had a look to see what the "Uranium One scandal" is about, and are still waiting for any evidence of wrong-doing by Hillary Clinton. Anything at all.
You've STILL never given any reason why - in an investigation that was already running - it was wrong to look into the report. From a source with such non-partisan credibility that its reports on Trump were commissioned by both Republicans and Democrats. You wouldn't take it on blind faith, but with a mountain of other sources and evidence there was no need to.
You've yet to explain how it invalidates all those other sources and evidence.
And since you drag Hillary into this, is it wrong to investigate the Uranium One deal because Republicans demanded it? Was it wrong for the FBI to investigate Hillary based on the partisan hit piece Clinton Cash, written by Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer and commissioned by Trump Campaign Manager Steve Bannon?
Because you'd look damned hypocritical if you claim otherwise.
On the post: Devin Nunes Releases Memo That Doesn't Show The Surveillance Abuses He Hypocritically 'Cares' About
Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
On the post: Devin Nunes Releases Memo That Doesn't Show The Surveillance Abuses He Hypocritically 'Cares' About
Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
Well, sure. That's why it's called an investigation, and opposed to a blind acceptance. With a mountain of evidence from other sources, there's no need to blindly accept the report's contents.
On the post: Devin Nunes Releases Memo That Doesn't Show The Surveillance Abuses He Hypocritically 'Cares' About
Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
Let's see if I've got this straight:
No FISA warrants "were paid for" by an opposition candidate.
Steele's Fusion GPS Trump dossier on the other hand was paid for. First by Republicans, and then by Democrats.
Accusations in it were investigated by the FBI....
...but the FBI investigation isn't based on it. There's a mountain of evidence from other sources.
Investigating such accusations - even when privately funded - is normal. For example Hillary Clinton was investigated by the FBI based on the partisan hit piece Clinton Cash, written by Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer and commissioned by Trump Campaign Manager Steve Bannon.
On the post: Ohio Appeals Court Says Speed Trap Town Must Pay Back $3 Million In Unconstitutional Speed Camera Tickets
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think a bypass is in order
On the post: Come Witness The Commentators That Help The NFL Fool The Public About Its 'Super Bowl' Trademark Rights
Re: The confusion is still yours, Geigner: "restaurants and bars" are not "the public"!
Nominative fair use is allowed even if that nominative use is commercial.
On the post: Come Witness The Commentators That Help The NFL Fool The Public About Its 'Super Bowl' Trademark Rights
Wikipedia: Nominative fair use
...by which a person may use the trademark of another as a reference to describe the other product, or to compare it to their own.
There's more relevant information - including a couple commercial use examples - none of it supporting the NFL's claims.
On the post: International Inconsistencies In Copyright: Why It's Hard To Know What's Really Available To The Public
Re: Don't ignore worldwide internet
In the US, if the US says so. It would be up to US law to stop you.
It should be like the US attitude towards freedom of speech. If Iran doesn't like what an American posts on the internet, they don't have the right to censor that American in the US. "If you don't like it, block it in your own country."
Likewise US shouldn't have the right to prevent post-copyright publishing in Life+50 countries. In reality they provide enough of a threat that they do.
On the post: International Inconsistencies In Copyright: Why It's Hard To Know What's Really Available To The Public
But thanks to a lack of good references on the subject, it's the US rules that, er, rule. It's hard to find a definitive answer on whether a work has entered the public domain in Canada. It's much harder than in the US to find a definitive set of rules on the subject.
If a Canadian wants to post say, off-copyright James Bond stories on their Canadian web site on their Canadian server, good luck confirming whether it's legally OK. And even if it's legally OK, that doesn't mean you won't be sued or have your site taken down by a US complaint regardless.
Which is why US's Life+70+Extensions standard is not made irrelevant by works showing up on web servers in Life+50 countries. If that doesn't change, expect more 20-year extensions in the US.
On the post: Bar Complaint Filed Against Lawyers Who Participated In Bogus Lawsuits Targeting Fake Defendants
"We don't know what we're doing, nor are we required to."
On the post: Ohio Appeals Court Says Speed Trap Town Must Pay Back $3 Million In Unconstitutional Speed Camera Tickets
Re: Re: I think a bypass is in order
Waldo, Florida.
The ticket revenue contributed nearly half of the city's budget.
On the post: Ohio Appeals Court Says Speed Trap Town Must Pay Back $3 Million In Unconstitutional Speed Camera Tickets
Re: Re:
If you go after town officials responsible - who were acting in their official capacity - to claw the money back, they'll fight it in court. The taxpayers will be paying the legal fees for BOTH sides.
On the post: Virginia Politicians Looks To Tax Speech In The Form Of Porn In The Name Of Stemming Human Trafficking
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) You're non-religious, going by the evidence, not taking anything on faith. Suddenly you find yourself in Heaven standing before God.
So you then believe in the existence of God. But this is entirely consistent with your previous stance; you've been handed the evidence, and adjusted your beliefs accordingly. But are you truly religious, since you're still not taking anything on faith?
2) You're non-religious, going by the evidence, not taking anything on faith. Suddenly you find yourself in Heaven standing before God.
You're *still* not religious. What you've been handed evidence of is a much more technologically advanced being. As above, you're still not taking anything on faith.
3) You've been raised without religion. You've never heard of any "god" claims. And so you're neither Gnostic nor Agnostic.
On the post: Virginia Politicians Looks To Tax Speech In The Form Of Porn In The Name Of Stemming Human Trafficking
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
- Stephen F Roberts
On the post: Virginia Politicians Looks To Tax Speech In The Form Of Porn In The Name Of Stemming Human Trafficking
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I find that the religious tend to say "You're atheist, so you believe _____!!!" Citing something that some atheist somewhere may have once actually said. Claiming that Richard Dawkins or someone else speaks for me.
I'm simply "not religious."
Next >>