Or, for new 'actual' micro-breweries use some coin a name like Xerox for the company name and then all descriptive words for the beer. Like "MyKXCompany Brand Raspberry Pale Ale". Once there is a trademark on the coined name, the rest are just descriptive words that can't (or shouldn't be) subject to trademark. At least it is going to be very difficult describing a raspberry flavored drink that can't use the word raspberry, same with pale ale. Just. Saying.
Wow, if only CABLE companies could focus on providing good cable service. No, they want to be producers, advertisers, and data brokers as well. They've lost track of who are the real customers.
In the original cable model, the customers were the people at the end of the wire and the product is (was) the programming.
In an advertising model, the customers are the people buying the advertising and the product is the people at the end of the wire.
In the data broker model, the customers are the data purchasers and the product is the data about the people at the end of the wire.
In the first model, people paid to receive better programming.
In the last two models, people (who understand) don't want to be paying higher and higher prices to be sold out by their cable providers. If the cable company wants to sell out their subscribers, they should be providing the cable service for free, much like Google, Twitter and Facebook provide free services that then then sell as data or to advertisers.
The cable companies at some point decided to try to charge both the customers and the products (subscribers) they were selling. They really need to decide what business they are in, cable service, data service, or advertising, and charge the correct customer a proper price. Instead, they are trying to (over-) charge everybody.
Get real people, take off the tie that is cutting off the blood flow to you brain and figure out your business model.
Yeah, like that is the answer. I'm lucky if I can get one of the assistants (any of them) to understand my voice first, and then get me where I want to go. Maybe Siri could do it?
There are two battles over racists terms (one in court and one in society). Historically, the n----r word and sla-- eyed were derogatory racist words. Each has (in some cases/usages) come to be used by the members of the respective races. However; others are not really allowed to use it unless specifically admitted members of a particular group).
The one in court is where a group of people of Asian decent named their band "The Slants" who suffered through an eight year court battle to use their band's name. It had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get a judgement saying they could use the name they wanted for their band (http://www.theslants.com/statement-on-recent-scotus-ruling/).
The use of the n---- word is still restricted to use within a group. There is even a book about the topic. It may never be settled as to the general public being allowed to use it in a non-racially charged way.
Maybe one of these days there will be an AI that can determine context and moderate properly, but it is still a long way off. Especially if it has to know a speaker's race before it can make a proper determination.
This and many other similar cases is what law enforcement is all about. It's not about the safety of the citizens they are supposed to be caring about, it is about using some new super secret methodology to trap everybody. Instead of saying yes, we are watching for indications of bad actions and getting on with it. They are spending years in court making headlines about hiding what they are doing from the people paying them to do it. The knowledge that we are being watch is generally accepted. But the idiots still post pictures of themselves with the stolen goods on Facebook anyway. If the FBI/DOJ would just say "yep, behave yourselves, we're watching" and get on with it, it would sure save "us" the citizens a lot of lawyer money and just reveal what the citizens are paying to accomplish. It is a lot like watching the newspapers for crime sprees. If there are robberies down a stretch of small towns and somebody sees the articles and makes the connections, then go catch the criminals in the next likely spot. Why does the FBI think that telling the people paying them is too much to ask?
This and many other similar cases is what law enforcement is all about. It's not about the safety of the citizens they are supposed to be caring about, it is about using some new super secret methodology to trap everybody. Instead of saying yes, we are watching for indications of bad actions and getting on with it. They are spending years in court making headlines about hiding what they are doing from the people paying them to do it. The knowledge that we are being watch is generally accepted. But the idiots still post pictures of themselves with the stolen goods on Facebook anyway. If the FBI/DOJ would just say "yep, behave yourselves, we're watching" and get on with it, it would sure save "us" the citizens a lot of lawyer money and just reveal what the citizens are paying to accomplish. It is a lot like watching the newspapers for crime sprees. If there are robberies down a stretch of small towns and somebody sees the articles and makes the connections, then go catch the criminals in the next likely spot. Why does the FBI think that telling the people paying them is too much to ask?
One of the things that keeps amazing me about the call to end encryption because of child porn is that they keep skipping over the fact that child porn can't be kept private. If Bad Joe makes child porn and keeps it just on his home computer, there is no money to be made. He has to sell access to it to make money. That requires that it be available somewhere. No matter how careful Bad Joe is, that "somewhere" will become widely known and lead back to Bad Joe. Even with encryption, somebody will spill the beans about where/how they got access to the child porn that Bad Joe supplied and with some good old fashioned detective work, Bad Joe will be found and eventually incarcerated.
But, just being able to track everybody everywhere will not be as easy if encryption is in place and of course it will be (maybe) easier to track down Bad Joe because he has to roll his own encryption instead of public providers.
Well, all of our personal records can be requested because they are business records. Can't somebody FOIA the 5G records and other broadband coverage from the FCC because they are "business records" and start generating a map that better reflects reality? Just saying
This sounds just like the CFAA cases that have been brought against non-government "persons". Who is going to be the first one to bring a CFAA case against the government for violating enforcement procedures and violating TOS that were agreed to when the accounts were created? Lawsuit anyone (and of course it is only going to cost us 'civilians' millions of dollars to defend this agency's indiscretions.
This is one of those cases of "Do as I say, not as I do." It seems that many officers feel that the end justifies the means so much that they can ignore any "inconvenient" laws to get anybody they want put away and make them somebody else's problem.
There is, if you take the picture (such as a selfie) and don't give away a license to it to the likes of Instagram, Facebook, Google, or anyone else. Then, they would need to license it. However; just walking down the street and letting them take you picture won't do it. You'll need to just start always walking in public wearing a "Guy Fawkes" mask.
So, let's see. Facial recognition is only accurate 20% of the time in identifying an individual (leading to lots of false arrests because LEOs don't do any other checking. BUT, anonymized data available on the Internet is 98.98% of the time. Why doesn't law enforcement start using this instead?
Barr says the real risk posed by compromised encryption is worth it. He doesn't explain how it's worth to the millions of people he'll put at risk in exchange for law enforcement access, but he seems to assume we'll all feel much better about it when criminals start disappearing from the streets.
Yeah, just like stealing cash from drivers makes the criminals disappear from the streets even though the people are never charged with a crime or prosecuted. Just taking their money will make them disappear.
I think I am missing something. Can't the ripping site stream the video through the users browser? Then it just looks like the "end user" is using the stream.
Re: One rule for school kids, another rule for police...
You forgot to mention that "qualified immunity" and "no expectation" to actually know the laws they are enforcing (or making up) for the "blues". However; in court for defendants, ignorance of the law is not an exception. Talk about a double standard. WOW!
Has anybody been carefully looking at every cellphone that government employees and contractors are using. A little bit if hidden code that could be activated by a foreign "wake up" call could turn on the microphone and/or send the data off of every phone back to China. They would the real donald's tweets before the rest of the world. Wouldn't that be horrible!!!!!
Yeah, and remember when "pay" TV meant it was commercial free because you were paying for it? Now, it is almost impossible to find even a "premium" channel that is not inundated with commercials.
On the post: Author Tries To Trademark The Word 'Dark' For All Of Literary Fiction
It was a DARK and stormy night when the word not-light was trademarked.
On the post: Beer Trademarks At Record High In UK As The Locking Up Of Language Continues To Boom
Or, for new 'actual' micro-breweries use some coin a name like Xerox for the company name and then all descriptive words for the beer. Like "MyKXCompany Brand Raspberry Pale Ale". Once there is a trademark on the coined name, the rest are just descriptive words that can't (or shouldn't be) subject to trademark. At least it is going to be very difficult describing a raspberry flavored drink that can't use the word raspberry, same with pale ale. Just. Saying.
On the post: Cable Execs Now Falsely Claiming Cord Cutting Is Slowing Down
Wow, if only CABLE companies could focus on providing good cable service. No, they want to be producers, advertisers, and data brokers as well. They've lost track of who are the real customers.
In the original cable model, the customers were the people at the end of the wire and the product is (was) the programming.
In an advertising model, the customers are the people buying the advertising and the product is the people at the end of the wire.
In the data broker model, the customers are the data purchasers and the product is the data about the people at the end of the wire.
In the first model, people paid to receive better programming.
In the last two models, people (who understand) don't want to be paying higher and higher prices to be sold out by their cable providers. If the cable company wants to sell out their subscribers, they should be providing the cable service for free, much like Google, Twitter and Facebook provide free services that then then sell as data or to advertisers.
The cable companies at some point decided to try to charge both the customers and the products (subscribers) they were selling. They really need to decide what business they are in, cable service, data service, or advertising, and charge the correct customer a proper price. Instead, they are trying to (over-) charge everybody.
Get real people, take off the tie that is cutting off the blood flow to you brain and figure out your business model.
On the post: Masnick's Impossibility Theorem: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible To Do Well
But AI!!!
Yeah, like that is the answer. I'm lucky if I can get one of the assistants (any of them) to understand my voice first, and then get me where I want to go. Maybe Siri could do it?
There are two battles over racists terms (one in court and one in society). Historically, the n----r word and sla-- eyed were derogatory racist words. Each has (in some cases/usages) come to be used by the members of the respective races. However; others are not really allowed to use it unless specifically admitted members of a particular group).
The one in court is where a group of people of Asian decent named their band "The Slants" who suffered through an eight year court battle to use their band's name. It had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get a judgement saying they could use the name they wanted for their band (http://www.theslants.com/statement-on-recent-scotus-ruling/).
The use of the n---- word is still restricted to use within a group. There is even a book about the topic. It may never be settled as to the general public being allowed to use it in a non-racially charged way.
Maybe one of these days there will be an AI that can determine context and moderate properly, but it is still a long way off. Especially if it has to know a speaker's race before it can make a proper determination.
On the post: Judge Says The FBI Can't Keep Refusing To Confirm Or Deny The Existence Of Social Media Monitoring Documents
This and many other similar cases is what law enforcement is all about. It's not about the safety of the citizens they are supposed to be caring about, it is about using some new super secret methodology to trap everybody. Instead of saying yes, we are watching for indications of bad actions and getting on with it. They are spending years in court making headlines about hiding what they are doing from the people paying them to do it. The knowledge that we are being watch is generally accepted. But the idiots still post pictures of themselves with the stolen goods on Facebook anyway. If the FBI/DOJ would just say "yep, behave yourselves, we're watching" and get on with it, it would sure save "us" the citizens a lot of lawyer money and just reveal what the citizens are paying to accomplish. It is a lot like watching the newspapers for crime sprees. If there are robberies down a stretch of small towns and somebody sees the articles and makes the connections, then go catch the criminals in the next likely spot. Why does the FBI think that telling the people paying them is too much to ask?
On the post: Judge Says The FBI Can't Keep Refusing To Confirm Or Deny The Existence Of Social Media Monitoring Documents
This and many other similar cases is what law enforcement is all about. It's not about the safety of the citizens they are supposed to be caring about, it is about using some new super secret methodology to trap everybody. Instead of saying yes, we are watching for indications of bad actions and getting on with it. They are spending years in court making headlines about hiding what they are doing from the people paying them to do it. The knowledge that we are being watch is generally accepted. But the idiots still post pictures of themselves with the stolen goods on Facebook anyway. If the FBI/DOJ would just say "yep, behave yourselves, we're watching" and get on with it, it would sure save "us" the citizens a lot of lawyer money and just reveal what the citizens are paying to accomplish. It is a lot like watching the newspapers for crime sprees. If there are robberies down a stretch of small towns and somebody sees the articles and makes the connections, then go catch the criminals in the next likely spot. Why does the FBI think that telling the people paying them is too much to ask?
On the post: Ed Snowden: Governments Can't Make The Public 'Safer' By Undermining The Encryption Essential To The Public's Security
One of the things that keeps amazing me about the call to end encryption because of child porn is that they keep skipping over the fact that child porn can't be kept private. If Bad Joe makes child porn and keeps it just on his home computer, there is no money to be made. He has to sell access to it to make money. That requires that it be available somewhere. No matter how careful Bad Joe is, that "somewhere" will become widely known and lead back to Bad Joe. Even with encryption, somebody will spill the beans about where/how they got access to the child porn that Bad Joe supplied and with some good old fashioned detective work, Bad Joe will be found and eventually incarcerated.
But, just being able to track everybody everywhere will not be as easy if encryption is in place and of course it will be (maybe) easier to track down Bad Joe because he has to roll his own encryption instead of public providers.
On the post: Wireless Industry Is Trying To Hide Where 5G Is Actually Available
Business Records
Well, all of our personal records can be requested because they are business records. Can't somebody FOIA the 5G records and other broadband coverage from the FCC because they are "business records" and start generating a map that better reflects reality? Just saying
On the post: High-Level DOJ Official Latest Gov't Employee To Be Caught Watching Porn While On The Clock
Well I hope they were good looking bodies at least.
On the post: Federal Gov't Gives Customs Officers Permission To Break Social Media Platform Rules Forbidding Fake Accounts
This sounds just like the CFAA cases that have been brought against non-government "persons". Who is going to be the first one to bring a CFAA case against the government for violating enforcement procedures and violating TOS that were agreed to when the accounts were created? Lawsuit anyone (and of course it is only going to cost us 'civilians' millions of dollars to defend this agency's indiscretions.
On the post: NYPD, Prosecutors Illegally Using Expunged Criminal Records To Perform Investigations, Ask For Longer Sentences
This is one of those cases of "Do as I say, not as I do." It seems that many officers feel that the end justifies the means so much that they can ignore any "inconvenient" laws to get anybody they want put away and make them somebody else's problem.
On the post: Once More With Feeling: 'Anonymized' Data Is Not Really Anonymous
Re: hmmmm....
There is, if you take the picture (such as a selfie) and don't give away a license to it to the likes of Instagram, Facebook, Google, or anyone else. Then, they would need to license it. However; just walking down the street and letting them take you picture won't do it. You'll need to just start always walking in public wearing a "Guy Fawkes" mask.
On the post: Once More With Feeling: 'Anonymized' Data Is Not Really Anonymous
So, let's see. Facial recognition is only accurate 20% of the time in identifying an individual (leading to lots of false arrests because LEOs don't do any other checking. BUT, anonymized data available on the Internet is 98.98% of the time. Why doesn't law enforcement start using this instead?
On the post: William Barr Turns Up The Heat On The DOJ's Anti-Encryption Rhetoric
Barr says the real risk posed by compromised encryption is worth it. He doesn't explain how it's worth to the millions of people he'll put at risk in exchange for law enforcement access, but he seems to assume we'll all feel much better about it when criminals start disappearing from the streets.Yeah, just like stealing cash from drivers makes the criminals disappear from the streets even though the people are never charged with a crime or prosecuted. Just taking their money will make them disappear.
On the post: Popular Stream-Ripping Site Declines To Play Whac-A-Mole With YouTube
Ripping Sites
I think I am missing something. Can't the ripping site stream the video through the users browser? Then it just looks like the "end user" is using the stream.
On the post: Police Union Responds To Outing Of Officers' Bigoted Social Media Posts By Offering To Erase Officers' Online Presences
Re:
IT'S NOT RICO: Please read this article carefully: https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/
On the post: Police Union Responds To Outing Of Officers' Bigoted Social Media Posts By Offering To Erase Officers' Online Presences
Re: One rule for school kids, another rule for police...
On the post: Latest Huawei 'Smoking Gun' Still Doesn't Prove Global Blackball Effort's Primary Justification
And Phone
Has anybody been carefully looking at every cellphone that government employees and contractors are using. A little bit if hidden code that could be activated by a foreign "wake up" call could turn on the microphone and/or send the data off of every phone back to China. They would the real donald's tweets before the rest of the world. Wouldn't that be horrible!!!!!
On the post: If You Think The Reason Internet Companies Snarf Up Your Data Is Because Their Services Are Free, Allow Me To Introduce You To The Telcos
Yeah, and remember when "pay" TV meant it was commercial free because you were paying for it? Now, it is almost impossible to find even a "premium" channel that is not inundated with commercials.
On the post: Twitter And Liz Mair Explain Why Devin Nunes' Lawsuit Doesn't Belong In Virginia
Skin Depth
Is Nunes somehow related to the thin-skinned line of Turkish ancestors that also spawned Recep Tayyip Erdoğan?
Next >>