The Infamous Joe 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1677) comment rss

  • On the post: USPTO Cancels Trademark Registration For Washington Redskins

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 18 Jun, 2014 @ 08:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yes, it does. SHOULD it have those rules?

    See my response to Chrono S. Trigger.

    And should it use those rules to revoke a trademark that it had already granted over 40 years ago?

    Are you suggesting that, if the government finds it made a mistake, that it should go on making that mistake into perpetuity? That's a strange stance to make.

    I just don't see the logic of "this word is offensive, therefore we should allow counterfeit goods containing this word."

    Does your outlook change if you rephrase it to: therefore we shouldn't protect it with the rule of law?

    Only if it actually rules that the term is not offensive.

    No. If a word is trademarked, and there is a rule that no offensive words or phrases can be trademarked, then any trademarked word, in the eyes of the government, is either (a) not offensive or (b) trademarked in error. Since "Redskin" is at least debatably offensive, the government had only one choice: (b).

    why didn't anyone oppose the mark when it was being granted, or within a reasonable time after it was granted?

    Why does it matter?

    And let's say the government actually DOES explicitly rule that the term is not offensive.

    I think, by canceling the trademark, the government has already indicated that it is offensive-- the appeals process is where they could be proven wrong.

    I don't understand the rest of the paragraph containing the quoted sentence above.

  • On the post: USPTO Cancels Trademark Registration For Washington Redskins

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 18 Jun, 2014 @ 08:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The USPTO may have rules that say no offensive terms can be trademarked, but it really shouldn't.

    I fail to see how that has any bearing on this specific, real world scenario. They do have that rule, and so, their actions are justified by it.

    What makes "Redskins" so much more offensive then "Creepy-Ass Cracka"?

    The amount of people complaining about it, and the volume at which they are complaining. Logically speaking, the only way you can really determine if something is offensive is how many people are offended by it, and how offended they are.

    Emotion should not come into play when making policy.

    ..and if we were having a hypothetical question on whether or not this rule should exist, I might agree-- I believe the stance is that, by doing this, the government is "not removing itself", but actually making a statement.

    In reality, the government is following the rules it has set for itself. They really had no other option but to remove the trademark protection. That is not a statement of whether the law is good or bad, but a fact.

  • On the post: USPTO Cancels Trademark Registration For Washington Redskins

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 18 Jun, 2014 @ 06:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The government is refusing to offer the protections it offers to millions of other things based only on if the term is offensive or not.

    It clearly has rules that say that offensive terms cannot be trademarked. By allowing the trademark to continue in the light of this new scrutiny, the government is affirming that "Redskin" is not offensive.

  • On the post: Administration Helping Bury Documents Related To Local Law Enforcement Use Of Cell Tower Spoofers

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 16 Jun, 2014 @ 10:54am

    Re: Re: Re: How much longer until

    Entry of the Gladiators seems more appropriate.

  • On the post: Kurt Eichenwald Claims Snowden Is A Chinese Spy And Leaks Are Just To Protect Their Cyber Attacks

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 05 Nov, 2013 @ 08:18am

    Re: Once a spy always a spy

    You believe him when he says he could monitor calls to the President; you tell me, why do you believe him?

  • On the post: Tables Turned On Former NSA Boss Michael Hayden, As 'Off-The-Record' Call Is Live Tweeted By Train Passenger

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 25 Oct, 2013 @ 09:21am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You could almost say that just the metadata is worse, because it lacks context that would be given by the content.

  • On the post: Federal Official Declares That Anyone Who Speaks Out Against Lie Detector Tests Should Be Criminally Investigated

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 22 Aug, 2013 @ 12:51pm

    Typo

    To have a federal official, with investigatory power, whose already involved in existing investigations

    Who's

  • On the post: Bradley Manning Sentenced To 35 Years

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 21 Aug, 2013 @ 09:21am

    Waste of Money

    I don't understand why he's being jailed at all. Is he a danger to society? Is there even a small likelihood that he'll commit the same crime again?

  • On the post: Google Asks Feds For Permission To Publish FISA Requests In Its Transparency Report

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 12 Jun, 2013 @ 04:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Anything that can't be checked: DON'T TRUST.

    There is no problem with my logic. If you don't trust Google with your data, don't give them your data. Again, using Google is optional.

  • On the post: Google Asks Feds For Permission To Publish FISA Requests In Its Transparency Report

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 11 Jun, 2013 @ 01:01pm

    Re: Anything that can't be checked: DON'T TRUST.

    I'm sure it's been said before, but if you have a problem with Google, don't use Google. I am well aware of the amount of information that Google has about me, (see: google.com/dashboard) and I am willing to give them that information in exchange for their services. This is a decision I have made.

    You really need to understand that Google is completely optional, and thus, not as scary as you seem to believe.

  • On the post: Horrifying Supreme Court Ruling Lets Police Collect DNA Because You Might Just Be A Horrible Criminal

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 04 Jun, 2013 @ 10:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    They're taking you DNA because you were arrested, the same reason they take a fingerprint.

    Now, if that DNA database were shared with outside organizations, or used to determine medical health, etc, then I agree with you that this is unacceptable, but that's a problem with the database, not the act of taking DNA to identify a person.

  • On the post: Horrifying Supreme Court Ruling Lets Police Collect DNA Because You Might Just Be A Horrible Criminal

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 04 Jun, 2013 @ 10:00am

    Re: Re:

    They're not considering taking only DNA, are they?

  • On the post: Horrifying Supreme Court Ruling Lets Police Collect DNA Because You Might Just Be A Horrible Criminal

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 04 Jun, 2013 @ 09:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Go home, AC, you're drunk.

    Your analogy makes no sense. If you're arrested for burglary and your fingerprints match those found on a bloody axe from a crime 4 years ago, you shouldn't be questioned about the bloody axe?

    The fact that your DNA is matched with DNA found at an unrelated crime scene is a fact. There can be a logical explanation for it, of course, but it's still a new piece of evidence in a crime, and should be investigated. Exactly like fingerprints.

    Where is the police state?

  • On the post: Horrifying Supreme Court Ruling Lets Police Collect DNA Because You Might Just Be A Horrible Criminal

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 04 Jun, 2013 @ 09:38am

    Re: Re: Re:

    This is nonsense.

    For this to matter, your DNA would have to be at the scene of the crime. Combined with the fact that the mere presence of DNA isn't an automatic guilty sentence, but just another form of evidence, and I really fail to see the problem here.

    No matter how racist the cop, you'd still need to have your DNA at the scene of a crime for this to hurt you; and if your DNA is at the scene of a crime, the cops should question you about it.

    Where's the police state part come in?

  • On the post: Expose A Blatant Security Hole In AT&T's Servers, Get 3.5 Years In Jail

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 19 Mar, 2013 @ 05:12am

    Meanwhile...

    Two kids found a security flaw in one of those electronic billboards... and the company, DPC, gave them ipads and invited them to come talk about security.

    ...in Serbia.

    What did the DPC have to say about the hacking?

    ?This has never happened before, but we appreciate the fact that these guys have, in a charming way, pointed us to this huge problem. Now it is clearer than ever that we need to protect ourselves better,? DPC?s manager Slobodan Petrovic commented.
    and
    According to DPC?s [the billboard company] manager the two students are lucky to be in Serbia, as things may have ended differently in other countries. ?In more developed countries, these actions are unthinkable because of severe sanctions,? he said.

    When did things get so out of hand, here in America?

  • On the post: Recording Of Bradley Manning's Statement In Court Leaked

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 12 Mar, 2013 @ 04:09pm

    Shame

    Never have I felt more personally ashamed of my country and its government than the actions revolving around wikileaks and Bradley Manning. No action taken has been reasonable, thoughtful, or just; merely vindictive, cruel, and petty. It has become clear that those people who claim to represent us, who claim to support ideals of truth, justice, and liberty are no more than petty tyrants who know they have done wrong, and will trample the liberty of anyone who dares push back, who dares suggest that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, must also be visible to the people, not cloaked beneath "Classified".

    I don't know what worries me more: that one day my daughter will return home from school and ask me why we let the government treat Bradley Manning so unjustly, or that she never knows his name, because the government sweeps this all under the rug, and the world forgets about a brave man who saw injustice and tried to stop it.

    I am a veteran, and I personally believe that anyone who has sworn an oath to support and defend the US Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, should support Bradley Manning as the hero he is.

  • On the post: The Details Of What Information The Police Can Suck Out Of Your Phone

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 02 Mar, 2013 @ 06:05am

    Re: I guarantee you they won't get a thing from mine.

    You can further thwart the police by not having a house to search, by living on the streets. That'll show them.

    Hint: you're missing the point, old timer.

  • On the post: The Details Of What Information The Police Can Suck Out Of Your Phone

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 02 Mar, 2013 @ 06:03am

    Re: I wonder if there'd be a market for...

    I think someone should make an app that restores the phone to default if a specific security pin/pattern is entered. So, I would have a pin to unlock my phone, and another one to wipe it.

    Cop asks for the phone, wipe it quickly before handing it over. It probably wouldn't stop an in depth search of the phone hardware, but I bet it would stop their little hacking tool.

  • On the post: Comcast: We Won't Terminate Your Account Under Six Strikes; We'll Just Block Every Single Website

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 28 Feb, 2013 @ 08:38am

    Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.

    Make an account: Problem solved.

    Anonymity works both ways.

  • On the post: Comcast: We Won't Terminate Your Account Under Six Strikes; We'll Just Block Every Single Website

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 28 Feb, 2013 @ 08:36am

    Re:

    Is there a penalty for submitting false reports? Is the system automated?

    Gee, it would be a shame if some anonymous group started submitting thousands of accusations at randomly chosen IP addresses, thus shooting the false positive ratio through the roof, and showing what a horrible, expensive, badly implemented idea this is. Why, in that event, you wouldn't be able to know what was a "real" accusation, and what was a false one, and the whole system would collapse.

    It would be just horrible, I say.

Next >>