> in turkey, another country with excessive > government surveillance, it is common practise > to pull the battery from cell phones and > leaving phones outside of a room if you > want your communications to remain secret
That's standard practice in America, also. In every government building that deals with classified information, you'll find racks of cell-phone-sized cubbyholes outside the doors to the SCIFs and everyone is required to leave all devices capable of sending or receiving EM signals in those cubbys. Bringing a cell phone into a SCIF is a serious violation and will bring you no end of grief.
> The overturning of the 'Redskins' trademark > would mean anyone could sell 'Redskins'-themed > appareal.
No, it actually doesn't mean that. The team would only lose the exclusive rights to the word "Redskins". They'd still have valid trademarks on the team colors and the Indian-head logo and combination of those with the word "Washington". That means they'd still be the only ones who could sell stuff that says "Redskins" combined with any (or all) of those other elements.
The guy on the street looking to cash in could now legally sell t-shirts that say Redskins, but he can't sell red-and-gold t-shirts with the Indian-head logo on them that say "Redskins". What fan would want to buy a blue or green or brown t-shirt with just the word "Redskins" on it?
This isn't as much of a threat to the team or NFL merchandising revenue as the proponents want to make it out to be.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
> I said the US government should not be in > the business of snactifying racist terms > via trademark.
So you've gone from equating the grant of a trademark with endorsement of that mark to equating the grant of a trademark with sanctification of that mark?
You're a professional writer. Surely you know what 'sanctification' actually means. Don't you think you're overstating things a tad here?
No matter how you want to spin it, the grant of a trademark is merely a government grant to the holder of the mark to its exclusive use in commerce. It brings with it no official endorsement, support, approval, or sanctification by the government of the mark, the business behind it, or the products of the business.
> I heard the Washington Redskins were > contemplating a name change that would > remove "Washington" from their name because > it was embarrassing.
Good one. And well-deserved, considering what comes out of their namesake city on a regular basis.
However, all this trademark business is silly hoopla over nothing. Even if the lawsuit is successful and the team loses the trademark on the word "Redskins", they still will have trademark on every *other* aspect of their logo and merchandising-- the Indian-head logo, the team colors combined with the name "Washington" etc.
If "Redskins" goes back to the public domain, other people will be legally allowed to sell merchandise with the name Redskins, but the team will still be the only ones who can legally print "Redskins" on their t-shirts and coffee mugs *along with* the team colors combined with the name "Washington" and the Indian head logo (to which they will also still have exclusive rights).
The only things Joe Salesman on the street will be able to sell are off-color, no-logo non-team-looking hats and shirts. Who wants to buy that stuff anyway?
I just don't see this as much of a threat to the team's revenue stream.
> Or if said gay is friends with an hetro > and they call each other fag, wuss, whatever > (personal experience). I think his words may > have been poorly chosen but to argue he's > racist is a stretch.
> two gay guys calling each other a "fag" might > be OK, or at least not imply homophobia, but > it would mean something different if a straight > guy did the same to a gay guy.
So how does this theory jibe with the explanation we were given by Rachel Jeantel in the Trayvon Martin trial that white people don't have any right to be offended when a black person calls them "cracker"?
You see, the philosophy of modern political correctness doesn't just stop with "it's okay when that word is used between two black people". It further decrees that white people have no right to ever be offended by anything said about them, that indeed it's impossible for them to even be the victims of racism in the first place.
> > Also, apparently there's this idea floating > > around some of my fellow white folks' brains > > that if it isn't okay for us to use racist > > terms then obviously it shouldn't be okay for > > the target of those words to use them either. > > A bit of advice: stop thinking that, because > > it's stupid.
> Tim seems to have tried very hard not to look > very far into what was actually said.
Yep. And his comment that this "stupid" idea is only "floating around in the heads of his fellow white people" is in itself ill-informed and bordering on racist.
Many, many, African-Americans find the use of that word by ANYONE of ANY race or color to be hateful and racist and are offended by it. Just ask Oprah or Bill Cosby how they feel about other blacks using the n-word and you'll get an earful, and it certainly isn't "stupid" of them to feel that way.
I generally enjoy Tim's articles but this one had some major problems.
Having said that, the Ohio guy is a jerk and probably shouldn't be teaching children of any color.
> How does the officer know she didn't just > turn it off between the time he pulled her > over and walked up to the window?
That's really irrelevant. In the U.S., the state has the burden of *proving* you guilty. They can't just assume you might have been doing something wrong, but since they can't tell one way or the other, they get to err on the side of punishing you for it.
If they could just assume guilt based on the available opportunity for you to commit a violation and the ease with which you could cover it up, they could cite every person they stop with all sorts of things.
Seatbelt violation-- Yes, she was wearing the belt when I walked up to the car, but how do I know she didn't just put it on when she saw me in her rearview mirror?
Cell phone violation-- Yes, the phone was off and lying on the passenger seat when I walked up to the car, but how do I know he wasn't texting (or watching videos on it, or whatever) and didn't just turn it off between the time I pulled him over and the time I walked up to the car?
There'd be no end to what a creative cop could cite you for because you *might* have been doing something wrong. That's why we require them to produce proof in court-- precisely to prevent that kind of crap.
> If this ludicrous law applies to google glass, > does it not also apply to smartphones?
Yes, technically in California, we're in the ludicrous position of being able to legally use GPS devices-- whether incorporated into the dash of the vehicle or stand-alone devices affixed to the dashboard or window-- so long as they are dedicated GPS devices and nothing else.
But if the device you're using has cell phone capability, then you can't legally use it as a GPS device while driving, even though there's no actual practical difference in terms of driver safety between the two.
It's idiotic and most cops know that and won't ticket for it, but there's always the isolated case where the cop either is just an asshole or the driver is an asshole and the cop uses the technicality as a little bit of karma.
> You know, if it's really that hard for them > to build a working site, sounds like it might > be time to give the job to some other company, > or at least put the offer of such on the table.
Someone (or multiple someones) need to go to jail over this whole thing, not just lose a contract. Instead, the same people who already flushed a half-billion dollars of our tax money down the crapper are going to get even more money to fix it. And the government bureacrats in charge, like Sibelius, instead of losing their jobs, apparently "have the full confidence of the president", at least they do according to his spokeshole, Jay Carney.
And they *really* need to stop trying to minimize their gross incompetence by calling the problems with the Obamacare website "glitches" and "technical snags".
A complete catastrophic failure of a system built on 10-year-old outdated web tech is not a "glitch" under any commonly accepted definition of that term.