This, to me, is the most baffling part of the whole story.
Here we have an agency that has shown no ability to self-police, and is in dire need of even a little oversight. When pushed on that fact, they double down on the stupid and prove to even the most apologetic supporter that maybe somebody outside the organization need to peek behind the curtain a little. And what's the response from Johnson? "No, it's cool. The Oversight Committee doesn't need to get any more involved, the Secret Service can handle this on their own."
What. The actual. Fuck?
Jeh Johnson: "The Secret Service is above the law."
I'm with you. I've dabbled with Linux for a while, but never had the stones to dive in head first. Got my kid a laptop for her birthday a few months ago, and I've already had to clean a crap-ton of malware off the thing twice. It's getting Linux this weekend. Hopefully she can learn the system at a young enough age that she doesn't get locked into the MS BS like I have, and I can have a reason to support it and get ready for my own switch. Once support for Windows 7 disappears, MS will have lost me completely.
It should be obvious, but if the data is being used to track where is person IS rather than where a person WAS, then it's kind of hard to argue that the actual ("historical") data only shows where a person WAS rather then where he IS.
Law enforcement wants it both ways: "We only want to see where he was 5 minutes ago, so it's not real-time tracking." And: "Give us a warrant, he's still there."
But trademarks don't just cover the name of an establishment. If I opened a fast food joint this year named KwikFood but served Big Macs and used a logo referencing Golden Arches and "since 1940," how long do you think I would be in business?
Yes! I don't often disagree with the TD folks, but this may be a VERY legitimate use of Trademark law.
Being evicted doesn't generally mean you forfeit all trademarks. Perhaps the marks were used as collateral in any bank loans (in which case the bank would have to file the IP lawsuit), or if the property owner filed a lien against those assets to recover back rent. But if this is a simple case of getting kicked out and, while looking for new funding, somebody else comes along and starts using your menu and marks, this could be exactly what Trademark law is intended for.
As a consumer protection law, who wouldn't be confused by a "new" restaurant in the same location, claiming to be there for decades, serving the same menu? Mr. Ed's is fully and completely piggybacking on the name and reputation of Bozo's. If that's not a trademark violation, then you might as well get rid of the law altogether, because nothing else would be a violation, either.
"Killing enemy combatants is fine militarily, but keeping them from replenishing their numbers, that is far more effective in the long run."
But you have to ask yourself, 'more effective' at what? Winning the War on Terror? Yes. But if the actual goal is perpetual war, and all the power and money that comes with it, then winning is counter-productive, politically.
* 11 years for tweeting. * Threats of 35 years for violating a website's T&Cs. * A lifetime of harassment for whistle blowing. * Seven years of legal threats for committing journalism. * Drone-killed for "hacking the e-mail of a former aide to British Prime Minister Tony Blair."
WTF happened to the Land of the Free? To paraphrase a movie, 'You best start believing in a dystopian future ... you're in one!'
In effect, this is barely sticking their toes in the water.
If getting a true no-strings-attached blackout-free streaming option (even at a higher cost) is the goal here, this probably hurts more then it helps. Sure, now there's a framework to get more teams on board, but with all the hoops a subscriber has to jump through to watch one of these games, this is not really a step in the right direction.
There might be a good reason for a person to link their YouTube account with Maps data with a sharing platform for friends and family, all tied up with whatever else Google decided to throw into the pot.
The problem is that since they were never linked in the first place, that person might have an entirely different online presence on all those platforms.
With Facebook, we all know going into it that whatever you do or say on that platform is relatively public, so you can self-censor before deciding what to say. With Google+, there was an expectation of more anonymity across products that all got wiped out the first time you signed into any of them.
If they had built a more organic stand-alone product, then allowed people to link those accounts...it might have still failed, but at least people wouldn't have downright animosity toward the presumption of total openness that we do not necessarily want.
As much as I'd like streaming of local-market games, I just don't see it happening. Not in any serious way. Maybe they let you log in with your cable credentials, or maybe you get to select a handful of games per year for when your favorite team happens to be in town, but wholesale dropping of local broadcast partners isn't going to happen, and there's one good reason why: Increasingly, those Regional Sports Networks (RSNs) are owned by the teams themselves.
Do the Yankees have any motivation to let MLB cannibalize the YES network? Their biggest revenue stream would dry up overnight. There might be a middle ground where there are two streaming tiers, one with local content and one without, where the local option has a higher fee that goes to the local team, but it's incredibly unlikely that the team would give up a single dollar, so the fee would be at least as much as carrying the channel.
If this happens, it will be reactionary, not as part of a forward-thinking plan put forth by the savior of sports streaming.
Well all they would have to do is put up a sign that says 'We do not sell: Acura, Alfa Romeo, Aston Martin, Audi, BMW, Bugatti, Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Chrysler, Citroen, Datsun, DeLorean, Dodge, Ferrari, Fiat, Fisker, GMC, Holden, Honda, Hyundai, Infiniti, Isuzu, Jaguar, Jeep, Kia, Lamborghini, Land Rover, Lexus, Lotus, Maserati, Mazda, McLaren, Mercedes-Benz, Mini, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Peugeot, Porsche, Ram, Renault, Rolls Royce, Saab, Scion, Subaru, Suzuki, Tesla, Toyota, Volkswagen, or Volvo.' Although that would leave them open to lawsuits from a few hundred other smaller manufacturers around the world, they could probably argue that nobody would come in looking for one of those anyway.