cp702

It's rather simple: They aren't claiming that they own the word "candy". That's not what trademark is. They're claiming that they're using the term to brand their products in a particular market segment, and that it isn't just literally descriptive of the product, but rather is distinctive to their particular brand. As such, use of the term in that market by other manufacturers can cause customer confusion - people might assume that a product is made by them if it has a similar name, so doing this prevents that confusion. Concrete example: Did you know that Apple trademarked the word "apple"? It's a common word! Yes, but they trademarked it only in businesses where they operate, and it's invalid in other domains. Furthermore, in cases where it's used by someone else, not as a trademark but as a descriptive term, it's protected under fair use.

This is one of the biggest issues with gallery pictures - how do you distinguish between the two types? If someone wants to improve their own game and rips a model to do so, but doesn't share it with anyone, I don't think anyone sees a big issue with that. Certainly, my personal view [this is NOT an official staff position] is that what I do on my computer is no business of anyone else's, and the only time anyone else gets a say is when I start sharing things with others. The issue with gallery images, then, is this: What happens if someone wants a particular lighting setup, rips the model and adds lights, doesn't share it with anyone else, and then sees a funny thing happen ingame and wants to share it with the gallery? What if they have a scenario they set up, and it makes a nice pic? We can all agree that they shouldn't release the ripped model for download, and shouldn't post pictures claiming credit for the original model, but do you think ripping a model taints the pictures themselves?

Trademarks are actually domain-specific; a trademark for "candy" in the context of video games wouldn't prevent, say, a candy manufacturer from using the term "candy" (if they tried, they'd get slapped down so hard by the court, since you can't trademark dictionary words in the context of their dictionary meaning). All this would give them the rights to is "candy" in the name of video games. Even then, only if there actually is a likelihood of confusion with the old mark - trademarks are very, very different from copyright and patents in that respect, as they only exist to prevent customer confusion. Plus, they actually don't have a US trademark yet. They're about to enter, or have just entered, the 30-day challenge period, where anyone negatively affected can formally challenge the mark. They have EU trademark, but not US.

EA has now announced an upcoming offline mode for Simcity, which will be a free update to everyone who owns the game. I'm now actually considering buying it, which I wasn't before (I HATE online-only games). Anyone else feel similarly? Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25715010

At the moment, there are no names for the script. If one were released, it could be either. It could even be called "LSP/SDFR". Or "Los Santos First Response". Or "Super-special-awesome-mod 1.0". It makes no sense to say that "LSSDFR does not exist" when the same is true of LSPDFR.

Los Santos Sheriff's Department, I presume.

If this is for GTA IV, you could try #gtaivnetscripthook on freenode. If not: I've used both git and svn in local repository modes, and git tends to be simpler (as it's *designed* for local repositories, unlike svn). For backup, I can just use normal backup utilities, OR accounts I happen to have on various *nix systems which I know are properly backed up (*nix means it works pretty well just editing over ssh/sftp (ssh if I'm lazy and using vim, sftp if I'm using a visual editor like Sublime) [Most of the coding I do is targeted towards gcc anyways, which I have more experience with].

The meeting with the representative especially is a great idea. A lot of people make e-petitions and think they're magic; it seems like you don't. Instead, you actually have your stuff together, know what needs to be done, and are actively making a serious effort. Good job with this, and good luck.

You'd probably have a better chance of having an impact by getting a petition passed around PA fire companies (with actual PA residents signing it, not out-of-staters), and sending it on to state legislators (who actually can change the laws), not just starting an online petition. State legislatures pay much more attention to residents of the state than petitions that have mostly people from all over signing them.

The trick would be to find a custom store operator that handles that sort of thing for you. There have to be a number of them (generally, the way I think it works is that they'd have a page of LCPDFR merchandise on their store, and we'd link to that page here).

It's not an issue. With AMD, generally the first two digits of the model number define the GPU; any two cards with the same first digits are in the same series. The last two digits are more about other features like onboard memory; they're irrelevant from the driver's point of view. Windows generally recognizes the card by series number, not by model number.

Try instead downloading the redistributables straight from Microsoft in English.

Darkangel: The Sun can make flashing lights not be very attention-getting (as they are overwhelmed). Contrasting patterns incorporating darkness are way more visible in sunny conditions.

"Should" and "Holy crap where did that parked car come from I think I just killed someone oh my god" aren't mutually exclusive. You're correct, people generally don't want to hit someone. That's why it's a good idea to have high-vis markings on the rear. That's why fire departments in the US are starting to do so (as they really don't need stealth). Tow truck drivers can ALSO have high-visibility stripes. Darkangel: Studies suggest otherwise. First, lights in daytime can be less effective. Second, lights can actually sometimes make accidents MORE likely. They draw attention, and people tend to drive towards where they're looking. It's like moths to flame. OTOH, reflective stripes are a LOT less likely to draw a prolonged gaze. Flashing lights don't provide nearly as good a sense of where a car is, because they keep turning on and off and don't provide a steady visual target; reflectors do. Also, adding stripes certainly won't *hurt* visibility; even with flashing lights, more stuff to increase visibility always helps. There's a reason reflector stripes are becoming universal on highway maintenance trucks, why anyone whose job entails walking on an interstate must wear high-vis clothing whether or not they want to (only exceptions: firefighters actively fighting a fire and cops engaged in "law enforcement activities", which does not include e.g. directing traffic). Retroreflectors work REALLY well.

I agree there should be regulation. However, until Congress gives the FCC the authority to regulate ISPs like common carriers or the FCC comes up with a set of rules that falls within the bounds Congress set, or the FCC comes up with better reasons why these laws *do* fall within their authority, it's better to wait. Procedure does matter; it's worse to have executive branch agencies be able to create law themselves than for ISPs to restrict traffic based on who pays what. Also, I'm pretty sure pre-existing antitrust law means that ISPs can't arbitrarily restrict speeds. I don't think it would be legal for Comcast to restrict Netflix's speed while making their own streaming video service faster, for example. They could maybe make Netflix pay, but I think there are restrictions that would stop them charging a zillion dollars for it.

Yes, but the Supreme Court doesn't have to review the decision. They basically get to choose which cases they will review; there are very few cases that they have to hear (most often, lawsuits between states, which they hear directly instead of on appeal). They have a couple of other options as well - they can apparently ask for a rehearing from the same panel, or they can ask for an en banc review from the whole DC Circuit (this decision, like all initial federal circuit decisions, was made by a panel of 3 DC Circuit judges; en banc means the entire 11-member court hears it).

That...actually seems pretty reasonable. The Internet is not treated like the phone network under US law; the FCC does not and should not have the power to go past what Congress has said. The only power an executive branch agency like the FCC has is to apply the laws as Congress wrote them; federal regulations have to be permissible constructions of the applicable acts of Congress. The judge actually agreed that internet regulation would be desirable, and that this ruling will lead to a bad outcome for consumers. That doesn't matter. The court rules on the law; it does not make political judgments, and does not weigh what would be better for the American people. If unelected, life-tenured judges could make political decisions and decide what the "best" outcome is, as opposed to applying established laws and principles, it would be way, way worse.

@Jewish_Banana: Correct, murder in self defense isn't justified. Because it doesn't exist, much as four-sided triangles don't exist. If you kill someone in justified self-defense, it is not murder. It's homicide, yes, but the standard definition is "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought". If you're saying that killing in self-defense is still immoral, I'd have to strongly disagree: that means that you're essentially saying morality requires one to shut up and die. There are situations where someone's life is being threatened by another, and the only way to stop it is to kill the other; it's the lesser of two evils. Is it perfect? No. Does your morality system require you always make perfect decisions, and never choose the lesser of two evils? Then it's a stupid morality system. @ineseri: The same thing could have been done with a knife. Guns are used in arguments because they're common; if they aren't available, though, knives can also be used. You could argue the old man was more aggressive because he had a gun (otherwise, his age would make him unlikely to want a physical fight), but to say that this is somehow reflective of most gun-owners is fairly ridiculous. Icon: If the old man asked the victim to stop texting and the victim responded by hitting him hard, then he might well be justified in using lethal force to end it. It doesn't matter who started an argument; it matters who escalated it to physical force. Elderly people actually do face a much, much higher risk of death in fights than you'd expect; old bones aren't very strong. Throwing popcorn isn't that serious, but punching can be very serious.

Fixed that for you.

I'm not sure what "stand your ground" has to do with anything. Despite what was reported in the news, "stand your ground" does not mean "you can shoot whoever you want, and if you say these magic words, you get off scot-free". It just means there is no duty to retreat. You still need to reasonably feel lethal force is necessary to prevent death, grievous bodily harm, or a forcible felony (simple assault is not generally a felony, not when no weapons are involved). If the victim pulled a knife, THAT could be self-defense; if it was shaping up to be a physical fight, the only argument would be "I'm old and frail, and a fight could easily lead to my death".

Washington DC also has a lot of crime; I've heard it called the "murder capital of the US" as well (being the *actual* capital of the US probably contributes to that as well, though).

The purpose of the NSA is to gather signals intelligence for the Department of Defense (in fact, it falls under the DoD, and the director is always a military officer), and to secure US communications against other countries' intelligence agencies. It is an intelligence agency. Remember when they hacked into Angela Merkel's phone? That's the sort of thing they were created to do - gather intelligence about other countries. On the offensive end, they have the same sort of job as the CIA, except that the CIA handles human intelligence while the NSA handles signals intelligence. On the defensive end, they create and test cryptography and information security standards for the government, as well as providing cryptography standards for US interests and the private sector (note: building in a backdoor that only they can access doesn't mean they're not doing their job there - the point isn't to make it so they can't read it, it's to make it so other governments can't). They also have large amounts of resources devoted to breaking and making cryptography - the NSA is the world's largest employer of mathematicians, and it's not at all unusual for, say, a math professor to have worked there as a visitor for a sabbatical, or for undergrads to do research there. The notion that the entire US defense apparatus should focus on terrorism started on 9/11. Before that, the FBI mostly handled white-collar crime, DHS's components were under various Cabinet agencies (Secret Service was under Treasury, Coast Guard was under Transportation, INS was under Justice, etc.), airport security was handled by companies contracted by airports or airlines (not by the federal government), federal buildings were generally open to the public, photography wasn't considered "suspicious", etc. Furthermore, the idea that two terrorist incidents means that the NSA has completely failed is, to put it bluntly, absolutely ridiculous. Seriously. A), that's not the NSA's main job. B), by being sufficiently cautious in communications, the NSA has no idea what you're doing. C), before 9/11, the NSA (and all foreign intelligence agencies) were not allowed to share info with the FBI and law enforcement agencies without jumping through around 9,000 hoops. They put that into place specifically to prevent what's happening now; the idea was that foreign intelligence agencies shouldn't spy within the US (unlike, say, the KGB). Also, failures are inherently higher-profile than successes. If you watch the news closely, most terrorist plots end with the FBI arresting those involved before anything happens, because most people offering bombs to terrorists are undercover FBI agents (just like most people offering hitman services to strangers are actually undercover cops). Potential terrorist plots that end up with the people involved being arrested don't make nearly as big a splash as really, really small-scale attacks that come off (and you can't say the Boston bombing was a major attack - major response != major attack, and the fewer people involved, the harder it is to stop).

Heh. That's actually kinda funny. Are you playing EFLC, not GTA IV?