gorner

Or the Manilla-based Thinking Machines Data Science, which also seems to be focused on the AI space: https://thinkingmachin.es

It would be safer to do something where the sign-in occurs on the library's website as opposed to Kanopy's. But you should be able to verify on the applicable library website that they have a legitimate partnership with Kanopy and that this is a permitted use of your login credentials, e.g.: https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/kanopy-help/ and https://www.vaughanpl.info/databases/index/alphabetical/K

Police are claiming they are, but have provided very limited evidence this is actually happening. https://twitter.com/neilcybart/status/1472634032827645962

Putting aside the fact that headlines are usually chosen by editors, not writers – this is where it comes up in the article itself:

> When the stock market was sky-high in January [...] Palihapitiya was tweeting, “Tell me what to buy tomorrow and if you convince me I’ll throw a few 100 k’s at it to start. Ride or die.” [...]

> Such peacocking, [financial historian Irene] Finel-Honigman told me, is fun to watch and potentially useful: “These kinds of scam artists are really important, because, though maybe they go too far, they’re the ones who convince everyone else to start paying attention. They’re Pied Pipers. They notice things other people miss.” Then, as these fanciful tales are replaced with legal fine print, living happily ever after becomes having a 401(k).

Time Warner Inc. (the company discussed in OP's article that owns HBO, CNN etc.) has been a separate company from Time Warner Cable since 2009.

TWC is the one that Comcast tried to buy (and is now trying to merge with Charter).

The deal has been announced but it hasn't actually been completed yet. Though obviously the layoffs are part of the process before the sale is final.

News reports very frequently treat deals that have been announced as complete long before they are finalized, even if government approval is not guaranteed (e.g., some of the early coverage of the proposed Comcast-TWC merger said "Comcast has bought...").

Some of the nuance has been lost in the media coverage. The National Geographic Society will still exist as a non-profit, but it is selling control of its media assets to Fox (and presumably would use the proceeds to fund its remaining charitable work).

Per the USPTO trademark database (on mobile so can't readily link), FiftyThree has a trademark on "Pencil by FiftyThree", not on "Pencil". Moreover the trademark they do have specifically disclaims exclusive rights to the word "pencil" by itself. (IANAL but typically USPTO will ask for these sorts of disclaimers if part of the trademark is deemed generic/descriptive.)

Similarly Apple's product is officially named "Apple Pencil".

So Apple is probably in the clear.

U.S. cable/satellite-only channels like Fox News do not have FCC licenses. There may be a few general regulations they have to abide by – things like closed captioning – but they do not have to answer directly to the FCC (unlike local broadcast stations).

Theoretically the Federal _Trade_ Commission could go after them if they had proof they were advertising falsely, though I think people have tried to bring complaints in the past along those lines and failed.

I figured it might have been the Toronto-based Polar (né Polar Mobile, now focused on Web native ad platforms): http://polar.me/

Too many Polars out there right now.

Yeah, they really should have just looked at rebranding. A few Instagram-related services (e.g. Webstagram, Statigram) had to do so recently, IIRC, and I don't think they're significantly worse off.

Thing is, even if Twitter tacitly condoned it for years, the name "TwitPic" is pretty obviously derived from "Twitter" and is trading on their (Twitter Inc.'s) reputation. Even their logo is styled similarly to the old Twitter wordmark. The blog post didn't even say Twitter wanted to force them to stop using the name, only that they shouldn't attempt to register a confusingly-similar trademark (though granted, forcing a rebrand might well have been the next step).

Time Warner Cable was spun off from Time Warner in 2009. What happens with one does not affect the other in any way.

It's worth remembering that Time Warner is much smaller than it used to be – it has sold off or spun off AOL, Warner Music, Warner Books, TWC, and even Time Inc. in the past few yesrs.

Even then, the size and scope of a combined Fox / Time Warner in the movie/TV market alone would be ludicrous. Even if Fox sold off CNN as they're proposing, they'd own two of the six major movie studios, the Fox broadcast network, HBO, many of the top-rated cable channels (Fox News, FX, TBS, TNT, Cartoon Network / Adult Swim), and plenty of other stuff, and that's just in the U.S.

And of course, Murdoch also still controls the nominally-separate (newspapers-only) "new" News Corp, which is said to be stalking the Tribune group (Chicago Tribune, LA Times, etc.): http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/business-news/the-biz-blo...

Things like its "Safe Rides Fee": http://valleywag.gawker.com/why-is-uber-charging-you-extra-t...

And questionable promotions: http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-used-the-boston-bombing-ann...

And [allegedly] intentionally triggering surge pricing: http://www.thewire.com/technology/2014/02/uber-busted-intent...

And otherwise just acting as if the rules just don't apply to them: http://www.straight.com/news/uber-town-car-service-shut-down...

You may be working with outdated information. The separate publicly-traded "AT&T Wireless" company disappeared in 2004, and its successor has been wholly-owned by AT&T Inc. since late 2006.

Meanwhile, Verizon Communications has always been the majority shareholder in Verizon Wireless, and sole owner since February.

Whatever separation there may still be between these operations in the corporate structure (e.g. AT&T Inc. vs its subsidiary AT&T Mobility LLC) is only that - corporate structure. It does not ultimately change what each parent company owns / does.

Well, their (nominal) job _is_ to make laws. Members of Congress should be able to read and understand them before voting on them.

But a more representative sample of occupations would be great too.

It's an all-stock deal though. Comcast isn't actually paying any money (in fact I believe they still have a significant amount of debt from buying NBC), instead they're proposing giving TWC shareholders the equivalent of $45B in new Comcast shares in exchange for giving up their collective ownership of TWC.

But yeah, Comcast and TWC's recent lobbying efforts in general sound pretty suspect. Not defending that aspect by any means.

Well, they're still competing with your local telco (AT&T / Verizon), DirecTV, Dish Network, and Google Fiber and/or others in some areas. (Though granted some of those are TV-only, not Internet.)

Not really much different than how Comcast and TWC are individually competing right now (as their service areas don't overlap). Though I'm not suggesting either one is a shining paragon of customer service or fair pricing (I don't have any first-hand experience to speak of there; I'm in Canada).

Originally (and perhaps still in some specific areas), yes. Most regions have deregulated though, which is why FiOS, U-Verse and Google Fiber TV are able to exist.

But the infrastructure costs for Comcast to build out a brand new network in TWC territories (or vice-versa) on a mass scale would be pretty high.

For the sake of comparison (Google Fiber): http://news-beta.slashdot.org/story/12/12/08/1810244/nationw...

It doesn't violate anti-trust laws to buy another company you do not compete with. And there are very few, if any, territories where Comcast and TWC directly compete at present – depending on where you live, you can subscribe to one or the other (or some other cable company), but not both.

Combining two companies which (to my knowledge) do not currently directly compete for subscribers would not violate any anti-trust laws I'm aware of.

The FCC previously had a 30% coverage limit but that was struck down by the courts in 2009: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB125147230997266951

Bigger scale, lower combined costs, more negotiating clout with TV channel operators, etc.

If they (MiSoft) had filed a trademark application for "Paper" around the same time they reserved the name with Apple, they might have a case. But reserving a name with a retailer – without actually using it, and without anyone (other than Apple) knowing you were planning to use it – would not to my knowledge have any legal effect with regards to usage rights.

That doesn't make a difference for trademark rights though. Priority for trademark rights would be based on the first date the name was actually used on an available product/service – or, at the very least, the date an intent-to-use trademark application was filed (which MiSoft does not appear to have done) – NOT the first date it was thought of or worked on.

Probably "Paper" in the sense of "newspaper".

Not a lawyer, but I think you're more or less right about North American trademark law as well. Trademarking a common word is fine (so long as it's not inherently descriptive of the actual product – i.e. trademarking "Paper" with respect to reams of paper would never fly), but FiftyThree would still have to show that "Paper" is sufficiently distinctive in the software market that anyone discussing "Paper" in terms of mobile apps instantly thinks of their product, the same as "Apple" being distinctive in the computers / electronics industry. As big as their app is already, as others have noted other apps have that name too, so 53 would have difficulty claiming exclusivity on "Paper".

Just did a quick USPTO search and it looks like 53 hasn't attempted to register a trademark for "Paper" itself – but they have registered "Paper by FiftyThree", which would more easily pass the bar of distinctiveness: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85622666&caseType=SERIAL_N...

Having said that – I do wish Facebook had picked a name that wasn't already associated with such a well-known app.

Disclaimer: I have a dev friend who works at FiftyThree but their IP strategy is not something we've discussed.

edit: spelling / grammar

In fairness that's more about the current range of FM frequencies (originally in the 42–50 MHz range), not why they all end in an odd number.

Strictly speaking it's not "the newspaper" saying this, but an op-ed contributor:

> This is an edited extract from an essay first published at dobelli.com. The Art of Thinking Clearly: Better Thinking, Better Decisions by Rolf Dobelli is published by Sceptre, £9.99. Buy it for £7.99 at guardianbookshop.co.uk

Newspapers don't necessarily agree with the views they publish – though presumably they found this an interesting piece regardless.

The article states:

> Media stock analysts Craig Moffett and Michael Nathanson recently noted, "The pay-TV industry has reported its worst 12-month stretch ever." All the major TV providers lost a collective 113,000 subscribers in Q3 2013. That doesn't sound like a huge deal — but it includes internet subscribers, too.

Except the source is another BI article, and _its_ source mentions nothing about Internet subscribers:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-c...

Multiple unneeded follow-up tests across the population, not per person.