Another, related, issue would be the existence of two authors with the same name who both publish under their birth names. I don't see how they could be a 'trade mark' so to speak unless there was an intent to commit identity theft which would be a separate issue (which appears to be the case here)
It appears as though you can trademark your own personal name only if you are using it to identify a service or product, not just in association with your artistic creations.
>Similarly, personal names (actual names and pseudonyms) of individuals or groups function as marks only if they identify and distinguish the services recited and not merely the individual or group. In re Mancino, 219 USPQ 1047 (TTAB 1983) (holding that BOOM BOOM would be viewed by the public solely as applicant’s professional boxing nickname and not as an identifier of the service of conducting professional boxing exhibitions); In re Lee Trevino Enters., 182 USPQ 253 (TTAB 1974) (LEE TREVINO used merely to identify a famous professional golfer rather than as a mark to identify and distinguish any services rendered by him); In re Generation Gap Prods., Inc., 170 USPQ 423 (TTAB 1971) (GORDON ROSE used only to identify a particular individual and not as a service mark to identify the services of a singing group).
The name of a character or person is registrable as a service mark if the record shows that it is used in a manner that would be perceived by purchasers as identifying the services in addition to the character or person. In re Fla. Cypress Gardens Inc., 208 USPQ 288 (TTAB 1980) (name CORKY THE CLOWN used on handbills found to function as a mark to identify live performances by a clown, where the mark was used to identify not just the character but also the act or entertainment service performed by the character); In re Carson, 197 USPQ 554 (TTAB 1977) (individual’s name held to function as mark, where specimen showed use of the name in conjunction with a reference to services and information as to the location and times of performances, costs of tickets, and places where tickets could be purchased); In re Ames, 160 USPQ 214 (TTAB 1968) (name of musical group functions as mark, where name was used on advertisements that prominently featured a photograph of the group and gave the name, address, and telephone number of the group’s booking agent); In re Folk, 160 USPQ 213 (TTAB 1968) (THE LOLLIPOP PRINCESS functions as a service mark for entertainment services, namely, telling children’s stories by radio broadcasting and personal appearances).
I'm pretty sure the GP's point was that the US shouldn't have .gov/.mil etc, every country essentially has a form of government and military — And besides .gov.us would be more explicit.
No one? That's a rather brash statement to make. Here in Ireland I can count on zero hands how many people use credit cards on a day to day basis. Debit cards are the norm in much of the EU I would assume.
Credit cards are pretty common here in AU; I don't care so much about the fraud protection, but up to 55 day interest free periods are common (if the bill is paid in full each month) and so the cards literally save me money because I earn interest on savings and/or don't pay interest on mortgage vs having to pay everything immediately.
To me I feel the money Id save on using the credit card is so infinitesimally small that it’s easily worth it to use debit for the ease of mind that everything is settled and I truly can afford everything I pay for. I also hate credit card rewards programs with a passion because they just complicate our lives to get back money that should’ve just been lower credit card fees to begin with.
The argument that you save interest on savings account doesn’t make any sense at all because I count my credit cards towards my emergency buffer. If I maxed out the credit card I would absolutely make sure to keep more money in my savings account.
I get that it’s different for people living paycheck to paycheck. But arguing that credit is a solution for the poor is a slippery slope. We should solve those problems other ways.
I use cc for literally everything but car payment and mortgage and pay off every month. The only time I pull out my debit card is to get cash out. I feel peace of mind that nothing is going to drain my bank account fraudulently, I have one bill per month to look at, and I end up with 1-2 vacations (hotel and flight) for my family each year. Seems like a pretty good deal to me.
I'm not arguing it's a solution for the poor, the absolute opposite - because I have sufficient income to pay my bills in full it just comes out cheaper than paying them with cash. It's a terrible solution _if you actually need credit_ because it typically comes with really bad interest rates.
You come out ahead because the card issuers expect to make money from you because you'll stay with them a long time so offer substantial sign up bonuses (I don't) and that you'll pay interest (I don't). There are generally annual fees, but if you ask they'll often waive them (if you spend enough, again not accessible if you're living pay to pay).
It's ~effortless (bills paid automatically in full from a mortgage offset account) and saves money even without rewards and other perks (0% loans via interest free "balance transfers").
You can get a 2% cash back rewards card and literally receive 2% of every dollar you spend back, deposited electronically in your bank account whenever you press a button on your credit card website.
Your url comment reminds me of the concept of the semantic web [0] Whereby we can have a structured machine readable and pure URL structure backed by ontology and linked data. There's a project that is working on this for Wikipedia called Dbpedia. [1]
[0] Unfortunately this concept has been completely bastardized by random research groups shoehorning the technology for EU grants, from my experience working in one such group.
That reminds me of Wikidata[0], which aims to be a general purpose semantic knowledge graph, which runs on Wikibase[1], a MediaWiki extension set that you can run yourself for any collection of data.
With physical access, sure. The same could be said for shutdown with physical access. Nothing stopping the user without group membership from holding down the power button or unplugging the kettle cable.
In the UK and Ireland (and maybe elsewhere?), a kettle lead is actually C13. I guess you need a beefier cable/pins in the US, as you're drawing more current at a lower voltage.
Most kettles now have a base with an integrated cable though, so the name doesn't really correspond with the cable's most common usage any more.
>I guess you need a beefier cable/pins in the US, as you're drawing more current at a lower voltage.
No, we just accept slow-as-piss kettles.[1] (Our plugs aren't great, either, it's pretty common for a spark to jump the gap of the leads while you're plugging it in.)
High wattage appliances here have an effective max of like 1.8kW on a single-phase 120V outlet, it makes for pretty useless space heaters and kettles. You could probably beat our kettles with an induction cooktop just by virtue of the stove being able to use two phases.
Truly it's a tragedy for those of us addicted to our hot beverages.
>it's pretty common for a spark to jump the gap of the leads while you're plugging it in.
how are you plugging it in? Are you plugging the mains end into the wall before you plug the kettle end? That's truly bizarre to me, and goes against everything
> it's pretty common for a spark to jump the gap of the leads while you're plugging it in
If you’re referring to seeing a spark while plugging something in, that’s just current jumping from the socket to the pin that’s entering it - it’s nowhere near possible for current to jump between the pins on a single plug (in air, at least). The distance between pins was specifically designed to prevent that possibility at the given voltages.
Not saying our plugs aren’t poorly designed, just that that’s not one of their problems.
I had a friend who was easily teased by this, but he was quite right, and you are wrong. Kettle leads in the U.K. have never been C13, and "kettle lead" for a C13 power lead is a misnomer just as much in the U.K. as it is elsewhere.
When kettle power cords weren't captive, as they are nowadays, they weren't C13. Non-captive kettle cords from the middle 20th century were round pin, for starters, and not like the (later) IEC standard at all. Here's a round-pin electric kettle from the 1960s, for example:
That first link doesn't support your point. No one would claim that all kettles ever sold in the UK have C13 cables. (No one would even claim that none use C15 – after all, some companies will surely just use the same design across all markets if possible.) This particular kettle is before C13 and C15 were even standardised.
The website it's from has a fair number of kettles from the relevant time period (1980s and early 90s). These two (which seem to be variants of the same model) [1,2] have an OKish view of the power connector and look more likely to fit C13 than C15 from what I can make out (no notch). This one [3] is clearly for C15 though, but as I say it's not a surprise that some exist.
On the contrary, it supports exactly the point made in the preceding paragraph, which even pointed out that the IEC standard came later.
The phrase "Should have gone to Specsavers!" comes to mind. All three of your examples clearly have notched connectors. Two have the notches at the top, and the Russell Hobbs one has the notch at the bottom. Their kettle leads were not C13.
So to repeat: When kettle power cords weren't captive, as they are nowadays, they weren't C13. I've already given an example of a kettle preceding the standard that didn't take anything like a C13 connector, and in vainly arguing against that you've ironically produced three more examples of kettles from later decades whose kettle leads were also not C13.
Here's yet another one, where the lead itself is in the picture. It's not C13.
If there had been examples of kettle leads that were C13, I'd have long since used them to really tease my late friend. But kettle leads in the U.K. have never been C13, and my late friend was right that "kettle lead" for a C13 power lead is a misnomer in the U.K..
I think its just the UK and Ireland where there's a demand for "high performance" kettles. The rest of the world is condemned to waiting longer boiling periods due lower-wattage kettles. I've had a British expat audibly exasperated by my kettle.
A little fun from time to time doesn't hurt too much, does it? HN can certainly sometime bring us a smile. My "you managed to make me smile" message has been upvoted 21 times so far.
It's not a slippery slope, it has always been like this. If it were everywhere every time it would be annoying, but it's not the case.
but the irony is that i'd prefer if someone trying to shut down my computer they would use ctrl-alt-del to initiate a clean shutdown/reboot instead of just pulling the power. in fact, if my GUI is stuck somehow, i'd want that for myself too.
"This isn't DOS" is rather inconveniencing myself for the sake of purity. i have been there too when i was young.
Fair enough. I hardly ever use grid cause I usually find flex handles 99% of my cases. But grid can be nice in certain instances. Haven’t tried RN for anything other than ios and android but am curious about the other platforms. And I guess the rest of the argument is just the age old debate of web vs native app. I think for some apps you’d be hard pressed to convince users to open a browser every time and type in a url, but certainly for other apps it’s fine. I won’t rehash that whole debate though :)
A webapp can live within a native app. The native app just acts as a holder and maybe has some functionality like social logins, ads, push notifications etc.
What I'd love to see with this is a way to use supabase auth itself as an idP/SAMP provider. Have your tools (back-office tools and what not) written in native supabase, or have multiple supabase projects with the one shared auth system. Could be better UX for Sysadmins than OpenLDAP and so forth.
I'm currently building something similar to just do that on top of supabase for work. Happy to see the developments with Supabase Auth anyway.
Hi, Supabase Auth Engineer here. Interesting, just wondering if there's a reason behind choosing to roll your own iDP instead of using one of the big ones out there (Okta, Azure, GSuite) ?
Disclaimer: I haven't built this yet (primarily because it's too hard today).
I want to build self-hostable servers, to give our customers the option of privacy and easier compliance.
In that arrangement, there'd be:
- Our main / central server, for regular SaaS customers. It also provides public assets ("knowledge bases" in this case, but it could be anything - even just licensing info) that all signed-in users have access to. This would be the iDP.
- Many self-hosted clones of our central server, per customer
Because the central server has the most up-to-date shareable assets, which might be ahead of any upgrade schedule a self-hosted customer has, they'd want their signed in employees to have transparent access to those latest ones too. I.e. without the extra friction of additional sign-in.
tl;dr the ability to offer our customers an easy self-hosted option of our Supabase platform (with limited federated access to central data) is highly desirable, now that even SMEs request better infosec. Doing it all inside a Supabase Docker - rather than mixing in Okta - is what makes it maintainable and easy to share.
--- EDIT ---
This use-case could be written more simply:
- There's a platform/app server (built on Supabase). Customers can optionally self-host it for their business.
- There's a data server (also built on Supabase, but not self-hosted), that provides shareable assets, even to self-hosted servers.
My goal is that it's _seamless_ for self-hosted users to access the data server.
So the data server would need to be an iDP.
My preference for Supabase to do this (instead of Okta), is because offering a self-hosting option is currently an intimidating maintenance burden, so fewer moving parts (no Okta) is desirable.
I'm struggling to understand your use case here, but here are some thoughts that may be helpful.
You can use one Supabase Auth project to do all of your user management. You can use the JWTs issued by this project across any other system. You need to configure those systems to "trust" those JWTs, usually by sharing the signing key (JWT secret) with them. They can then base their allow / deny decisions on the JWT.
You can even do this with as many Supabase projects you want. You don't have to use Supabase Auth with all of them. Do note that once you use physically different machines, you need to sync them up and that's quite a big can of worms.
I'm working on several RN + Supabase projects and it just works !
There were a few kinks initially, like URL polyfil being missing from RN and the need for AsyncStorage alongside supabase.js but they've all been rectified by the team or made more clear using their Expo instructions in the docs — Although maybe it'd be clearer for people that the expo guide is for RN? People who haven't started using RN might not know the connection?
It's such a pleasant stack, we're experimenting currently with edge functions in place of an API in certain places, so far it's just to use Cloudflare Turnstile to insert contact form records into a database, but it's super trivial.
