OldFox.info is a personal Knowledge Management blog for comment, criticism, parody, research, reference, text-searchable, personal clipboard. Comments, suggestions, contributions are invited.
email: oldfox-at-gmail.com
All content is copyright protected and permitted under the Fair Use Doctrine.
Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner
The history of Islam in Europe and how it effects us to this day. This is a history based on numbers and facts that you may not see anywhere else and explains why we may be afraid to see Islam for what it is based on its own doctrine and practice. "We will strike off their heads and the very tips of their fingers..." The Medinan Koran declaration. Kafir--everyone not a Muslim believer is a kafir and free to kill or enslave. The first to kill is the Christians, then the Jews, then the others and hypocritical Muslims.
PRISM is a clandestine[1]surveillance program under which the United StatesNational Security Agency (NSA) collects internet communications from at least nine major US internet companies.[2][3][4] Since 2001 the United States government has increased its scope for such surveillance, and so this program was launched in 2007.
PRISM is a government code name for a data-collection effort known officially by theSIGADUS-984XN.[5][6] The PRISM program collects stored internet communications based on demands made to internet companies such as Google Inc. under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to turn over any data that match court-approved search terms.[7] The NSA can use these PRISM requests to target communications that were encrypted when they traveled across the internet backbone, to focus on stored data that telecommunication filtering systems discarded earlier,[8][9] and to get data that is easier to handle, among other things.[10]
Documents indicate that PRISM is "the number one source of raw intelligence used for NSA analytic reports", and it accounts for 91% of the NSA's internet traffic acquired under FISA section 702 authority."
It’s been known for some time that Skype, the popular standalone peer-to-peer application specializing in providing video chat and voice call services was initially developed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), contrary to the official story regarding its origins. Marketed for its groundbreaking proprietary Internet telephony (VoIP) protocol, its real purpose was data mining and domestic surveillance.
In retrospect, this should not be surprising; in post-Edward Snowden America, even publications like The New York Times have reported on tech companies like Yahoo, Google, Facebook, YouTube, AOL, Apple and many others as having cooperated with an increasingly intrusive (and in some cases criminal) government in crafting its Internet surveillance programs.
How surprised Silicon Valley and the government must have been to discover that through social media, most people were willing to simply give away just the kind of information in which these entities were interested! And we probably don’t have to tell you that the current administration has stretched the limits of intrusion upon personal privacy to criminal proportions…
The data that has been collected through these and other means (such as illegal NSA domestic surveillance programs brought to light in recent years) has been used to harass and persecute private organizations, political organizations, businesses, and private citizens.
The bottom line is that your Skype conversations are anything but private; if you’ve heard names like Max Kelly, Project Chess, or Prism, you know this to be true. And since government agencies build networks and databases based upon nodes of activity and the online routines of groups of people, engaging in unsecure online communications is comparable to a person having indiscriminate, frequent, unprotected sex.
So… what’s a user to do?
Product Information
Knowing what we know today, would you have indiscriminate, unprotected sex? Probably not. So when you make a phone call, do you discuss private information of a personal nature, or business, or your investments, or your credit card info?
Did you know how easy it was for someone to listen in to your Skype calls?
Protect yourself with the only product that the world’s real whistleblowers believe in – You might know their names – Julian Assange of Wikileaks, former CIA agent and whistleblower extraordinaire Scott Bennett, and the guy with all the information – Edward Snowden. If these fellows want protection they go to one place in Canada (of all places) for it – The Pink Pagoda.
What is it?
The Pink Pagoda is proprietary to the Bethune Institute of Canada and China, and was developed by people in the fields of intelligence and communications. Can’t ask for more expertise than that…
Click image to see Breitbart article
Why is Canada a good place to hide stuff?
Because American law doesn’t apply. Your goodies are safe from the prying eyes of an ever-intrusive government which has already proven that it has no respect for your privacy.
How does it work?
Well, if we told you that, we’d have to kill you. But seriously – if we were to disclose that, it would compromise our ability to protect you and ensure your online privacy. The method is proprietary, but works much in the same way other online services to which customers subscribe work – with a little other technology thrown in to detect when you are engaged in digital voice or video communications on any of your devices.
What does it do for you?
It renders your video chat and voice calls private (nobody can listen in). Our main concentration and launch was to be America only, but people talk and the need for personal communications privacy is life or death for folks in some foreign lands. We had no idea our utility was going to strike a nerve such as it has. Our capacity at the moment is unlimited, so we are not surprised at the number of foreign inquiries we are receiving. Ask Edward Snowden if he feels that his life might be in jeopardy; the answer is obviously ‘yes,’ and you see where he is putting his trust.
How do I get it?
The Pink Pagoda is now offering access to its secure calling utility at an annual introductory rate of $100.00 in one payment, or via monthly payments of $10.00.
The goal of socialism is communism. --Vladimir Lenin Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/v/vladimirle136421.html Peace is war. Work Makes Free. Some animals are more equal than other animals.,
Just saw this remarkable 6-episode documentary mini-series on Netflix.
It's deep history of the Mafia, five families in NY and Philadelphia.
The prosecutor from Goodfellas, many FBI men, Donnie Brasco, Michael Chartoff, a young AUSA with the special team assembled by the great Rudolph Giuliani.
The connections, rackets, many specific crimes and hits, control of unions, docks, garment district, the internal war about dealing drugs, how Columbo got the Justice Department, FBI, and the producer of The Godfather to totally end and drop use of the word "Mafia."
It covers Joe Columbo's arrogant and foolish Italian-American Civil Rights Association rally at Columbus Circle in 1970 and then the second in 1971 where he was murdered on the stage in front of thousands, press, Gabe Pressman by a black hitman hired by Crazy Joe Gallo.
Amazing. Nick Scarfo ran all the unions in Atlantic City and Philadelphia. When casino gambling was legalized in AC, it became a mega-boom for mob construction, cement, electricians, carpenters, teamsters, and the gambling, loansharking, prostitution, and official corruption--a crown jewel for the Five Families.
Is Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump a greater long term threat to the principles of classical liberalism? Trump’s program is antithetical to classical liberalism. He wants to follow protectionist trade policies. He has disclaimed any interest in reforming the burgeoning entitlements that are the principal engines for growing the state. He seems to quite content to praise authoritarian leaders abroad, like Vladimir Putin. He wants to make it easier for public figures to sue private citizens for their criticism. And he is so vulgar and gratuitously offensive that he undermines the culture of self-restraint necessary to the classical liberal order.
Of course, Sanders is worse on many of these axes. He not only wants to preserve all entitlements but add to social security and to create an entirely new entitlement to higher education. He also is a protectionist. He would destroy the private provision of health care. And he would raise tax rates sky high. As for authoritarianism, he seems to have trouble condemning any regime, such as Cuba, so long as he can entertain the false belief that the regime has been good for the social welfare of its citizens. His program is ominous for civil liberties as well. As the state grows larger, it inevitably hijacks citizens into its programs at the expense of their core beliefs. Just ask the Little Sisters of the Poor. While I do not have much confidence that Trump would nominate excellent jurists, Sanders’ would be far worse.
Thus, for all the justified condemnation of Trump’s illiberalism, Sanders’ program poses more dangers to liberty. On the other hand, Sanders is running to be the nominee of the more statist party. Trump is running to be the nominee of the party of limited government. Certainly if he wins the Presidency and perhaps even if he does not, he will remake the party in his own image. Thus, his candidacy could also have a disastrous dynamic on the future of the nation, making us more like continental Europe, where the parties of the right entertain few ideals of classical liberalism.
Another way to compare the two candidates, however, is to ask which candidate’s success this electoral season signals a worse future for liberty in the United States. And here the answer is clearer– Sanders. Trump’s campaign is supply driven. Trump is a sui generis candidate—a celebrity with a great talent for manipulating free media. It is not obvious that he can be easily replicated in the future.
In contrast, Sanders’s campaign is demand driven. He himself is not charismatic, but his hard left policies have nevertheless struck a responsive chord. And his most enthusiastic supporters are very young, whereas Trump’s are older. Democratic candidates are surely now planning to use Sanders’ platform for their own future presidential runs.
But whether as candidates or harbingers of our future, Trump and Sanders bode ill for the future of classical liberalism in the United States.
John O. McGinnis is the George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law at Northwestern University. His recent book, Accelerating Democracy was published by Princeton University Press in 2012. McGinnis is also the co-author with Mike Rappaport ofOriginalism and the Good Constitution published by Harvard University Press in 2013 . He is a graduate of Harvard College, Balliol College, Oxford, and Harvard Law School. He has published in leading law reviews, including the Harvard, Chicago, and Stanford Law Reviews and the Yale Law Journal, and in journals of opinion, including National Affairs and National Review.
Kylie Jenner may not be able to get Kylie Minogue out of her head any time soon as both prepare for a clash at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), but the Australian singer will have the support of the majority of WIPR readers going into the battle.
In our recent survey, the majority of respondents backed the Australian singer to win in her opposition to the television star’s trademark application for the term ‘Kylie’.
Last month, WIPR reported that Minogue had opposed Jenner’s trademark application at the USPTO arguing that it would dilute her brand.
Minogue described Jenner as a “secondary reality television personality” and pointed to criticism from disability and African American rights groups as evidence that any association between the two would dilute the singer’s brands.
In total, 58% of readers backed the Australian singer in protecting her brand.
“Minogue is an international artist who has been in the music scene for many years, even before Jenner was born,” one reader noted.
“Minogue is the most famous Kylie in the world,” another said.
But this may not be the end of the story as lawyers representing Minogue recently said they plan to oppose another ‘Kylie’ trademark filed by the television star.
Keeping things in perspective, one reader told WIPR that “it’s just a name”.
For this week’s survey, we ask: “On March 23 some sweeping changes to the EU trademark system come into effect. Are you adequately prepared for them?”
Kylie Minogue; Kylie Jenner; USPTO; Keeping Up With the Kardashians; ‘Kylie’
Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton's life and career before she became a senator for New York. BBC documentary from 2000, before George W. took office, before 9/11, just as she was leaving the White House, stealing the furniture, art, and silver, about to become "dead broke," with three houses, a presidential pension, secret service detail renting a house on her property, govt paid drivers, a presidential library fortune, and her $5 million book advance. The poor baby.
Kylie Jenner has finally decided to step out from behind her older sisters and get to work on her own independent ventures. In furtherance of this desire, Ms. Jenner filed numerous federal trademark applications in April and November 2015. The applications relate to Ms. Jenner’s first name, as well as her full name. As you may know, a trademark provides its user the exclusive right to use the mark in connection with the class of goods in which the mark is registered. For example, the registration of KYLIE for fashion apparel, or handbags, would effectively preclude anyone from utilizing KYLIE in conjunction with that good without first obtaining Ms. Jenner’s permission. You can likely see why this might be a problem.
Ms. Jenner’s attorneys filed the applications in the international classes of goods that cover “All-purpose carrying bags; athletic bags; back packs; cosmetic bags; cosmetic carrying cases; duffle bags; handbags; purses and wallets; tote bags; umbrellas.” The other applications cover goods such as clothing, sleepwear, swimwear, and undergarments; jewelry; and fragrances. Although the registration for the mark KYLIE JENNER should not be too contentious, Ms. Jenner’s team of attorneys also filed two applications for the mark KYLIE for use in “Entertainment in the nature of providing information by means of a global network in the fields of entertainment and pop culture; entertainment services, namely, personal appearances by a celebrity, actress and model” and also “Providing information by means of a global computer network in the field of fashion.” The other KYLIE application covers “Advertising services, namely, promoting the brands, goods and services of other; endorsement service, namely promoting the goods and services of others.”
For those of you who may not be familiar with the trademark registration process, once a trademark application is filed, the USPTO issues a notice of publication and publishes the mark for opposition. At that point, any party who believes it may be damaged by the registration may file an opposition, or request an extension of time to do so. Enter pop star Kylie Minogue.
After the KYLIE application for advertising services was published for opposition, Ms. Minogue had her legal team file an opposition to the registration. Ms. Minogue asserts that if the USPTO registers the KYLIE mark, it will dilute her own brand by causing consumer confusion between the Kylies. The opposition also cites several other existing trademarks for the term KYLIE that cover entertainment services and music recordings, as well as several other marks owned by Ms. Minogue, including KYLIE MINOGUE DARLING, LUCKY – THE KYLIE MINOGUE MUSICAL, and KYLIE MINOGUE.
However, Ms. Minogue’s team took it a step further, arguing that the dilution of Ms. Minogue’s brand would be even worse because Ms. Jenner is a “secondary reality television personality” who has received criticism from disability rights groups and African-American Communities. As if that was not enough, the firm has even stated that Ms. Jenner was nothing more than a “supporting character” in Keeping Up with the Kardashians, and that she is known much more for her active media presence and her “photographic exhibitionism and controversial posts.”
It may not be entirely clear why the notoriety of the registrant matters so much that Ms. Minogue’s counsel would trash talk Ms. Jenner like that, but there is a good reason. With a mark like KYLIE, there is a good chance that the trademark will be considered merely descriptive by the USPTO. Trademarks that are deemed merely descriptive cannot be registered unless the mark has acquired secondary meaning. A mark acquires secondary meaning when consumers immediately associate the mark with that registrant, as opposed to anyone else. Hence the reason that Ms. Minogue’s counsel wants to establish Ms. Jenner as a lesser known celebrity.
It will be interesting to see how this dispute plays out. Although Minogue’s counsel will surely continue to make these arguments, the fact is that despite what the public perception may be of Ms. Jenner, she is well known. On the other hand, it is clear that Ms. Minogue could suffer harm from having consumers confuse the two marks because of the criticism that Ms. Jenner has faced from certain groups and communities. Unfortunately, absent a quick settlement, we will have to wait a while to find out who comes out on top of this one. TTAB proceedings tend to take quite some time. So, for now, stay tuned.
In a recent opposition filed with the USPTO, Kylie Minogue opposed a trade mark application for "KYLIE" filed by Kylie Jenner. Ms Minogue claimed that her earlier rights and use of KYLIE would likely give rise to confusion, mistake or deception and also that any use of KYLIE by Ms Jenner would dilute Ms Minogue's brand by either blurring or tarnishment.
For those who do not frequent the world of "Keeping up with the Kardashians", Kylie Jenner is the younger half-sister of Kim, Kourtney and Khloe and daughter of Caitlin Jenner, previously known as Bruce Jenner. Ms Jenner has a number of US trade mark registrations for KYLIE JENNER and KENDALL & KYLIE (referring to her older sister Kendall). However, it is her application for KYLIE (simpliciter) for "advertising services, namely promoting the brands, goods and services of others; endorsement services, namely, promoting the goods and services of others" that caught Ms Minogue's attention. Ms Minogue is the owner of a number of trade mark registrations and applications in the US for KYLIE and KYLIE MINOGUE.
Under the US concept of trade mark "dilution", by establishing that the mark is a famous mark, the owner of the mark can prevent anyone else using that mark without having to establish any likelihood of confusion. As Ms Minogue does not have any US trade mark registrations for goods and services that are similar or related to those applied for by Ms Jenner, it may be difficult to show that there was a likelihood of confusion that meant Ms Jenner's application should be refused. In the US, it may also be difficult to establish that her mark is sufficiently famous to make out an argument for dilution.
How might this play out in Australia?
Ms Jenner has also filed a trade mark application for KYLIE in Australia and the application is currently under examination.
If Ms Jenner's application is accepted in Australia, it would be expected that it would be opposed. Any opposition battle for KYLIE in Australia would be more heavily weighed in Ms Minogue's favour than in the United States, in light of both existing trade marks, and reputation and use. Having had a music career spanning 30 years, along with her time as Charlene on Neighbours and more recently as a judge on The Voice Australia, there would hardly be a person in Australia that was not aware of "our Kylie".
Therefore, even though a likelihood of confusion relating to reputation would have to be shown in Australia, it would be assumed that Ms Minogue's reputation in KYLIE would be sufficient to successfully oppose Ms Jenner's application. It is also expected that she would be successful on the ground of first use, as Ms Minogue's use of KYLIE dates back at least to her debut album released in 1988 entitled "Kylie" and includes her ownership of the website www.kylie.com since 1996, which predates Ms Jenner's birth.
Ms Minogue also has a broader range of trade mark protection in Australia, including an earlier trade mark for "education and entertainment" services. In contrast, her US application for the same services post-dates Ms Jenner's application by a month, which would appear to be how Ms Jenner's application was able to proceed to acceptance.
Ms Jenner has until 2 April 2016 to respond to Ms Minogue's opposition in the US so we will be waiting to see the counter-shot in this battle of the Kylies.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I had not heard of either “Kylie” until I received your e-mail. I had been asked to write a blog entry, and a young associate kindly offered to fill in. I did not realize that the blog would be posted under my name.
NOTICE:This message is intended only for the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, retain or forward this message or any attachment. Please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of the message and any attachments. Neither the transmission of this message or any attachment, nor any error in transmission, constitutes a waiver of any applicable legal privilege.
Your article betrays a remarkable amount of ignorance about Ms. Kylie Ann Minogue as well as an embarrassing insularity. I have been a huge American Kylie fan since 1997, before Ms. Jenner-Tyga was born.
You branded Kylie Minogue a "one hit wonder." Is that defamatory?Year - ARIA - International - Total - Album
Totals Aria - 3,300,000* International - 28,700,000* Total - 32,000,000* Her first album was named "Kylie." Her domain name since 1995 iswww.Kylie.com. As of 2012 Kylie Minogue Record Total: 69,255,000 (70 Million Records WW excluding Music DVD's). Are you certain that "one hit wonder" is not an actionable defamation? I think it is, but what do I know.
You claim to have some expertise in IP law sitting there in Alexandria. Common law trademark, widely made famous world wide by only one artist trumps (you should pardon the expression) any purported Trademark registration by a Secondary Reality Television Personality usurper seeking to benefit by the extremely high likelihood of confusion.
Insularity and too much studying must account for your paucity of information about Ms. Minogue, but you must have finished law school and the grueling billable hour requirements of a young law firm associate in sufficient time to get back to recreational Television-viewing and learn all about Kylie Jenner. If you know IP, you ought to help Kylie Jenner sue her IP counsel for malpractice, incompetence, and pettifoggery.
In 2008, Minogue received an OBE from the Queen of England, not long after which she received the French cultural award, the “Chevalier de L’ordre des Arts et Lettres” insignia (‘Knight’ in the Order of Arts and Letters). Her tenth album X (2008) was nominated for Best Dance Album for the 51st Grammy Awards.https://www.discogs.com/artist/13608-Kylie-Minogue
Knowing what we know today, would you have indiscriminate, unprotected sex? Probably not. So when you make a phone call, do you discuss private information of a personal nature, or business, or your investments, or your credit card info?
