178801

神经网络昆斯林的新闻组分类2006

Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu talk.religion.misc:83753 talk.politics.misc:178801 sci.skeptic:43374
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc,sci.skeptic
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!torn!nott!cunews!wcscps
From: [e-mail] (Mike Richardson)
Subject: Government and all that (was re: Who's next?
Message-ID: <wcscps.735408968@cunews>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
References: <[e-mail]> <wcscps.735321331@cunews> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 16:16:08 GMT
Lines: 62

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:

>|>  Or laws to stop companies from making look-alike Ford/GM car parts, and
>|>selling them as the real thing?  The first people that got raided were antique
>|>companies who made 'real GM' parts for 1930's cars.

>Wooa there!!! I have a classic car. If I buy a body pannel for $300 after
>being told that it is genuine BL and discover that it is a non original
>copy value $50 I get real pissed. If I can get the genuine article I will
>pay a lot for it because not only will it cost much less to fit (probably
>meaning that its cheaper overall) but it also means that the car is worth
>a hell of a lot more.

  What I was referring to was not fraud look-alike companies, but ones that
made cheap 'GM' etc parts for restoring cars.  They were sold as NON-name
brand parts, but had all of the 'look', so your car would be restored to true
GM, and not brand XYZ.  As you pointed out, they're a lot cheaper, so the
not as die-hard restorer can afford them too.  This is all from what I've
read in automotive magazines over the last few years, and apparently the car
companies turned a sympathetic eye, because they didn't make the parts anymore.

>Are you really saying that Ford and GM are having companies beat up for
>infringing copyright on parts they don't make? I find that very hard to
>beleive.

 No, but is tell me whether or not the following scenario is realistic:
1) el-cheapo companies make and sell 'GM' parts AS GM originals.
2) GM gets annoyed, and lobbies for a bill to stop anyone from labelling
 parts as name brand unless they actually are.., or pushes for heavier
enforcement of current fraud laws.
3) Zealous officers raid the previously mentioned small companies, mostly
because they didn't have a specific licensing agreement to make the parts
that GM no longer makes.

  Pow! Instant oppression.  Who cares about the _intent_ of the law.  It's
the letter that everyone ends up following.

>There is a hell of a difference between remanufacturing and passing off.

  Perhaps they _were_ remanufacturing parts.. but then the parts would not
really be exactly name-brand.

> [quote from me deleted...]
>You should revers that attitude. When your interests are threatened its
>way too late. You have to challenge the govt when it is attacking
>someone else's interests. 

 I can't say I agree with you more.  Perhaps I misphrased myself in my previous
post, or you misread what I was trying to say.

>That does not mean however that you can start calling the govt the 
>equivalent of the NAZI party on the basis of an unfortunate outcome
>in a hostage situation.

  ??? I don't ever remember saying something like that.  I may or may not
agree with what the various bureaus did, but in the end it was the BD's choice
to blow themselves up, and that can never be blamed on over-zealous law
enforcement.

 Alan DeKok.