Every electrical retailer in the UK that I can think of has a 'price match' policy, so yes, all our retailers are going to magically drop their prices.
Ahh, here's exactly why we need this bill! Why not juat ask them?
All you need to do is put your question in writing (c/o Mr T. Blair, 10 Downing St. London) and they are legally obliged to tell you the answer within 20 working days.
I guess the mods all have hangovers, the link in the above "Score:5, Informative" post actually points to a story that says there is "No hard evidience" that there has been a paper shredding and e-mail deletion frenzy.
Of course this might just mean that the UK Govt are very good indeed at shredding stuff...
The BBC has an recently launched an interesting new area of it's website devoted to public involvement in politics, called iCan. As you might expect, it contains an excellent plain english guide to what you can and can't get information on, and how to go about it here
Apple and Dell WILL take it back*, if you gave them a written contract that states that they must supply a non-defective screen: no 'stuck pixels', no 'dead pixels'.
I've had to explain this to a few suppliers over the years (and occasionally charge back on my credit card), but if they don't deliver equipment to the specifications in the contract, they don't get paid. I also specifiy that they "must include all necessary cables and physical installation disks for all software.", which has saved me a fortune over the years.
* Actually, Dell have left one in my friend's office for over 6 months since he charged-back the payment and told them to take it away. I guess they didn't want a defective screen either?
It's not silly at all to reject a defective product. My company's policy is to issue purchase orders for anything with a LCD that clearly state the vendor must supply a defect-free product, or the purchase order is void. If you don't like our terms of busness, you don't have to sell to us.
I make music, how do I get my share of the cash? Oh, let me guess, just like Canada, the money won't actually go to copyright holders at all, especially ones not living in Gemany
I know this sounds outlandish, but given that Microsoft don't make any money from IE, and it's vulnerabilities are giving them a lot of bad publicity, is there any sound business reason for them not to scrap it (and the staff that write it), save themselves a fortune by recommending Firefox? This would also solve their legal problems with the EU over bundling.
...Unless you are a professional typographer, in which case you will delete Comic Sans, and cure your strong aversion to Arial, by installing a decent cut of Helvetica instead.
Actually, almost all land speed record breakers in recent years have been dual engine hybrids. The LSR rules require the car to be able to go in reverse, and the common solution to this requirement is to stick a tiny electric motor in somewhere that can strain itself half to death while dragging the car a few inches backwards to fit the rules.
To be able to abuse a monopoly, you have to actually HAVE a monopoly. Since no single company has a monopoly of the car market, none of the monopoly regulations apply to car manufacturers.
It hasn't hurt you. That's why you are not one of the plaintiffs in this case. If, however, you had been selling media player software at the time, then it would have destroyed your business overnight. Does this answer your "please tell me..." question?
As for "Tell me again how the government suing microsoft in this case and the others will benefit the tax payers paying for these suits?", where do you think the billions of dollars in fines go?
You've missed the point. An optional WMP would still prevent anyone else from running a profitable software business selling something that competes with WMP, since Microsoft is abusing it's OS monopoly by giving WMP away for free, thereby extending it's OS monopoly into a media player monopoly.
Re:Definition not broad enough?
on
FTC Defines Spam
·
· Score: 1
This is explicitly mentioned in the PDF (buried away on page 63), and the definition DOES include this kind of mail, since it's the recipient's perception about it being spam or not that counts:
"As the Commission noted in the NPRM, one of its concerns in this proceeding has been that "spammers not be able to structure their messages to evade CAN-SPAM by placing them outside the technical definition of 'commercial electronic mail message.' A typical example is a hypothetical message, unrequested by the recipient, that begins with a Shakespearean sonnet (or paragraphs of random words) and concludes with a one-line link to commercial website."170 As the Commission noted, a recipient of such a message could reasonably conclude that the message's primary purpose is commercial."
I'm glad you are in charge of what's right and wrong, as well as determining the limits of the FTC's authority:-)
However, if you actually read the FTC's comment you'll find this bit on page 36 of the pdf: "As the Commission noted in the NPRM, however, CAN-SPAM refers to the primary purpose of the message, not of the sender. The primary purpose of an email message may be fairly determined by looking at the sender's intent or the recipient's interpretation. The latter is the better choice because it is consistent with the Commission's approach to analyzing deception in advertising. The "recipient's interpretation" approach also eliminates a vast potential loophole for spammers."
Spam is wrong, and there is no exemption for spam sent via a subscription based service. What counts is if the recipient interprets it as spam.
Not just bulk mail!
on
FTC Defines Spam
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Buried on page 16 of the full PDF text is this little gem....
"The text of the Act has no business-to-business exemption and [i]does not establish a minimum number of email messages that must be sent before the Act applies.[/i]" (my emphasis added)
There is no requirement for the mail to be bulk, which the article implies there is. This is (imho) a very wise move, just because someone sends 1 spam instead of a million doesn't mean it's legal or morally acceptable!
That's a grey area, I tink since Yahoo's primary purpose is clearly commercial, it's not just running a listserv out of the goodness of it's heart!
If there are 30,000 characters of jpg advert and 7 characters of "me too!" in a mail (or as sometimes happens, no characters of actual content at all), surely the advert is it's 'primary purpose'?
It's spam if (to quote the FTC site) "a recipient reasonably interpreting the body of the message would likely conclude that the primary purpose of the message is commercial."
So this get-out doesn't apply, for which we can be thankful.
IBM currently designs, specs, supports and provides a warranty for the machines it slaps it's name on, none of which will (presumably) be true of Lenovo machines a few years down the line.
I think a consumer who (quite reasonably) expected the design, specification, warranty, backup and support of IBM to be part of what they were buying when they bought an 'IBM Thinkpad' would have very good grounds for a compensation claim when they discover that IBM take no responsibility for the machines at all.
This is going a whole lot further than simply changing the location and ownership of the factory!
I suspect it's just a quirk due lack of foreign character set support, but my browser rather helpfully displays the title of their website as "Lenovo ??"
Slashdot Mirror
Every electrical retailer in the UK that I can think of has a 'price match' policy, so yes, all our retailers are going to magically drop their prices.
Ahh, here's exactly why we need this bill! Why not juat ask them?
All you need to do is put your question in writing (c/o Mr T. Blair, 10 Downing St. London) and they are legally obliged to tell you the answer within 20 working days.
Isn't politics fun?
I guess the mods all have hangovers, the link in the above "Score:5, Informative" post actually points to a story that says there is "No hard evidience" that there has been a paper shredding and e-mail deletion frenzy.
Of course this might just mean that the UK Govt are very good indeed at shredding stuff...
The BBC has an recently launched an interesting new area of it's website devoted to public involvement in politics, called iCan. As you might expect, it contains an excellent plain english guide to what you can and can't get information on, and how to go about it here
Apple and Dell WILL take it back*, if you gave them a written contract that states that they must supply a non-defective screen: no 'stuck pixels', no 'dead pixels'.
I've had to explain this to a few suppliers over the years (and occasionally charge back on my credit card), but if they don't deliver equipment to the specifications in the contract, they don't get paid. I also specifiy that they "must include all necessary cables and physical installation disks for all software.", which has saved me a fortune over the years.
* Actually, Dell have left one in my friend's office for over 6 months since he charged-back the payment and told them to take it away. I guess they didn't want a defective screen either?
It's not silly at all to reject a defective product. My company's policy is to issue purchase orders for anything with a LCD that clearly state the vendor must supply a defect-free product, or the purchase order is void. If you don't like our terms of busness, you don't have to sell to us.
I make music, how do I get my share of the cash? Oh, let me guess, just like Canada, the money won't actually go to copyright holders at all, especially ones not living in Gemany
I know this sounds outlandish, but given that Microsoft don't make any money from IE, and it's vulnerabilities are giving them a lot of bad publicity, is there any sound business reason for them not to scrap it (and the staff that write it), save themselves a fortune by recommending Firefox? This would also solve their legal problems with the EU over bundling.
...Unless you are a professional typographer, in which case you will delete Comic Sans, and cure your strong aversion to Arial, by installing a decent cut of Helvetica instead.
Take the Arial or Helvetica Quiz to see if you can tell the difference.
Assuming that the US doesn't extend patents past 20 years, adopting the Apple method of hinting truetype fonts should be legal as of May 2009/2012
Patent US5155805: Method and apparatus for moving control points in displaying digital typeface on raster output devices. Filed on May, 8 1989
Patent US5159668: Method and apparatus for manipulating outlines in improving digital typeface on raster output devices. Filed on May, 8 1989
Patent US5325479: Method and apparatus for moving control points in displaying digital typeface on raster output devices. Filed on May 28, 1992
Actually, almost all land speed record breakers in recent years have been dual engine hybrids. The LSR rules require the car to be able to go in reverse, and the common solution to this requirement is to stick a tiny electric motor in somewhere that can strain itself half to death while dragging the car a few inches backwards to fit the rules.
To be able to abuse a monopoly, you have to actually HAVE a monopoly. Since no single company has a monopoly of the car market, none of the monopoly regulations apply to car manufacturers.
It hasn't hurt you. That's why you are not one of the plaintiffs in this case. If, however, you had been selling media player software at the time, then it would have destroyed your business overnight. Does this answer your "please tell me..." question?
As for "Tell me again how the government suing microsoft in this case and the others will benefit the tax payers paying for these suits?", where do you think the billions of dollars in fines go?
You've missed the point. An optional WMP would still prevent anyone else from running a profitable software business selling something that competes with WMP, since Microsoft is abusing it's OS monopoly by giving WMP away for free, thereby extending it's OS monopoly into a media player monopoly.
Here's a Mirror
This is explicitly mentioned in the PDF (buried away on page 63), and the definition DOES include this kind of mail, since it's the recipient's perception about it being spam or not that counts:
"As the Commission noted in the NPRM, one of its concerns in this proceeding has been that "spammers not be able to structure their messages to evade CAN-SPAM by placing them outside the technical definition of 'commercial electronic mail message.' A typical example is a hypothetical message, unrequested by the recipient, that begins with a Shakespearean sonnet (or paragraphs of random words) and concludes with a one-line link to commercial website."170 As the Commission noted, a recipient of such a message could reasonably conclude that the message's primary purpose is commercial."
I'm glad you are in charge of what's right and wrong, as well as determining the limits of the FTC's authority :-)
However, if you actually read the FTC's comment you'll find this bit on page 36 of the pdf: "As the Commission noted in the NPRM, however, CAN-SPAM refers to the primary purpose of the message, not of the sender. The primary purpose of an email message may be fairly determined by looking at the sender's intent or the recipient's interpretation. The latter is the better choice because it is consistent with the Commission's approach to analyzing deception in advertising. The "recipient's interpretation" approach also eliminates a vast potential loophole for spammers."
Spam is wrong, and there is no exemption for spam sent via a subscription based service. What counts is if the recipient interprets it as spam.
Buried on page 16 of the full PDF text is this little gem....
"The text of the Act has no business-to-business exemption and
[i]does not establish a minimum number of email messages that must be sent before the Act applies.[/i]" (my emphasis added)
There is no requirement for the mail to be bulk, which the article implies there is. This is (imho) a very wise move, just because someone sends 1 spam instead of a million doesn't mean it's legal or morally acceptable!
That's a grey area, I tink since Yahoo's primary purpose is clearly commercial, it's not just running a listserv out of the goodness of it's heart!
If there are 30,000 characters of jpg advert and 7 characters of "me too!" in a mail (or as sometimes happens, no characters of actual content at all), surely the advert is it's 'primary purpose'?
Surely that mail is "advertising" the advert content it points to?
Hmm, replying to my own post here, but I wonder how 'bulk' is defined?
Does putting the same ad on lots of different indiviual mails from customers count as 'bulk'? If so, Yahoo Mail and Hotmail have to die too!
It's spam if (to quote the FTC site) "a recipient reasonably interpreting the body of the message would likely conclude that the primary purpose of the message is commercial."
So this get-out doesn't apply, for which we can be thankful.
Yahoo's business model for it's mailing list service (Yahoo Groups) is to attach ads to 'legitimate' mail it's users send.
These mails fit the new definition of spam: "bulk e-mail is commercial if it includes advertising and promotion ".
The same also applies to Topica, and no doubt many other ad-funded list servers.
IBM currently designs, specs, supports and provides a warranty for the machines it slaps it's name on, none of which will (presumably) be true of Lenovo machines a few years down the line.
I think a consumer who (quite reasonably) expected the design, specification, warranty, backup and support of IBM to be part of what they were buying when they bought an 'IBM Thinkpad' would have very good grounds for a compensation claim when they discover that IBM take no responsibility for the machines at all.
This is going a whole lot further than simply changing the location and ownership of the factory!
I suspect it's just a quirk due lack of foreign character set support, but my browser rather helpfully displays the title of their website as "Lenovo ??"