You're completely self-centered and care only about yourself, and couldn't give a fuck about anyone else
classic case of pot calling kettle black.
Howso? I said, "be reasonable". The post I responded to pushed an unreasonably one-sided view, to the point where they equated being called outside of work for any reason with being allowed to masturbate at work.
in today's corp world, this perfectly defines how a COMPANY acts. they are spoiled little fucking brats who have too much of a labor pool to pick from and think the world revolves around THEM.
Often, yes. It's one of the reasons I started my own company - to avoid working for one like that.
I find it precious that you try to turn it around. in the history of the modern age, life has NEVER been as good for companies as it is right now.
I find it naive that you don't think bad employees exist. And life is not better for companies than ever. It's actually pretty awful for anything that isn't a MegaCorp.
I have no idea what your work life is like. maybe you are rich and you are a business owner. I suspect you are or you are of the R persuasion who thinks that all roads lead to 'business should have all the say'. or maybe you're a republican shill trying to shift the argument in your party's direction.
Pretty much off-base on everything except the "business owner" (I'm left of Democrat, pro-small business with some socialist leanings, and believe big businesses need to be stopped from bending politics to their whims).
Back to the underlying topic at hand: The thing I've come to realize being a business owner is that regardless of whether people are bosses or underlings, their underlying personalities will drive their interactions at work. Shitty bosses and shitty employees are both horrible to work with, have no cares about the welfare of their coworkers, and selfishly believe everything is about them. Good bosses and good employees are those who will spend reasonable efforts to make everyone else's lives easier in the hopes that goodwill will come back to them (or at least a happier work environment overall will make work less of a chore).
Back to the main topic at hand: Reasonableness. For me, being reasonable at work is treating everything as a two-way street. The expectations management have of employees should be equal to the expectations the employees have of management. A flexible attitude from management should have an equally flexible attitude from employees. If management is hard-assed about the rules, then I'd expect most employees to game the system back. Bad employees and bad bosses alike don't follow that attitude, and take everything they can, while giving as little as possible.
Tying this back to the main story, and giving an idea of where my sense of reasonableness lies, I'll leave you with an example of how I deal with the emails after work hours: If I email something to them outside of work hours, I figure they'll get to it when they have time. I don't expect that to be before the next time they work, but if it is, that's fine too. But then, I don't have a problem when my employees surf the internet or play games on their phones while things are slow and they need a little break. If they answered an email or two after hours instead of during the work day they're more likely to have that slow time to unwind a bit during the day. I find that to be a reasonable trade-off, and they do, too.
Oh, so like an unpaid 911 operator. You expect them to be on call for an emergency, but if an emergency doesn't come then no pay.
That... is a bizarre interpretation of what I posted. It also shows that you have no concept of what "emergency" meant in my post, or what "on call" means in a business setting. Or, frankly, how jobs and getting paid work.
And it's because of bosses like you that I don't give work my home email, nor would I EVER check work emails from home. I don't get paid to do that.
Since I said I never expect the email to be checked or responded to until the next work day, I'm not sure what your issue here is?
I wouldn't allow a boss to call me after work hours unless I was specifically contracted to provide after hours service and to be on call. [...] I promise not to masturbate at work during work hours, if you promise not to call me with business shit during my rest hours.
You "wouldn't allow" a boss to call you if an emergency came up? You equate being asked to cover someone's shift (a option you can accept or refuse as you wish) to be equivalent to masturbating at work?
I hate to tell you this, but you've got the exact shitty attitude of employees that mirror the attitudes of shitty bosses. You're completely self-centered and care only about yourself, and couldn't give a fuck about anyone else. Whether in a boss or a low-level employee, that attitude is precisely what makes a bad workplace.
You're confused if you don't think dealing with stress takes effort. Stressful situations take mental effort to deal with, and further mental effort to de-stress afterwards.
Also, it's quite obvious you have no telephone anxiety. If you did, you'd never say using a phone takes no effort.
Sorry, but it is just wrong to expect employees to be available outside of scheduled work hours! My time off of work is MY time, and an employer has no right to expect me to use any of that time for their benefit!
...and here we have the flip side to selfishly unreasonable attitudes of bosses.
I have been taken to task because I wouldn't cover someone else's shift on my day(s) off. I replied that I make plans with family and friends on my days off, and (mostly) I refuse to change those plans.
If you've got plans and can't cover, then that's your prerogative. Perhaps what you've been "taken to task" for is your attitude, though? They way you've stated it here sounds like you're being overly confrontational when a simple, "sorry, I have plans" would have sufficed.
It sounds like it's definitely possible you're that asshole who always expects other people to cover for them, while resenting anyone expecting the same in return. When someone is sick, there's almost never anyone who is happy to come in on their day off, but people do it to help out the other employees. If nobody does, the business is short-staffed for the day, and those who are there are the ones who are the worse for it. Covering shifts is not done so much for the benefit of the business as it is done for the benefit of your co-workers.
My time outside of scheduled work hours is MINE! Many employers have for many years expected an employee's job to be their entire life. Sorry, my job is not the only thing in my life
It sounds like you've had bad experiences with employers. It sounds like you need to find better places to work. (Unless, of course, your bad attitude is leading you to believe everywhere is oppressing you, in which case what you need to change is yourself.)
Even if I am paid, I have the right to refuse, and also the right to be informed of schedule changes during regular work hours.
Which is not always possible. Unplanned issues and emergencies come up, and reasonably accommodating those situations should be expected.
One more thing, far too many employers these days consider employees to be an easily replaceable commodity, one which is owed nothing in the way of consideration or loyalty of any kind!
On the flip side, far too many employees think their employers are owed no consideration or loyalty of any kind. This lack of trust and resentment comes from both directions, and is a serious problem whichever direction it comes from.
You know what happens when I get an email? Nothing. Not till I open my email and look.
Email is asynchronous communications. Email that expects 24 hour response is stupid on the senders part. You want fast response, use the right channel, or at least give me a heads up in the right channel.
This is exactly my view of it - if you email me, I'll get to it when I get to it. Don't expect me to be sitting next to my computer waiting for you.
However, I expect this is more directed towards those who have email on their phones and alerts set to chime every time they get an email. (Which, with the volume of junk mail I receive every day, makes me question the sanity of anyone who would do this.)
E-mail takes more effort than receiving a call, so a ban is understandable.
I find it absolutely the opposite. If you get an email, you can ignore it until later, think over your answer, etc. You can even type a reply, and then re-read it before you send it off to make sure it sounds like what you want to say. With a phone call, you're on the spot - you need to decide if you answer it now. If you answer it, you need to decide what to say now. If you say the wrong thing, you can't unsay it.
And when it comes to receiving a call or text, if someone is on call or providing help, then that probably should be counted as 1.5x pay rounded up by the hour. Otherwise, hire more employees.
Places with on-call employees typically have some kind of extra compensation in place to cover that. I've typically seen it as +$X/hr. while on-call (whether you actually answer any calls or not), plus overtime pay if you actually have to come in or spend significant phone time for any call.
it's up to them if they want to take care of it right then
Tomorrow is fine. No pressure. Hopefully Tom down the hall doesn't get to it first - I have to make the decision on that promotion tonight.
If you're projecting that attitude to employees, than you're moving into the oppressive "not required but actually required" mentality, where nothing optional is really optional.
Any job like that is one that you don't need. It's all stress, little reward, and no loyalty. Quit and go somewhere better.
The problem is if it becomes an expectation, by allowing employees to do it it sets off a competition between them, which is good for the employer, but bad for the employee who doesn't work extra hours.
That depends on your point of view, I guess. Personally, I think businesses are better served by their employees thinking of themselves as a team rather than competitors. Competition breeds resentment, and an unwillingness to help others at the expense of yourself. I think employees who help each other with tasks, thus making up for each others weak points, makes the business stronger than the dog-eat-dog everyone for themselves mentality.
It also makes for a happier work environment, and happy employees are more productive employees (and less likely to become ex-employees when they find a slightly-better job opportunity).
Someone will say its employees choice, but unless they are getting paid more for it, they could work the extra hours at their own business or another one and actually benefit from working more. So no, unpaid extra labour, even for salaried employee is not acceptable, it is bad for the employee, not the ideal situation for the economy, or worker happiness, and is a race to the bottom.
Yes and no. I agree if it's something that will take any considerable amount time outside of work and take away from leisure time. If it's just a simple "forward this question to the correct parties" sort of thing, it'd probably take more mental effort to remember to do it the next day than to just do it now, and can lead to less-stressful work times the next day when the involved parties have already sent them back answers when they get in. And, as I said before, I don't expect people to be checking work email outside of regular hours, anyway - if they feel like getting a bit of a head start on a few emails so their next day is less hectic and stressful, that's not a bad thing. For me, it all comes down to stress management - if 15 minutes of "free" work leads to less stress overall, I'll do it every time. If not, I won't. Everyone's different, and I expect them to do what's best for them in situations like this.
As a business owner, I expect my employees to by reasonably available, even after hours.
What is reasonable? Well, if it's an emergency of some sort, I call or text them, depending on the immediacy. (Emergency being defined as anywhere from "someone's sick, can you cover a shift?" to "something's on fire".)
Anything below emergency I typically email and expect to be done when convenient - typically the next work day. If the employee checks their email after hours or on weekends, it's up to them if they want to take care of it right then (if it's something they can do from home), but I never expect it.
We have business hours for a reason. As far as I'm concerned, if it's not something I'd do while outside work, why would I expect that from my employees?
I've always wanted to start a pirate radio station just for shits and giggles, and doubly so after watching 'The Boat That Rocked" (watch this one, the UK release, not the US version "Pirate Radio", imo.)
Or, you could watch Pump Up the Volume for an even better movie about pirate radio...
Personally I don't care about the child pornography pictures and movies. More precisely, to me they're evidence of wrongdoing [...] but they in and of themselves shouldn't be criminal to possess.
The problem with this argument, and the reason it's been deemed illegal, is that if it's legal to possess something, someone will be happy to sell it to you. If there's money to be made with something, people are more likely to do it, even if it's illegal. Legalizing child pornography leads to a greater incentive to create child pornography.
It's basically the same reason it's illegal to hire a hit man.
There is also a secondary reason, and that's that any child in such a situation cannot have legally given consent to be involved. If it's legal to own, then there is no legal recourse someone would have to remove pornographic pictures of themselves from somewhere. For example, how about seeing something like this on store shelves at the local video store with a nice big sign saying "local talent's first film"?
In the end, "cutting the chord" is not going to save anybody any money, because instead of paying cable $99+ / month for shows and HBO, they're going to have to sign on to 7 services to get the same shows they want to watch, resulting in the same $99/month.
With no commercials, and being able to watch on my schedule instead of theirs? Deal. And it's only going to be $99/mo. if you're actually interested in something from every channel, and you don't end up splitting costs with friends (i.e., Bob, you get HBO and I'll get Stars and we can get together to watch the shows).
I did some reading, and it appears to be the fingerprint sensor. The sensor itself has an encrypted channel to the mainboard. If the cable is damaged or the sensor is replaced/not working, it doesn't sync up properly.
So it makes sense to refuse to work with a different sensor. Else, someone could unlock your phone by simply bypassing the sensor.
No. Refusing all access to your device because one small component is damaged does not make sense. Not using that component to do the unlock - and making you use the non-fingerprint method - is what would make sense.
if you know the law then you should also know that if a company doesn't proactively protect its copyrights, they risk it being classified as abandoned and losing it to the public domain.
Incorrect. First off, you cannot lose copyright for not defending it - that's trademarks. Secondly, you are not required to "proactively protect" your trademark against all infringement in order to risk losing it; only against major infringements. In most cases, major infringements are meant to mean something that would cause confusion as to which company actually owns the trademarks. Unless you're arguing that people would have thought Ramar Larkin Jones was the actual owner of Pokemon because he was throwing a party, then the mark would never be in jeopardy from this use.
"Defending your trademark" does not mean "suing anyone who doesn't pay you to use it". As long as there's no brand confusion being caused it doesn't need to be defended. As per the Wikipedia article: "It is not necessary for a trademark owner to take enforcement action against all infringement if it can be shown that the owner perceived the infringement to be minor and inconsequential."
Arguably, you can even let infringement go in many larger instances as long as they're not believed to cause brand confusion. Look at Star Wars - George Lucas has allowed fan-made works to do a helluvalot that would get them sued by just about any other IP-based company out there. He's even commented on fan works, showing that he is quite aware of them. None of this permissiveness with his trademarks has ever led to him coming even close to losing the brand.
Well, let's see - right from the article you linked:
They are not necessarily meant to replace the use of toilet paper. Often they are used after some paper to achieve full cleanliness without immediately having to take a shower.
Also:
The expense of remodeling a typical North American bathroom to accommodate a traditional bidet fixture is large, in the thousands of dollars
However, it does go on to say that recent advances in combination toilet/bidets are causing more widespread adoption in North America.
Slashdot Mirror
You're completely self-centered and care only about yourself, and couldn't give a fuck about anyone else
classic case of pot calling kettle black.
Howso? I said, "be reasonable". The post I responded to pushed an unreasonably one-sided view, to the point where they equated being called outside of work for any reason with being allowed to masturbate at work.
in today's corp world, this perfectly defines how a COMPANY acts. they are spoiled little fucking brats who have too much of a labor pool to pick from and think the world revolves around THEM.
Often, yes. It's one of the reasons I started my own company - to avoid working for one like that.
I find it precious that you try to turn it around. in the history of the modern age, life has NEVER been as good for companies as it is right now.
I find it naive that you don't think bad employees exist. And life is not better for companies than ever. It's actually pretty awful for anything that isn't a MegaCorp.
I have no idea what your work life is like. maybe you are rich and you are a business owner. I suspect you are or you are of the R persuasion who thinks that all roads lead to 'business should have all the say'. or maybe you're a republican shill trying to shift the argument in your party's direction.
Pretty much off-base on everything except the "business owner" (I'm left of Democrat, pro-small business with some socialist leanings, and believe big businesses need to be stopped from bending politics to their whims).
Back to the underlying topic at hand: The thing I've come to realize being a business owner is that regardless of whether people are bosses or underlings, their underlying personalities will drive their interactions at work. Shitty bosses and shitty employees are both horrible to work with, have no cares about the welfare of their coworkers, and selfishly believe everything is about them. Good bosses and good employees are those who will spend reasonable efforts to make everyone else's lives easier in the hopes that goodwill will come back to them (or at least a happier work environment overall will make work less of a chore).
Back to the main topic at hand: Reasonableness. For me, being reasonable at work is treating everything as a two-way street. The expectations management have of employees should be equal to the expectations the employees have of management. A flexible attitude from management should have an equally flexible attitude from employees. If management is hard-assed about the rules, then I'd expect most employees to game the system back. Bad employees and bad bosses alike don't follow that attitude, and take everything they can, while giving as little as possible.
Tying this back to the main story, and giving an idea of where my sense of reasonableness lies, I'll leave you with an example of how I deal with the emails after work hours: If I email something to them outside of work hours, I figure they'll get to it when they have time. I don't expect that to be before the next time they work, but if it is, that's fine too. But then, I don't have a problem when my employees surf the internet or play games on their phones while things are slow and they need a little break. If they answered an email or two after hours instead of during the work day they're more likely to have that slow time to unwind a bit during the day. I find that to be a reasonable trade-off, and they do, too.
Oh, so like an unpaid 911 operator. You expect them to be on call for an emergency, but if an emergency doesn't come then no pay.
That ... is a bizarre interpretation of what I posted.
It also shows that you have no concept of what "emergency" meant in my post, or what "on call" means in a business setting. Or, frankly, how jobs and getting paid work.
And it's because of bosses like you that I don't give work my home email, nor would I EVER check work emails from home. I don't get paid to do that.
Since I said I never expect the email to be checked or responded to until the next work day, I'm not sure what your issue here is?
I wouldn't allow a boss to call me after work hours unless I was specifically contracted to provide after hours service and to be on call. [...] I promise not to masturbate at work during work hours, if you promise not to call me with business shit during my rest hours.
You "wouldn't allow" a boss to call you if an emergency came up? You equate being asked to cover someone's shift (a option you can accept or refuse as you wish) to be equivalent to masturbating at work?
I hate to tell you this, but you've got the exact shitty attitude of employees that mirror the attitudes of shitty bosses. You're completely self-centered and care only about yourself, and couldn't give a fuck about anyone else. Whether in a boss or a low-level employee, that attitude is precisely what makes a bad workplace.
This seems nice, but it isn't. You can ask people to come in when there is an emergency, but you can not expect them to do so.
Which, if you'd read my entire post, is pretty much what I said. I even explicitly stated such: "We have business hours for a reason."
Reasonableness is the point of my post - and everyone has different ideas of what is reasonable to them.
You've confused stress with effort.
You're confused if you don't think dealing with stress takes effort.
Stressful situations take mental effort to deal with, and further mental effort to de-stress afterwards.
Also, it's quite obvious you have no telephone anxiety. If you did, you'd never say using a phone takes no effort.
Sorry, but it is just wrong to expect employees to be available outside of scheduled work hours! My time off of work is MY time, and an employer has no right to expect me to use any of that time for their benefit!
...and here we have the flip side to selfishly unreasonable attitudes of bosses.
I have been taken to task because I wouldn't cover someone else's shift on my day(s) off. I replied that I make plans with family and friends on my days off, and (mostly) I refuse to change those plans.
If you've got plans and can't cover, then that's your prerogative. Perhaps what you've been "taken to task" for is your attitude, though? They way you've stated it here sounds like you're being overly confrontational when a simple, "sorry, I have plans" would have sufficed.
It sounds like it's definitely possible you're that asshole who always expects other people to cover for them, while resenting anyone expecting the same in return. When someone is sick, there's almost never anyone who is happy to come in on their day off, but people do it to help out the other employees. If nobody does, the business is short-staffed for the day, and those who are there are the ones who are the worse for it. Covering shifts is not done so much for the benefit of the business as it is done for the benefit of your co-workers.
My time outside of scheduled work hours is MINE! Many employers have for many years expected an employee's job to be their entire life. Sorry, my job is not the only thing in my life
It sounds like you've had bad experiences with employers. It sounds like you need to find better places to work.
(Unless, of course, your bad attitude is leading you to believe everywhere is oppressing you, in which case what you need to change is yourself.)
Even if I am paid, I have the right to refuse, and also the right to be informed of schedule changes during regular work hours.
Which is not always possible. Unplanned issues and emergencies come up, and reasonably accommodating those situations should be expected.
One more thing, far too many employers these days consider employees to be an easily replaceable commodity, one which is owed nothing in the way of consideration or loyalty of any kind!
On the flip side, far too many employees think their employers are owed no consideration or loyalty of any kind. This lack of trust and resentment comes from both directions, and is a serious problem whichever direction it comes from.
You know what happens when I get an email? Nothing. Not till I open my email and look.
Email is asynchronous communications. Email that expects 24 hour response is stupid on the senders part. You want fast response, use the right channel, or at least give me a heads up in the right channel.
This is exactly my view of it - if you email me, I'll get to it when I get to it. Don't expect me to be sitting next to my computer waiting for you.
However, I expect this is more directed towards those who have email on their phones and alerts set to chime every time they get an email. (Which, with the volume of junk mail I receive every day, makes me question the sanity of anyone who would do this.)
E-mail takes more effort than receiving a call, so a ban is understandable.
I find it absolutely the opposite. If you get an email, you can ignore it until later, think over your answer, etc. You can even type a reply, and then re-read it before you send it off to make sure it sounds like what you want to say. With a phone call, you're on the spot - you need to decide if you answer it now . If you answer it, you need to decide what to say now . If you say the wrong thing, you can't unsay it.
And when it comes to receiving a call or text, if someone is on call or providing help, then that probably should be counted as 1.5x pay rounded up by the hour. Otherwise, hire more employees.
Places with on-call employees typically have some kind of extra compensation in place to cover that. I've typically seen it as +$X/hr. while on-call (whether you actually answer any calls or not), plus overtime pay if you actually have to come in or spend significant phone time for any call.
it's up to them if they want to take care of it right then
Tomorrow is fine. No pressure. Hopefully Tom down the hall doesn't get to it first - I have to make the decision on that promotion tonight.
If you're projecting that attitude to employees, than you're moving into the oppressive "not required but actually required" mentality, where nothing optional is really optional.
Any job like that is one that you don't need. It's all stress, little reward, and no loyalty. Quit and go somewhere better.
The problem is if it becomes an expectation, by allowing employees to do it it sets off a competition between them, which is good for the employer, but bad for the employee who doesn't work extra hours.
That depends on your point of view, I guess. Personally, I think businesses are better served by their employees thinking of themselves as a team rather than competitors. Competition breeds resentment, and an unwillingness to help others at the expense of yourself. I think employees who help each other with tasks, thus making up for each others weak points, makes the business stronger than the dog-eat-dog everyone for themselves mentality.
It also makes for a happier work environment, and happy employees are more productive employees (and less likely to become ex-employees when they find a slightly-better job opportunity).
Someone will say its employees choice, but unless they are getting paid more for it, they could work the extra hours at their own business or another one and actually benefit from working more. So no, unpaid extra labour, even for salaried employee is not acceptable, it is bad for the employee, not the ideal situation for the economy, or worker happiness, and is a race to the bottom.
Yes and no. I agree if it's something that will take any considerable amount time outside of work and take away from leisure time. If it's just a simple "forward this question to the correct parties" sort of thing, it'd probably take more mental effort to remember to do it the next day than to just do it now, and can lead to less-stressful work times the next day when the involved parties have already sent them back answers when they get in. And, as I said before, I don't expect people to be checking work email outside of regular hours, anyway - if they feel like getting a bit of a head start on a few emails so their next day is less hectic and stressful, that's not a bad thing. For me, it all comes down to stress management - if 15 minutes of "free" work leads to less stress overall, I'll do it every time. If not, I won't. Everyone's different, and I expect them to do what's best for them in situations like this.
As a business owner, I expect my employees to by reasonably available, even after hours.
What is reasonable? Well, if it's an emergency of some sort, I call or text them, depending on the immediacy. (Emergency being defined as anywhere from "someone's sick, can you cover a shift?" to "something's on fire".)
Anything below emergency I typically email and expect to be done when convenient - typically the next work day. If the employee checks their email after hours or on weekends, it's up to them if they want to take care of it right then (if it's something they can do from home), but I never expect it.
We have business hours for a reason. As far as I'm concerned, if it's not something I'd do while outside work, why would I expect that from my employees?
So make it illegal to provide or make it.
This could theoretically work nearly as well as the blanket ban.
I've always wanted to start a pirate radio station just for shits and giggles, and doubly so after watching 'The Boat That Rocked" (watch this one, the UK release, not the US version "Pirate Radio", imo.)
Or, you could watch Pump Up the Volume for an even better movie about pirate radio...
Personally I don't care about the child pornography pictures and movies. More precisely, to me they're evidence of wrongdoing [...] but they in and of themselves shouldn't be criminal to possess.
The problem with this argument, and the reason it's been deemed illegal, is that if it's legal to possess something, someone will be happy to sell it to you. If there's money to be made with something, people are more likely to do it, even if it's illegal. Legalizing child pornography leads to a greater incentive to create child pornography.
It's basically the same reason it's illegal to hire a hit man.
There is also a secondary reason, and that's that any child in such a situation cannot have legally given consent to be involved. If it's legal to own, then there is no legal recourse someone would have to remove pornographic pictures of themselves from somewhere. For example, how about seeing something like this on store shelves at the local video store with a nice big sign saying "local talent's first film"?
Oh boy he gets to spend thousands on a device they needed his help to make.
Why do you think swiping a credit card was one of the first things they made sure worked?
In the end, "cutting the chord" is not going to save anybody any money, because instead of paying cable $99+ / month for shows and HBO, they're going to have to sign on to 7 services to get the same shows they want to watch, resulting in the same $99/month.
With no commercials, and being able to watch on my schedule instead of theirs? Deal. And it's only going to be $99/mo. if you're actually interested in something from every channel, and you don't end up splitting costs with friends (i.e., Bob, you get HBO and I'll get Stars and we can get together to watch the shows).
I did some reading, and it appears to be the fingerprint sensor. The sensor itself has an encrypted channel to the mainboard. If the cable is damaged or the sensor is replaced/not working, it doesn't sync up properly.
So it makes sense to refuse to work with a different sensor. Else, someone could unlock your phone by simply bypassing the sensor.
No. Refusing all access to your device because one small component is damaged does not make sense. Not using that component to do the unlock - and making you use the non-fingerprint method - is what would make sense.
The south has a long way to go before they'll be ready to join us in the 21st century.
I'd be happy if they just started acting like it was the 20th century...
if you know the law then you should also know that if a company doesn't proactively protect its copyrights, they risk it being classified as abandoned and losing it to the public domain.
Incorrect. First off, you cannot lose copyright for not defending it - that's trademarks. Secondly, you are not required to "proactively protect" your trademark against all infringement in order to risk losing it; only against major infringements. In most cases, major infringements are meant to mean something that would cause confusion as to which company actually owns the trademarks. Unless you're arguing that people would have thought Ramar Larkin Jones was the actual owner of Pokemon because he was throwing a party, then the mark would never be in jeopardy from this use.
"Defending your trademark" does not mean "suing anyone who doesn't pay you to use it". As long as there's no brand confusion being caused it doesn't need to be defended. As per the Wikipedia article: "It is not necessary for a trademark owner to take enforcement action against all infringement if it can be shown that the owner perceived the infringement to be minor and inconsequential."
Arguably, you can even let infringement go in many larger instances as long as they're not believed to cause brand confusion. Look at Star Wars - George Lucas has allowed fan-made works to do a helluvalot that would get them sued by just about any other IP-based company out there. He's even commented on fan works, showing that he is quite aware of them. None of this permissiveness with his trademarks has ever led to him coming even close to losing the brand.
typically loading 1-3MB of content and >500kB of advertising
I'm pretty sure that should be <500kB of advertising.
The truth of Islam, is that it is never happy being the little church down the road, it must be the church, the state, and the law.
So, basically the same same as Christianity, then?
Suicide is illegal in the US.
False. Attempted suicide is illegal. It's not illegal if you're successful.
So, what you're saying is that you're a sociopath/psychopath. Got it.
Well, let's see - right from the article you linked:
They are not necessarily meant to replace the use of toilet paper. Often they are used after some paper to achieve full cleanliness without immediately having to take a shower.
Also:
The expense of remodeling a typical North American bathroom to accommodate a traditional bidet fixture is large, in the thousands of dollars
However, it does go on to say that recent advances in combination toilet/bidets are causing more widespread adoption in North America.