It is because there are so many products without windows operating system tax. There was a time when it was not possible to purchase computer hardware without paying a portion to Microsoft. I've had to pay microsoft four times for a product I never used. Ive been buying windows over and over again just to purchase a PC on which I can run Linux. However, the manufacturers would never give me the rebate for the operating Microsoft windows operating system I never used. Although it is clearly written in the EULA that I can get a refund... microsoft just kept getting paid by me for providing absolutely nothing. I am happy to see Microsoft slowly reduced to only making money for the actual service they provide. I hope I never have to give Microsoft another dime in my lifetime and I will not forget the hardware vendors who were too weak to stand up to Microsoft and issue the refund that they promised me I would receive. I am referring to HP and Asus. I will avoid buying from these companies ever again because of their desire to serve Microsoft... although I suspect all computer hardware vendors are just as guilty.
It's a funny cartoon, but not funny when you look at the actual athletes. These people destroy their bodies pushing themselves to the limit. Even in ice skating which looks like a nice "easy" sport, people tear-up their knees or hips, and have permanent pain for the rest of their lives. In running Florence Griffith Joyner pushed herself so hard, she died before age 40. She had been training for the next olympics.
Let's NOT have an olympics where athletes use steroids and other enhancements to kill themselves prematurely.
Athletes already damage themselves to get where they are. Many top atheletes suffer later in life for simply excelling at the role as designed. I would love to see how far humans can perform without restriction. I would watch this, but I wouldnt encourage my children to do it. Just as I wouldnt encourage my kids to take up boxing or ballet or rugby.
One application of this type of engineering is to serve as an ignition swith for a fusion energy plant.
Not really, as the ignition and heating systems for a tokomak in no way resembles the NIF (National Ignition Facility). Nor is such a system practical for a tokomak because you cannot get the spherical access required.
The NIF, despite massive amounts of greenwash, is a tool for studying fusion for nuclear weapons - not an energy production research project.
Exactly, every once in a while the NIF releases another article about this or that "breakthrough" to satisfy the public and give something for politicians to latch on to sell it. Its a cash grab for weapons advancement. I once went to their site and was wowed by all the promises of fussion power, but after further research I just dont care what they "discover" next. Because everything they release to the public is simply a product of their secondary PR program.
I wanted to make a post from my electric car but I ran out of powe*&^%^@*&^#####
I wanted to read ur post and be the first to reply to u, but I had to stop at a gas station for 10 minutes and breath fumes and smell exhaust as I listened to the noisy engines of cars on the nearby road. I remember this clearly because the stink of gasoline is still on my hands.
..... I do not need to be tracked by any person with digital eye glasses.
How do I know what they record and what they do with it..... I say digital head mount glasses should be banned in general since it is an intrusion on privacy for all those who walk on the street!
I say... all people that wear Google glasses or any other like device should be sentenced to death for ignorance and being an idiot!
Yes, there should be a ban on cell phone usage in public. Cell phones should only be used at home where the camera is safely pointed away from my children. I just know all those people "talking" on the phones are really recording my kids and digitally pasting their faces to make kiddie porn. When will citizens realize that everyone deserves privacy while in public? Its self evident that people who take pictures in public are sickos. But the worst offenders are businesses with their so called "security cameras" pointed out into the storefront sidewalks and streets. You just know they are doing all kinds of horrible things with the video they collect 24/7. When will public space be private again? When will our children be safe?
In the article, he posts images from what seems to be very far back in his narrative of events. He shows the 'Possible Witnesses' as he described them well before his assault. If his visual system only stored images after or as it was damaged, I could accept images of the attackers themselves.
This whole story seems to be missing something.
Maybe ur right. Maybe the device records all the time. So what. They can not have known either way. Wat we do know is that mcdonalds took his money while wearing it. We know that after mcdonalds had his money that the same device was such a problem that he had to leave. You cannot deny that money was taken from MrMann and that this money could have been refused prior to the assult.
only 15% of mcdonalds restraunts are owned by mcdonalds corporate. Are u suggesting that 85% of the restraunts are "not real" and that we can expect "random ejections" most of the time?
On the other hand, we only have one side of the story - it appears they are rather sensitive to anything that looks like a camera, but where would that stop? Ordinary glasses? Hearing aids? Walking sticks OK?
It should stop at damaging ones personal property for no reason. Mann handed them a note written by a doctor. What possible reason would there be to rip it up? It seems like pure intimidation by staff acting like security without any training on how to do it. If I were a judge, this would be enough to cause me to believe that the staff were not treating Mann fairly in their attempt to eject him from the premises. They really should have just stuck to physically removing him from the restaraunt instead of damaging his personal property for no reason except to inflame the situation.
Also, the restaraunt could have refused to take his money and conduct business with him while the unit was attached. Instead the staff choose to take his money and provide him with food in a contract of sale. Its unlikely that the sales agent didnt notice his prostetic. The contract of sale could have been refused, but it was accepted. So the subsequent ejection appears to be a breach of contract. Especially since ever mcdonalds I ever went to asks whether the food is "to go". If such a question is usually asked of each customer, then it will be difficult to defend the subsequent actions by staff.
McDonalds in France (and in the UK and many other countries) do not allow still cameras, video cameras or other recording equipment to be operated inside their restaurants without explicit permission from the managers.
This is clearly labelled on all the doors as you go in, not just in words, but a picture of a camera crossed out.
If you don't agree, go elsewhere, problem avoided.
Apparently not. If you happen to miss the sign at the door someone approaches you and seems to be ok with recording equipment. Then they take ur money in a legal contract of sale. Then they subsequently decide that it is now NOT OK to do what they already knew you were doing and throw you out the door while attempting to and actually destroying your physical property in the process. But all of this will happen AFTER they get your money.
If your going to speculate on what happened outside the article content, then why dont you speculate that the staff would have taken the glasses and not returned them, or dropped them on the floor and stepped on them? Because those actions seem more plausible then your speculative defence based on the facts we are told in the article. Considering the fact that the staff did destroy the only thing they could get there hands on which was a written doctors note owned by Mr Mann.
Mr Mann has done what he can to contact the parties responsible and adress this through police and consulate channels. When he was unable to get any satisfaction on this matter, he released a blog post. From the information available he has acted appropriately and done far less then he could to hold McDonalds responsible for his mistreatment. It is time for him to find a lawyer and get reimbused for his loses and then some.
I would love to hear "the other side". By I suspect McDonalds will say nothing until this is brought to court
Mr Mann should sue mcdonalds. Even if Mr Mann only wants to be rembused for physical damages I should hope that some lawyer will put a significant financial dent in this establishment and mcdonalds corporate. Even if he doesnt do this for himself, he should do this for others after him. This is a stupid policy and even stupider enforcement. McDonalds will only recognize this when it costs them money. Please sue this establishment, those employees and mcdonalds. It is the right thing to do.
I cannot believe the number of people who are choosing not to hold the restaraunt liable for this. The way he was treated was wrong and the way they handled it was wrong. The establishment took his money in a contract of sale. They could have refused him service since they already had knowledge of the device and its purpose. Instead they took his money and subsequently treated him as if he was not a welcome customer. It doesnt matter whether one guy said it was ok to be a customer and later some other employees decided it was not ok. They should have called the police instead of taking physical action on an established customer after the contract of sale was completed. They should be held fully accountable and forced to answer for this rediculous rule about cameras and how they enforce it. From the tone of most replies here, I tend to think this article is being replied to by McDonalds staff.
But it's not a real McDonalds it's just some franchise with the name over the door. Is this the normal experience for McDonalds customers? I've never been to one myself, but it doesn't make me want to try it.
Most McDonalds are francised I believe. Wikipedia states that only 15% are owned by McDonalds corporate. So what exactly are u saying? That you should only expect quality service 15% of the time and the other times you should be treated in random and prejudice ways?
In the article u asked: "I don't have the resources to take on a branch of a large multi-national corporation operating in a distant country, but I could use some help and advice as to how to resolve this matter, how to ensure it doesn't happen again to me or anyone else wearing Eye Glass"
You need to sue McDonalds if you want to ensure the safety of future consumers. It is your responsibility to contact a lawyer who is willing to make them pay financially for this act of prejudice. No change will occur unless you do something to make them notice. McDonalds will only notice if a significant amount of profit is taken from them.
Even if you do not wish to be personally compensated for this public assult, you still need to find a lawyer who is willing to take money from McDonalds in order to have them notice. If you dont do this, nothing will happen and prejudicial treatment and possibly assult will occur to others less strong then you.
Please step up and make a difference. Contact a lawyer. It is not bad or evil thing to make them pay for this. This behaviour needs to change and McDonalds has no business defending such behaviour at any of their establishments.
A policy that requires no cameras in an establishment cannot be enforced due to the previlence of cell phones. I do not think they have a requirement that no cell phones are allowed to be used within McDonalds... how could they? The demographic is too large. Simply because you stood out as "different" they treated you differently then the thousands of others who take photos with cell phones and are not so obvious. They should have called the police to remove you from the estabilishment since they had already taken your money as a customer while the camera was in full site and the employees were already aware of its usage. To take ur money and then refuse to provide you with the opportunity to eat the food is not fullfilling the contract you estabilished when u gave them the money and they provided the food.
Well Im not a lawyer, but I think this is something for which they are totally liable. They damaged your equipment so it will be apparent that physical force was used. You have their pictures and location so the parties involved can be held accountable. They destroyed personal property including a note from a doctor.
I believe u have a case and if so it should be easy to find a lawyer to assist you in holding McDonalds financially responsible for damages. Please do the right thing here and contact a lawyer about suing McDonalds in general and this establishment and the employees who assulted you.
Thank u. I was reading to see when someone would say this. This story is bogus. Unless they have inside information into the company operations and private partnership deals (which I suggest they do not)... then the author is purely guessing at component pricing. There is no way to know exactly how much profit is being made and so making any comment on the content of the article is a waste of time. The only way to know for sure whether they are making a profit or possibly a loss on each unit is to wait for the manufacturer to disclose this information, and then u r trusting their press release as fact. I can not tell u the number of times a vendor agreed to sell me something at a lower price after some negotiation and said "ok, but im not making any money on this"... do u really think this statement was true?
I have been filming for a while and this is a common issue. The trick is to not react to the environment around u. But this is harder to do then u would think. This one is really bad, but all over the web u will see examples of this where the camera shakes or moves from the action immediately following some unusual or striking event.
I went down to the employment office to get some assistance finding work. There I used a USB stick to record some stuff off one of their PC's. When I came home and looked at the USB on my linux box I found a . (dot) hidden directory I did not create. I searched online and found the files within were related to a PC virus. I emailed the office and told them exactly how I got the virus. A week later I went to the office again and used a different PC. I popped the USB into my linux laptop and there it was again. I went to the secretary and told them this was unacceptable and that they were propigating viruses to their clients.
I also dislike operating systems that randomly add . (dot) hidden directories to my USB. For example apple products seem to do this. I think they add files in order to improve access to the contents or add images or something. Every time I stick my USB stick into someones Mac, I have to go through the directories it made automatically to verify that it didnt insert some malicious code.
One time the dentist accidently squirted some novocaine onto my tongue before injecting it into my cheek. After a couple minutes while he was working on me I had to stop him... because there was something large that had falling into my mouth. Turns out it was my tongue that I could no longer identify as my own.
One summer in the 90s I drove to work on a beautifully sunny day with my sun roof cracked and left it that way when I parked to keep the interior cool. When it flash flooded in the middle of the day, I didn't remember that I'd left it open and ended up with an utterly saturated car interior. I brought out a large tub with hygroscopic CaCl2 in it, left it in the car over the next few days, and thanks to the 100+`F heat, it was almost totally dry in no time.
Ok this is just nuts. I already complained about the rice in a sealed bag being an ol wives tale and now this. FYI: how long do u think it takes a super saturated car to dry in 100+ heat? A few day? correct. So exactly how did u apply the CaCl2? Did u keep the windows rolled up in the car? If so... then u were maintaining a humid evironment within the car for no reason, as the evaporated water had no where to go. And if u had the windows rolled down, then the chemicals were simply absorbing water from the whole enviroment. This is just nutty talk. There is no reason to seal things up when they are water logged. Its better to keep them open to the air and apply a fan if possible to move the evaporated water to mix into the open air. Please do not listen to these stories... keep ur devices open to the air.
Unless u have a way to apply an absorbant directly to the location of the liquid then there is nothing to do except allow evaporation to occur. The best bet is to first use a towel. When a towel can no longer access the location of the liquid... just wait.
The reason that ur electronic devices come with in sealed packets is to keep moisture and eviromental factors out. They do not have silicate packets inside the sealed package because they ship them wet. They have these packets because it is a sealed enviroment already and if moisture is already inside by accident or somehow enters the sealed container, then there is no where for the moisture to evaporate to... so they have absorbing packets. Putting wet things in a sealed container will definately cause it to take longer to dry out. The atmosphere is very good at evaporating. That is y it rains so much here. So please, use common sense and just apply a fan to help with circulation and let the enviroment do the rest. Do not waste good food on bad ideas.
Put your phone in a zip-lock bag and pour a load of rice in with it. Seal the bag and leave it for a couple of days. Alternatively, if you're a nerd like me, slip in four or five silica gel pouches you've hidden away.
Im a clutz and Ive dropped lots of electronic devices into water. The first thing to do is to shut the device off (if its on), dry the exterior and then remove the battery. If u cannot remove the battery then u r an idiot for buying a product that has only the lifespan of a battery. Do these steps as fast as possible, then relax and wait 24 hours before replacing the battery and it will probably be fine for u.
Ive never tried the rice trick, I wonder if this is sound logic since the rice does not come into contact with the internals. It seems to me that in order for the rice to absorb the moisture, that the moisture must evaporate from inside the device first. Wouldnt a fan blowing across the device remove moisture from its surrounding just as well or better? I mean if u put a cup of water in a bowl and then seal it would take longer to evaporate then without any seal watsoever?
Now u got me curious... I want to soak a sponge and leave in an open bowl and also soak a spunge and put in a sealed bag with rice to see which dries faster. I suspect open air is best at removing moisture as it evaporates. The solution u provide seems like it comes from a cook rather then a real experiment. I might be wrong.
on a serious note, mark twain was a member of the simplified spelling board (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Spelling_Board) which was funded by Andrew Carnegie, who probably was the founder of a University or library or arts centre near u. He was a good man looking to improve things and one of his goals was to fix/improve the english language problem. With the advent of mass communication of all classes of people online... we r finally getting around to fixing these issues that we were unable to solve back then.
just another out-of-date standard that could be fixed in one generation if that generation could get over the fact that "through," "coo," "do," "true," "knew," and "queue" all rhyme nonsensically but spelling them "throo," "koo," "doo," "troo," "nyoo," and "kyoo" simply looks silly despite being logical.
Hmm...So, how would you spell "cue" phonetically?
Or "dew"?
"Threw"?
"New"?
If you haven't guessed by now, this is why we don't use phonetic spelling.
ur so wrong. The only reason u debate the preferred spelling of these words is exactly because the english language sucks. and the original poster is correct that those who understand math and logic see grammar for wat it is. it is a set of illogical rules and should be replaced with something phonetic. u do realize that some languages r entirely phonetic... right? i mean if u know how to properly pronounce the word, then u know exactly how to spell it. and vice versa... all spelling has a consistant pronounciation. in english, u can hear a new word and there is no single way to no for sure how to spell it. do u think this is ideal?
get over it, english sucks... so stop providing examples of how it cannot be fixed by showing more examples of how it already sucks.
bs. there is no difference in the above. if u really want me to engage in eating ur grama, then ill leave ur home. do u think i could not get wat ur saying from speech? y do u think this is different from when u type. we r talking here. dont u get it? if u really want me to think u r about to engage in canibalism then u best provide some context to ur statement.
ur being rediculous and u no it. no one cares. embrace the future and stop holding grammar as a tool of oppression over those who understand its lack of importance.
Example.. This person sent the following to the entire company.
"Hello my name is Xxxxxx Xxxx and I work in the lab and was wondering if u knew n e 1 that's selling a car because my transmititon went out on me and I have a 14 month old lil girl and we're new to Iowa and not too familure with the town. So if u can please help I would appreciate it thank u"
its strange he used 'k' in 'knew'. and 'be' before 'cause. I do appreciate his/her usage of 'u' instead of 'you'. It shows this person is embracing the new english language options we are all in the process of making. The sooner written language reflects a phonetic version of speech... the sooner we will begin to benefit from the massively parallel mind that is online collaboration.
but who cares? for over a year now ive switched all of my writing to abreviated phonetic versions. Ex: you = u, your, you're = ur, one = 1, are = r. capitalization is totally optional, for example: I = i, Saturday = saturday. capitalization is more important for expressing importance or SHOUTING. and its not neccessary to capitalize the first word of a new sentence either... i mean we already got a period, dont u get that this means the next word is the beginning of a new sentence? many words r simply the simplest phonetic version and its no longer neccessary to worry about homonyms. i mean if u didnt know wat I meant from the context of the sentence, how would u be able to correct my when Im wrong? so using 'det' instead of 'debt' is the prefered option. contractions and possession do not require apostophes... in fact apostophes r right out.
the english language is horrible. a set of arbitrary and confusing rules. i see people use grammar as a mechanism to define class and estimate intelligence. A means to diffrentiate papers when an instructor doesnt want to be bothered to judge based on the ideas behind the words. but do u really think this is true or of value? do u believe people should be judged on what they say or the ideas they used to compose it? is ur judgement of an opinion based on special exceptions that require memorization over logic and that r unrelated to speach? especially when such corrections could be provided by a computer program?
i for 1 support change of the english language and the force of online communication that reflects speech over term papers. because I do not wish to slow the progress of positive change in the english language (yes, u can start a sentence with 'because'). i am not a religious type, so i support rapid social change over tradition.
imo the online tool of value is a spell checker... which im sure could have fixed some of my words above.
Obama became president in 2008. Most of the planes were eliminated between 2002 and 2008.
The further reductions came in 2010 when congressional Republicans cut 25% of the Forest Service's budget.
You've got to remember, Michelle Malkin is a serial liar. She's been caught so many times it's not funny. You would think at some point that she'd stop out of shame, but no.
I've got a link to a list of Malkin's greatest hits of lies. Let me know if you'd like to see it. And she NEVER updates her posts when they are proven false. Never retracts, never apologizes.
I dont know the fact, but ur math doesnt support ur claim.
2002 - 2008 = 56.8% reduction over 6 years
2008 - 2012 = 42.1% reduction over 4 years
Which means that the average annual reduction in planes from 2002 to 2008 was about 8% and then between 2008 and 2012, the average annual reduction in planes was about 9%
It seems like the reduction in planes has been constant or maybe just slightly reverse of the point u were trying to make.
Maybe u r taking ur facts from people who like to present a biased view. Because it seems that both presidents suck equally in terms of supporting these fire fighting planes u speak of.
Slashdot Mirror
It is because there are so many products without windows operating system tax. There was a time when it was not possible to purchase computer hardware without paying a portion to Microsoft. I've had to pay microsoft four times for a product I never used. Ive been buying windows over and over again just to purchase a PC on which I can run Linux. However, the manufacturers would never give me the rebate for the operating Microsoft windows operating system I never used. Although it is clearly written in the EULA that I can get a refund... microsoft just kept getting paid by me for providing absolutely nothing. I am happy to see Microsoft slowly reduced to only making money for the actual service they provide. I hope I never have to give Microsoft another dime in my lifetime and I will not forget the hardware vendors who were too weak to stand up to Microsoft and issue the refund that they promised me I would receive. I am referring to HP and Asus. I will avoid buying from these companies ever again because of their desire to serve Microsoft... although I suspect all computer hardware vendors are just as guilty.
It's a funny cartoon, but not funny when you look at the actual athletes. These people destroy their bodies pushing themselves to the limit. Even in ice skating which looks like a nice "easy" sport, people tear-up their knees or hips, and have permanent pain for the rest of their lives. In running Florence Griffith Joyner pushed herself so hard, she died before age 40. She had been training for the next olympics.
Let's NOT have an olympics where athletes use steroids and other enhancements to kill themselves prematurely.
Athletes already damage themselves to get where they are. Many top atheletes suffer later in life for simply excelling at the role as designed. I would love to see how far humans can perform without restriction. I would watch this, but I wouldnt encourage my children to do it. Just as I wouldnt encourage my kids to take up boxing or ballet or rugby.
Not really, as the ignition and heating systems for a tokomak in no way resembles the NIF (National Ignition Facility). Nor is such a system practical for a tokomak because you cannot get the spherical access required. The NIF, despite massive amounts of greenwash, is a tool for studying fusion for nuclear weapons - not an energy production research project.
Exactly, every once in a while the NIF releases another article about this or that "breakthrough" to satisfy the public and give something for politicians to latch on to sell it. Its a cash grab for weapons advancement. I once went to their site and was wowed by all the promises of fussion power, but after further research I just dont care what they "discover" next. Because everything they release to the public is simply a product of their secondary PR program.
I wanted to make a post from my electric car but I ran out of powe*&^%^@*&^#####
I wanted to read ur post and be the first to reply to u, but I had to stop at a gas station for 10 minutes and breath fumes and smell exhaust as I listened to the noisy engines of cars on the nearby road. I remember this clearly because the stink of gasoline is still on my hands.
..... I do not need to be tracked by any person with digital eye glasses. How do I know what they record and what they do with it..... I say digital head mount glasses should be banned in general since it is an intrusion on privacy for all those who walk on the street!
I say... all people that wear Google glasses or any other like device should be sentenced to death for ignorance and being an idiot!
Yes, there should be a ban on cell phone usage in public. Cell phones should only be used at home where the camera is safely pointed away from my children. I just know all those people "talking" on the phones are really recording my kids and digitally pasting their faces to make kiddie porn. When will citizens realize that everyone deserves privacy while in public? Its self evident that people who take pictures in public are sickos. But the worst offenders are businesses with their so called "security cameras" pointed out into the storefront sidewalks and streets. You just know they are doing all kinds of horrible things with the video they collect 24/7. When will public space be private again? When will our children be safe?
In the article, he posts images from what seems to be very far back in his narrative of events. He shows the 'Possible Witnesses' as he described them well before his assault. If his visual system only stored images after or as it was damaged, I could accept images of the attackers themselves.
This whole story seems to be missing something.
Maybe ur right. Maybe the device records all the time. So what. They can not have known either way. Wat we do know is that mcdonalds took his money while wearing it. We know that after mcdonalds had his money that the same device was such a problem that he had to leave. You cannot deny that money was taken from MrMann and that this money could have been refused prior to the assult.
only 15% of mcdonalds restraunts are owned by mcdonalds corporate. Are u suggesting that 85% of the restraunts are "not real" and that we can expect "random ejections" most of the time?
On the other hand, we only have one side of the story - it appears they are rather sensitive to anything that looks like a camera, but where would that stop? Ordinary glasses? Hearing aids? Walking sticks OK?
It should stop at damaging ones personal property for no reason. Mann handed them a note written by a doctor. What possible reason would there be to rip it up? It seems like pure intimidation by staff acting like security without any training on how to do it. If I were a judge, this would be enough to cause me to believe that the staff were not treating Mann fairly in their attempt to eject him from the premises. They really should have just stuck to physically removing him from the restaraunt instead of damaging his personal property for no reason except to inflame the situation.
Also, the restaraunt could have refused to take his money and conduct business with him while the unit was attached. Instead the staff choose to take his money and provide him with food in a contract of sale. Its unlikely that the sales agent didnt notice his prostetic. The contract of sale could have been refused, but it was accepted. So the subsequent ejection appears to be a breach of contract. Especially since ever mcdonalds I ever went to asks whether the food is "to go". If such a question is usually asked of each customer, then it will be difficult to defend the subsequent actions by staff.
McDonalds in France (and in the UK and many other countries) do not allow still cameras, video cameras or other recording equipment to be operated inside their restaurants without explicit permission from the managers.
This is clearly labelled on all the doors as you go in, not just in words, but a picture of a camera crossed out.
If you don't agree, go elsewhere, problem avoided.
Apparently not. If you happen to miss the sign at the door someone approaches you and seems to be ok with recording equipment. Then they take ur money in a legal contract of sale. Then they subsequently decide that it is now NOT OK to do what they already knew you were doing and throw you out the door while attempting to and actually destroying your physical property in the process. But all of this will happen AFTER they get your money.
If your going to speculate on what happened outside the article content, then why dont you speculate that the staff would have taken the glasses and not returned them, or dropped them on the floor and stepped on them? Because those actions seem more plausible then your speculative defence based on the facts we are told in the article. Considering the fact that the staff did destroy the only thing they could get there hands on which was a written doctors note owned by Mr Mann.
Mr Mann has done what he can to contact the parties responsible and adress this through police and consulate channels. When he was unable to get any satisfaction on this matter, he released a blog post. From the information available he has acted appropriately and done far less then he could to hold McDonalds responsible for his mistreatment. It is time for him to find a lawyer and get reimbused for his loses and then some.
I would love to hear "the other side". By I suspect McDonalds will say nothing until this is brought to court
Mr Mann should sue mcdonalds. Even if Mr Mann only wants to be rembused for physical damages I should hope that some lawyer will put a significant financial dent in this establishment and mcdonalds corporate. Even if he doesnt do this for himself, he should do this for others after him. This is a stupid policy and even stupider enforcement. McDonalds will only recognize this when it costs them money. Please sue this establishment, those employees and mcdonalds. It is the right thing to do.
I cannot believe the number of people who are choosing not to hold the restaraunt liable for this. The way he was treated was wrong and the way they handled it was wrong. The establishment took his money in a contract of sale. They could have refused him service since they already had knowledge of the device and its purpose. Instead they took his money and subsequently treated him as if he was not a welcome customer. It doesnt matter whether one guy said it was ok to be a customer and later some other employees decided it was not ok. They should have called the police instead of taking physical action on an established customer after the contract of sale was completed. They should be held fully accountable and forced to answer for this rediculous rule about cameras and how they enforce it. From the tone of most replies here, I tend to think this article is being replied to by McDonalds staff.
But it's not a real McDonalds it's just some franchise with the name over the door. Is this the normal experience for McDonalds customers? I've never been to one myself, but it doesn't make me want to try it.
Most McDonalds are francised I believe. Wikipedia states that only 15% are owned by McDonalds corporate. So what exactly are u saying? That you should only expect quality service 15% of the time and the other times you should be treated in random and prejudice ways?
This is a message directed to Steven Mann:
In the article u asked: "I don't have the resources to take on a branch of a large multi-national corporation operating in a distant country, but I could use some help and advice as to how to resolve this matter, how to ensure it doesn't happen again to me or anyone else wearing Eye Glass"
You need to sue McDonalds if you want to ensure the safety of future consumers. It is your responsibility to contact a lawyer who is willing to make them pay financially for this act of prejudice. No change will occur unless you do something to make them notice. McDonalds will only notice if a significant amount of profit is taken from them.
Even if you do not wish to be personally compensated for this public assult, you still need to find a lawyer who is willing to take money from McDonalds in order to have them notice. If you dont do this, nothing will happen and prejudicial treatment and possibly assult will occur to others less strong then you.
Please step up and make a difference. Contact a lawyer. It is not bad or evil thing to make them pay for this. This behaviour needs to change and McDonalds has no business defending such behaviour at any of their establishments.
A policy that requires no cameras in an establishment cannot be enforced due to the previlence of cell phones. I do not think they have a requirement that no cell phones are allowed to be used within McDonalds... how could they? The demographic is too large. Simply because you stood out as "different" they treated you differently then the thousands of others who take photos with cell phones and are not so obvious. They should have called the police to remove you from the estabilishment since they had already taken your money as a customer while the camera was in full site and the employees were already aware of its usage. To take ur money and then refuse to provide you with the opportunity to eat the food is not fullfilling the contract you estabilished when u gave them the money and they provided the food.
Well Im not a lawyer, but I think this is something for which they are totally liable. They damaged your equipment so it will be apparent that physical force was used. You have their pictures and location so the parties involved can be held accountable. They destroyed personal property including a note from a doctor.
I believe u have a case and if so it should be easy to find a lawyer to assist you in holding McDonalds financially responsible for damages. Please do the right thing here and contact a lawyer about suing McDonalds in general and this establishment and the employees who assulted you.
Thank u. I was reading to see when someone would say this. This story is bogus. Unless they have inside information into the company operations and private partnership deals (which I suggest they do not)... then the author is purely guessing at component pricing. There is no way to know exactly how much profit is being made and so making any comment on the content of the article is a waste of time. The only way to know for sure whether they are making a profit or possibly a loss on each unit is to wait for the manufacturer to disclose this information, and then u r trusting their press release as fact. I can not tell u the number of times a vendor agreed to sell me something at a lower price after some negotiation and said "ok, but im not making any money on this"... do u really think this statement was true?
I have been filming for a while and this is a common issue. The trick is to not react to the environment around u. But this is harder to do then u would think. This one is really bad, but all over the web u will see examples of this where the camera shakes or moves from the action immediately following some unusual or striking event.
I went down to the employment office to get some assistance finding work. There I used a USB stick to record some stuff off one of their PC's. When I came home and looked at the USB on my linux box I found a . (dot) hidden directory I did not create. I searched online and found the files within were related to a PC virus. I emailed the office and told them exactly how I got the virus. A week later I went to the office again and used a different PC. I popped the USB into my linux laptop and there it was again. I went to the secretary and told them this was unacceptable and that they were propigating viruses to their clients.
I also dislike operating systems that randomly add . (dot) hidden directories to my USB. For example apple products seem to do this. I think they add files in order to improve access to the contents or add images or something. Every time I stick my USB stick into someones Mac, I have to go through the directories it made automatically to verify that it didnt insert some malicious code.
One time the dentist accidently squirted some novocaine onto my tongue before injecting it into my cheek. After a couple minutes while he was working on me I had to stop him... because there was something large that had falling into my mouth. Turns out it was my tongue that I could no longer identify as my own.
One summer in the 90s I drove to work on a beautifully sunny day with my sun roof cracked and left it that way when I parked to keep the interior cool. When it flash flooded in the middle of the day, I didn't remember that I'd left it open and ended up with an utterly saturated car interior. I brought out a large tub with hygroscopic CaCl2 in it, left it in the car over the next few days, and thanks to the 100+`F heat, it was almost totally dry in no time.
Ok this is just nuts. I already complained about the rice in a sealed bag being an ol wives tale and now this. FYI: how long do u think it takes a super saturated car to dry in 100+ heat? A few day? correct. So exactly how did u apply the CaCl2? Did u keep the windows rolled up in the car? If so... then u were maintaining a humid evironment within the car for no reason, as the evaporated water had no where to go. And if u had the windows rolled down, then the chemicals were simply absorbing water from the whole enviroment. This is just nutty talk. There is no reason to seal things up when they are water logged. Its better to keep them open to the air and apply a fan if possible to move the evaporated water to mix into the open air. Please do not listen to these stories... keep ur devices open to the air.
Unless u have a way to apply an absorbant directly to the location of the liquid then there is nothing to do except allow evaporation to occur. The best bet is to first use a towel. When a towel can no longer access the location of the liquid... just wait.
The reason that ur electronic devices come with in sealed packets is to keep moisture and eviromental factors out. They do not have silicate packets inside the sealed package because they ship them wet. They have these packets because it is a sealed enviroment already and if moisture is already inside by accident or somehow enters the sealed container, then there is no where for the moisture to evaporate to... so they have absorbing packets. Putting wet things in a sealed container will definately cause it to take longer to dry out. The atmosphere is very good at evaporating. That is y it rains so much here. So please, use common sense and just apply a fan to help with circulation and let the enviroment do the rest. Do not waste good food on bad ideas.
Put your phone in a zip-lock bag and pour a load of rice in with it. Seal the bag and leave it for a couple of days. Alternatively, if you're a nerd like me, slip in four or five silica gel pouches you've hidden away.
Im a clutz and Ive dropped lots of electronic devices into water. The first thing to do is to shut the device off (if its on), dry the exterior and then remove the battery. If u cannot remove the battery then u r an idiot for buying a product that has only the lifespan of a battery. Do these steps as fast as possible, then relax and wait 24 hours before replacing the battery and it will probably be fine for u.
Ive never tried the rice trick, I wonder if this is sound logic since the rice does not come into contact with the internals. It seems to me that in order for the rice to absorb the moisture, that the moisture must evaporate from inside the device first. Wouldnt a fan blowing across the device remove moisture from its surrounding just as well or better? I mean if u put a cup of water in a bowl and then seal it would take longer to evaporate then without any seal watsoever?
Now u got me curious... I want to soak a sponge and leave in an open bowl and also soak a spunge and put in a sealed bag with rice to see which dries faster. I suspect open air is best at removing moisture as it evaporates. The solution u provide seems like it comes from a cook rather then a real experiment. I might be wrong.
here is a link to the mark twain short: http://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/humor/marktwain.cfm.
on a serious note, mark twain was a member of the simplified spelling board (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Spelling_Board) which was funded by Andrew Carnegie, who probably was the founder of a University or library or arts centre near u. He was a good man looking to improve things and one of his goals was to fix/improve the english language problem. With the advent of mass communication of all classes of people online... we r finally getting around to fixing these issues that we were unable to solve back then.
Hmm...So, how would you spell "cue" phonetically?
Or "dew"?
"Threw"?
"New"?
If you haven't guessed by now, this is why we don't use phonetic spelling.
ur so wrong. The only reason u debate the preferred spelling of these words is exactly because the english language sucks. and the original poster is correct that those who understand math and logic see grammar for wat it is. it is a set of illogical rules and should be replaced with something phonetic. u do realize that some languages r entirely phonetic... right? i mean if u know how to properly pronounce the word, then u know exactly how to spell it. and vice versa... all spelling has a consistant pronounciation. in english, u can hear a new word and there is no single way to no for sure how to spell it. do u think this is ideal?
get over it, english sucks... so stop providing examples of how it cannot be fixed by showing more examples of how it already sucks.
bs. there is no difference in the above. if u really want me to engage in eating ur grama, then ill leave ur home. do u think i could not get wat ur saying from speech? y do u think this is different from when u type. we r talking here. dont u get it? if u really want me to think u r about to engage in canibalism then u best provide some context to ur statement.
ur being rediculous and u no it. no one cares. embrace the future and stop holding grammar as a tool of oppression over those who understand its lack of importance.
Example.. This person sent the following to the entire company. "Hello my name is Xxxxxx Xxxx and I work in the lab and was wondering if u knew n e 1 that's selling a car because my transmititon went out on me and I have a 14 month old lil girl and we're new to Iowa and not too familure with the town. So if u can please help I would appreciate it thank u"
its strange he used 'k' in 'knew'. and 'be' before 'cause. I do appreciate his/her usage of 'u' instead of 'you'. It shows this person is embracing the new english language options we are all in the process of making. The sooner written language reflects a phonetic version of speech... the sooner we will begin to benefit from the massively parallel mind that is online collaboration.
when u said "to" u meant "too"
but who cares? for over a year now ive switched all of my writing to abreviated phonetic versions. Ex: you = u, your, you're = ur, one = 1, are = r. capitalization is totally optional, for example: I = i, Saturday = saturday. capitalization is more important for expressing importance or SHOUTING. and its not neccessary to capitalize the first word of a new sentence either... i mean we already got a period, dont u get that this means the next word is the beginning of a new sentence? many words r simply the simplest phonetic version and its no longer neccessary to worry about homonyms. i mean if u didnt know wat I meant from the context of the sentence, how would u be able to correct my when Im wrong? so using 'det' instead of 'debt' is the prefered option. contractions and possession do not require apostophes... in fact apostophes r right out.
the english language is horrible. a set of arbitrary and confusing rules. i see people use grammar as a mechanism to define class and estimate intelligence. A means to diffrentiate papers when an instructor doesnt want to be bothered to judge based on the ideas behind the words. but do u really think this is true or of value? do u believe people should be judged on what they say or the ideas they used to compose it? is ur judgement of an opinion based on special exceptions that require memorization over logic and that r unrelated to speach? especially when such corrections could be provided by a computer program?
i for 1 support change of the english language and the force of online communication that reflects speech over term papers. because I do not wish to slow the progress of positive change in the english language (yes, u can start a sentence with 'because'). i am not a religious type, so i support rapid social change over tradition.
imo the online tool of value is a spell checker... which im sure could have fixed some of my words above.
Um, it's not true. Look a little closer:
Obama became president in 2008. Most of the planes were eliminated between 2002 and 2008.
The further reductions came in 2010 when congressional Republicans cut 25% of the Forest Service's budget.
You've got to remember, Michelle Malkin is a serial liar. She's been caught so many times it's not funny. You would think at some point that she'd stop out of shame, but no.
I've got a link to a list of Malkin's greatest hits of lies. Let me know if you'd like to see it. And she NEVER updates her posts when they are proven false. Never retracts, never apologizes.
I dont know the fact, but ur math doesnt support ur claim.
2002 - 2008 = 56.8% reduction over 6 years
2008 - 2012 = 42.1% reduction over 4 years
Which means that the average annual reduction in planes from 2002 to 2008 was about 8% and then between 2008 and 2012, the average annual reduction in planes was about 9%
It seems like the reduction in planes has been constant or maybe just slightly reverse of the point u were trying to make.
Maybe u r taking ur facts from people who like to present a biased view. Because it seems that both presidents suck equally in terms of supporting these fire fighting planes u speak of.