You do not see Coke products on the other side of the store from Pepsi products, but Coke and Pepsi products next to each other.
You also don't see Coke products in a Pepsi cooler. You don't find a Coke product inside a Pepsi container and when you ask where the Pepsi is, they don't direct you to the Coke.
If YOU work for a public company and don't know the impact of the stock market on your job, YOU have no one to blame but yourself. If YOU know your job is tenuous, but don't take the steps to either eliminate your debt, put money aside, or find another job, YOU have no one to blame but yourself.
Except that I am also made responsible for the mistakes the President or CEO of a company make. If they screw up from decisions or asinine comments cause a stock fall, who do you think is made accountable for that?
Look how long she was able to drive not only one but TWO once-great companies into the ground.
I just KNOW she belongs to some secret club that has Michael Eisner and John Sculley in it.
My gut feeling is that Longhorn will knock the socks off whatever is out there at the time, unless developers really plan ahead, and come up with innovative features etc.
What, exactly, is innovative in Longhorn? Looks like everything they are making a big deal out of has been implemented in Mac OS X for almost 2 years and is being implemented into Linux desktop environments now.
So my speculation is that it is possible that Apple intends to build a new Mac aimed at the gaming market that will be compatible and play Sony's PS3 games- Apple in turn could publish games for the PS3.
Or it's possible that Apple is writing the OS for the PlayStation3.
The overwhelming majority of people do not play games on computers nor do they want to. The living room is where entertainment is king. The sheer horde of developers for consoles compared to the paltry handful for PCs should be a clue as to where the money is.
Microsoft only cares about having Windows on what people are using. If Cell workstations start becoming prolific, you'll see Windows for Cell, just like NT on PowerPC and Alpha when MS was worried RISC workstations were going to eke them out of the market.
Remember how the Emotion Engine worked us all into a lather five years ago? And when it came out, it was just merely competitive with contemporary processors?
Yup and with a hardware bug that prevented hardware anti-aliasing.
What much better off it would have been had no european ever stepped on it!
I'm sure the Incas and the Mayans would have agreed with you had they not been the victims of genocide.
I'm sure tribal Americans would agree with you also, except most of them have been victims of genocide as well. I'm sure the remaining few will agree with you.
Everyone knows the first rule of dealing with children is to make sure they are safe.
You're defending Disney because they create an entire business out of exploiting childhood and now they have no responsibility in making sure that children who are prey to their exploits are the number one safety priority?
Unless you think they should hot-glue-gun the keyboard into the PS/2 port?
This illustrates exactly that computers are not made for those types of environments. The last computer I saw made specifically for a school environment was an IBM that looked like an overgrown classic Mac, and that was back when computer makers were begging schools to upgrade their perfectly functional Apple ][e's (mid 90's). It had a lock on the back that opened a door up and let you connect and disconnect the peripherals.
The facts are that school districts get so little money from taxes (write your governor) that they have to (or are happy to) take money from whomever is willing regardless of the agenda being pushed, whether it's Microsoft and their settlement requirements or the junk food pushers.
When I was a senior in high school they decided that they would turn off all the vending machines during lunch. They found out that students were not buying the stuff they sold in the cafeteria because they could get it cheaper in the vending machines. Our cafeteria had the state funded lunch line but also had a little stand that the school ran that sold fruit and junk food (at least you could buy fresh fruit).
Well, it didn't take Pepsi long to put an end to that. It seems Pepsi paid for most extracurricular activities at my school (not just sports) it was a small school (about 1000 kids but about 10,000 in the district). Also administrators found out everyone was running late to classes because there were lines at the vending machines to get what you wanted before lunch hit.
I'm perfectly fine with companies pulling strongarm tactics like that when it benefits the students. Granted it's not altruistic, Pepsi wants young people to drink Pepsi but without them we would not have had sports, yearbook, a school paper, club international or a Thespian society at the school where I graduated.
Of course you don't because you just read the synopsis instead of TFA. It is not the search results, we all know how Google's page ranking system works. It is the "Sponsored Links" Ad Words that Google sells and are not part of the proper search results.
If you walk into a department store and you see a Polo shirt, you know it's a Polo shirt, you do not question whether the Polo shirt is authentic or not. Why should the rules change when shopping online? Why should I have to research if Google is advertising a real or fake item? It is not Google's legal right to sell a trademarked name to the highest bidder.
Even so, who is to say that by default a search engine's results imply a particular relationship to the search terms?
Ad Words are not a search engine result anymore than ads in a magazine are articles. "Sponsored Links" are in a separate space on the page and do not portray themselves as being search results.
So, in this context, the ruling could not be more stupid. How does it, in any way, hurt the consumer that competitors can advertise under queries for Louis-Vuitonn? As long as the ads are clearly marked as being adds for somebody else (as they are on Google), this will only increase competition and give the consumer more choice.
Google "Sponsored Links" are not clearly marked as being for someone else.
Trademarks are unlike other intellectual property in that they must be actively protected or they are lost. Louis Vuitton only sells their bags in their own stores. Even when they are in a department store they are in their own leased department staffed by Louis Vuitton employees. The only online retailer that has the right to sell Louis Vuitton is eLuxury. All of this is to guarantee the authenticity of an item for the purchaser. Anyone else selling bags are either fakes or grey/black market.
It is LVMH's legal responsibility to defend the use of their trademark. Google is selling the right to use the Louis Vuitton trademark to advertise. This is clearly not legal.
I think the bigger factor here is that Google was bringing to France foreign competition to French companies.
LVMH is a publicly owned company based in France. Its biggest competitor is PPR, which is also publicly owned and based in Italy. You do know what both of those companies entail and what brands they own, right?
Google was selling the rights to the Louis Vuitton trademark. They were selling companies the rights to use the trademark as a way to display their products. All the analogies thus far are wrong.
What this is like is calling information and asking for the number to Kroger and being connected to Safeway instead, or whatever company was paying the most to get the RBOC to connect people to their grocery store instead of Kroger.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why they don't let corporations do it for you.
You also don't see Coke products in a Pepsi cooler. You don't find a Coke product inside a Pepsi container and when you ask where the Pepsi is, they don't direct you to the Coke.
Except that I am also made responsible for the mistakes the President or CEO of a company make. If they screw up from decisions or asinine comments cause a stock fall, who do you think is made accountable for that?
Look how long she was able to drive not only one but TWO once-great companies into the ground.
I just KNOW she belongs to some secret club that has Michael Eisner and John Sculley in it.
Why not? It's worked for Michael Eisner.
Not too hard apparently.
What, exactly, is innovative in Longhorn? Looks like everything they are making a big deal out of has been implemented in Mac OS X for almost 2 years and is being implemented into Linux desktop environments now.
So are there still 30 ways to connect to an ethernet network?
Oompa Loompas are orange.
Like this species of worm found less than a year ago on our own planet. We have no idea what could be out there.
Or it's possible that Apple is writing the OS for the PlayStation3.
The overwhelming majority of people do not play games on computers nor do they want to. The living room is where entertainment is king. The sheer horde of developers for consoles compared to the paltry handful for PCs should be a clue as to where the money is.
Microsoft only cares about having Windows on what people are using. If Cell workstations start becoming prolific, you'll see Windows for Cell, just like NT on PowerPC and Alpha when MS was worried RISC workstations were going to eke them out of the market.
Yup and with a hardware bug that prevented hardware anti-aliasing.
I wonder how the vote would look when China and North Korea vote. Oh wait...
I'm sure the Incas and the Mayans would have agreed with you had they not been the victims of genocide.
I'm sure tribal Americans would agree with you also, except most of them have been victims of genocide as well. I'm sure the remaining few will agree with you.
You're defending Disney because they create an entire business out of exploiting childhood and now they have no responsibility in making sure that children who are prey to their exploits are the number one safety priority?
You make me sick.
This illustrates exactly that computers are not made for those types of environments. The last computer I saw made specifically for a school environment was an IBM that looked like an overgrown classic Mac, and that was back when computer makers were begging schools to upgrade their perfectly functional Apple ][e's (mid 90's). It had a lock on the back that opened a door up and let you connect and disconnect the peripherals.
Or having the papers online for parents to see what their kids are actually doing instead of just what grades they are making.
Most of my high school papers read like bs editorials but I always got A's on them, not sure why.
Except that neither Microsoft nor Toshiba gear any of their products towards students in any way.
When I was a senior in high school they decided that they would turn off all the vending machines during lunch. They found out that students were not buying the stuff they sold in the cafeteria because they could get it cheaper in the vending machines. Our cafeteria had the state funded lunch line but also had a little stand that the school ran that sold fruit and junk food (at least you could buy fresh fruit).
Well, it didn't take Pepsi long to put an end to that. It seems Pepsi paid for most extracurricular activities at my school (not just sports) it was a small school (about 1000 kids but about 10,000 in the district). Also administrators found out everyone was running late to classes because there were lines at the vending machines to get what you wanted before lunch hit.
I'm perfectly fine with companies pulling strongarm tactics like that when it benefits the students. Granted it's not altruistic, Pepsi wants young people to drink Pepsi but without them we would not have had sports, yearbook, a school paper, club international or a Thespian society at the school where I graduated.
Because I never get tired of being happy I have a Mac.
Of course you don't because you just read the synopsis instead of TFA. It is not the search results, we all know how Google's page ranking system works. It is the "Sponsored Links" Ad Words that Google sells and are not part of the proper search results.
If you walk into a department store and you see a Polo shirt, you know it's a Polo shirt, you do not question whether the Polo shirt is authentic or not. Why should the rules change when shopping online? Why should I have to research if Google is advertising a real or fake item? It is not Google's legal right to sell a trademarked name to the highest bidder.
Ad Words are not a search engine result anymore than ads in a magazine are articles. "Sponsored Links" are in a separate space on the page and do not portray themselves as being search results.
Google "Sponsored Links" are not clearly marked as being for someone else.
Trademarks are unlike other intellectual property in that they must be actively protected or they are lost. Louis Vuitton only sells their bags in their own stores. Even when they are in a department store they are in their own leased department staffed by Louis Vuitton employees. The only online retailer that has the right to sell Louis Vuitton is eLuxury. All of this is to guarantee the authenticity of an item for the purchaser. Anyone else selling bags are either fakes or grey/black market.
It is LVMH's legal responsibility to defend the use of their trademark. Google is selling the right to use the Louis Vuitton trademark to advertise. This is clearly not legal.
LVMH is a publicly owned company based in France. Its biggest competitor is PPR, which is also publicly owned and based in Italy. You do know what both of those companies entail and what brands they own, right?
Google was selling the rights to the Louis Vuitton trademark. They were selling companies the rights to use the trademark as a way to display their products. All the analogies thus far are wrong.
What this is like is calling information and asking for the number to Kroger and being connected to Safeway instead, or whatever company was paying the most to get the RBOC to connect people to their grocery store instead of Kroger.