There may be someone here with reading comprehension problems, but I am not it.
Reading that "sentence" is problematic, I grant you.
Anyway, you are still either deliberately evading or misunderstanding the issue. Since you're also being such a smarmy asshole, I don't care to try to work out which.
Basically, McDonalds is considered to have a "family" of marks
Interesting, but irrelevant. In this case, the "CityYEAR" family does not belong to a single entity. Each one is associated with an entity in each city. I doubt they are associated in any legal sense, since many are or were bitter rivals. So there is a "family" of names, but who they are presumed to belong to is not obvious.
when you're talking about famous marks.
Again irrelvant, as these are certainly not "famous". I never knew that Chicago was contending for the 2016 Olympics till today, for instance.
According to TFA, "city year" combos have become a common method of referring to a specific instance of the Olympics. e.g. Syndney 2000, Athens 2004, Beijing 2008, etc. Such naming has all the trappings of a protected mark.
Really? You can trademark a pattern? I think not. Examples? And in any case each of these "city year" patterns would belong to a DIFFERENT entity in each city. So it hardly establishes anyone's right to this.
I think you missed the point of the comment about the Chinese getting of scot-free.
I certainly did. On its face it's completely wrong.
I'd argue that the Chinese government is just as culpable
True. That is a quite different subject, though.
The problem is using "the Chinese" to refer to the businessmen who make money from dumping, the bureaucrats who ignore the problems or write it off as a necessary cost; the workers who destroy their health to make a few dollars, the local people whose land is poisoned. All are "Chinese". Some of them may be considered to "get off scot free". Others are "culpable". Others are suffering terrible conseqences. It's wrong to just say that "China" is getting what it deserves. Equally it's wrong to put all the blame on western businesses.
OK, what do you do when your Chinese counterpart assures you that all measures will be taken, takes you on a tour of their modern facility, presents impeccable paperwork from the State Environmental Administration certifying him as a Grade-A eco-disposal facility...and then ships the waste out the back door
And this happened to who? Anyone you can name? Or is it just a fairy tale you made up so you can absolve yourself of all responsibility? In reality, the American company only wants two things: a certificate stating the waste was disposed of legally, and a cheap price. What actually happens to the waste, they care as little as you evidently do.
Especially when the Chinese get off scot-free and USA gets the blame once again.
Excause me? The Chinese who are dying of cancer and poisoned in numerous ways are getting off "scot-free"? The farmers whose crops are contaminated? How dare they complain. Time for some regime change, hey?
your reference to the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings as an act of war.
I didn't, though it's possible to read that into it I suppose.
"Act of war" was a short way of saying "attack with huge explosives". We're talking about the physical effect, not the legal ramifications. It doesn't matter if it was a cruise missile aimed by uniformed soldiers during a declared war, or local nutjobs with a fertilizer bomb, or foreign terrorists hijacking jets, or Martians. My point is that it is basically impossible to design a building to defend against it.
The legal definition is another argument. I guess that war is normally between two nation states. Whatever bin Laden imagines, he does not lead a state.
Would the fact that we've learned something new about steel thanks to the way the Twin Towers fell
Nothing "new" was learnt. You didn't know that hot steel gets softer?
As TFA says:
"[The steel] becomes very soft. It is not melting but the effect is the same," said Dr Dudarev. He said blacksmiths had exploited this property for hundreds of years - it allows iron to become pliable at temperatures much lower than its melting point.
It was just irresistible for the journalists to gratuitously link this to the anniversary of 9/11. I really doubt they would be using this "super steel" in skyscrapers, it would probably cost a fortune and having jet planes full of fuel crashing into them is a very, very, very, low risk event. The Twin Towers, like all such buildings, were built exactly as strong as they would need to be to withstand storms and earthquakes, but not acts of war. You want that, build a bunker, not a skyscraper.
It is, "do not do anything that may negatively effect profits"
ANY act can "negatively [a]ffect profits". It's not at all clear, and not likely provable in a court, that being more open would do so, in any but the very short term.
Then there's the fact that many e-mails are pieces of conversations that spread over multiple e-mails (e.g. question e-mail, answer e-mail, thanks e-mail)
On top of this there are things like mailing lists and automated e-mails that pretty much mean you're pretty much being spammed by your colleagues or automated agents.
The end result is that the information to noise ratio of e-mails is much, much worse than in traditional means of communication.
If you just let everything pile up in your inbox.
If you create some filters so low priority stuff (most mailing lists, eg) goes to an appropriate folder, and doesn't pop up an alert, (or reverse it and have a whitelist of important senders and/or topics) you can improve your ratio a lot. Much better than you can with any other form of communication.
Interesting article. However, that case was specifically about whether a company should invest in things, as opposed to paying dividends and maximising short-term income.
To generalise this to "do nothing unless it's profitable" is a gross simplification, and I believe not justifiable. In the Red Hat case, the courses of action are not so simple. They are about the best thing for the reputation of the company and either course could be chosen, depending on the judgement of the executives. I really doubt a court could rule that being more open was damaging the interests of the shareholders.
However, corporate assholes love to cite such cases as they shrug off any non-fiduciary considerations. Perhaps they should remember a later case that established that morality is not waived by being in a chain of command: Nuremberg Defence:
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
Uh huh... try convincing the public to dedicate such government funding to a scheme that would place 1500, 300-ton boats on open waters.
1500 ships in the Pacific? It's like... pissing in the ocean. There are plenty of never or hardly traversed areas of the oceans, away from sealanes, and they would not be in anyone's way. They'd all have GPS and be reporting their locations continuously anyway.
As for theft, piracy, the "autonomous" part of the story is a bit idealistic. They should have a skeleton crew for maintenance, emergencies, like a lighthouse, and to guard them from malicious damage. There's not likely to be much worth the risk of stealing anyway.
water expands when frozen, and 90% of an iceberg is below water... any flooding that occurs isn't going to be of the magnitude most people seem to be expecting
The ice in Greenland and Antarctica is kilometres thick. It's not in the ocean. When it melts, it will be. Then the sea rises my several metres.
You may not write any data to the drive or disassemble the drive.
RTFA. (How does someone get modded "insightful" when they haven't?)
That's not in the challenge NOW. It was some months ago, as he didn't want to supply a unlimited number of drives for people to trash, but now the drive does not have to be returned, you can do what you like.
Just think of how bad text message spam would be if those tricksy Chineses were able to reach us? I imagine it's largely preventative given the amount of spam originating from that country.
Actually most of the "Chinese" spam does not originate there. It's paid for by American spammers, to sell American products. See the ROKSO list if you have any doubts.
Ill-informed American gun nut alert. Prepare for gusts of complete bullshit and "facts" gleaned from American gun advocacy groups trying to paint the rest of the world as "deprived" of their God-given Right to Bear Arms, and how they're all pansies/Commies/Muslims who Hate Freedom because they think guns are best left to the army and not vigilante cowboys.
If a government body wants to save costs, saying "it will create thousands of jobs" isn't exactly a good thing. Amazingly enough when people get jobs, they expect to be paid.
In this case, I think the meaning is "create thousands of jobs IN CANADA, as opposed to Seattle. Even if the expenditure is similar, governments should prefer to spend their money on their own constituents (who will also pay tax and return a good proportion).
And while I'm at it:
The headline; "Changing Customers Password Without Consent" needs a possessive apostrophe ("Customer's") and in the text:
"a sense of humour rears it's ugly head" should NOT have an apostrophe.
Slashdot "editors"? Where can I get a job like that you can do blind drunk while playing video games?
Even in the US, I believe "Lloyd" is the usual form of this name. TFA (the BBC) of course spells it correctly, and includes a photo of the bank's logo.
Slashdot Mirror
Reading that "sentence" is problematic, I grant you.
Anyway, you are still either deliberately evading or misunderstanding the issue. Since you're also being such a smarmy asshole, I don't care to try to work out which.
And yes, you are tiresome.
Interesting, but irrelevant. In this case, the "CityYEAR" family does not belong to a single entity. Each one is associated with an entity in each city. I doubt they are associated in any legal sense, since many are or were bitter rivals. So there is a "family" of names, but who they are presumed to belong to is not obvious.
when you're talking about famous marks.
Again irrelvant, as these are certainly not "famous". I never knew that Chicago was contending for the 2016 Olympics till today, for instance.
Really? You can trademark a pattern? I think not. Examples? And in any case each of these "city year" patterns would belong to a DIFFERENT entity in each city. So it hardly establishes anyone's right to this.
I certainly did. On its face it's completely wrong.
I'd argue that the Chinese government is just as culpable
True. That is a quite different subject, though.
The problem is using "the Chinese" to refer to the businessmen who make money from dumping, the bureaucrats who ignore the problems or write it off as a necessary cost; the workers who destroy their health to make a few dollars, the local people whose land is poisoned. All are "Chinese". Some of them may be considered to "get off scot free". Others are "culpable". Others are suffering terrible conseqences. It's wrong to just say that "China" is getting what it deserves. Equally it's wrong to put all the blame on western businesses.
And this happened to who? Anyone you can name? Or is it just a fairy tale you made up so you can absolve yourself of all responsibility? In reality, the American company only wants two things: a certificate stating the waste was disposed of legally, and a cheap price. What actually happens to the waste, they care as little as you evidently do.
Especially when the Chinese get off scot-free and USA gets the blame once again.
Excause me? The Chinese who are dying of cancer and poisoned in numerous ways are getting off "scot-free"? The farmers whose crops are contaminated? How dare they complain. Time for some regime change, hey?
I didn't, though it's possible to read that into it I suppose.
"Act of war" was a short way of saying "attack with huge explosives". We're talking about the physical effect, not the legal ramifications. It doesn't matter if it was a cruise missile aimed by uniformed soldiers during a declared war, or local nutjobs with a fertilizer bomb, or foreign terrorists hijacking jets, or Martians. My point is that it is basically impossible to design a building to defend against it.
The legal definition is another argument. I guess that war is normally between two nation states. Whatever bin Laden imagines, he does not lead a state.
Nothing "new" was learnt. You didn't know that hot steel gets softer?
As TFA says:
It was just irresistible for the journalists to gratuitously link this to the anniversary of 9/11. I really doubt they would be using this "super steel" in skyscrapers, it would probably cost a fortune and having jet planes full of fuel crashing into them is a very, very, very, low risk event. The Twin Towers, like all such buildings, were built exactly as strong as they would need to be to withstand storms and earthquakes, but not acts of war. You want that, build a bunker, not a skyscraper.
ANY act can "negatively [a]ffect profits". It's not at all clear, and not likely provable in a court, that being more open would do so, in any but the very short term.
If you just let everything pile up in your inbox.
If you create some filters so low priority stuff (most mailing lists, eg) goes to an appropriate folder, and doesn't pop up an alert, (or reverse it and have a whitelist of important senders and/or topics) you can improve your ratio a lot. Much better than you can with any other form of communication.
i agree that it's ridiculous. it is however true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company
Interesting article. However, that case was specifically about whether a company should invest in things, as opposed to paying dividends and maximising short-term income.
To generalise this to "do nothing unless it's profitable" is a gross simplification, and I believe not justifiable. In the Red Hat case, the courses of action are not so simple. They are about the best thing for the reputation of the company and either course could be chosen, depending on the judgement of the executives. I really doubt a court could rule that being more open was damaging the interests of the shareholders.
However, corporate assholes love to cite such cases as they shrug off any non-fiduciary considerations. Perhaps they should remember a later case that established that morality is not waived by being in a chain of command: Nuremberg Defence:
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
1500 ships in the Pacific? It's like... pissing in the ocean. There are plenty of never or hardly traversed areas of the oceans, away from sealanes, and they would not be in anyone's way. They'd all have GPS and be reporting their locations continuously anyway.
As for theft, piracy, the "autonomous" part of the story is a bit idealistic. They should have a skeleton crew for maintenance, emergencies, like a lighthouse, and to guard them from malicious damage. There's not likely to be much worth the risk of stealing anyway.
The ice in Greenland and Antarctica is kilometres thick. It's not in the ocean. When it melts, it will be. Then the sea rises my several metres.
No, they do not. I suspect he has changed the terms since the original posting, as it is certainly no the case if you RTFA now.
RTFA. (How does someone get modded "insightful" when they haven't?)
That's not in the challenge NOW. It was some months ago, as he didn't want to supply a unlimited number of drives for people to trash, but now the drive does not have to be returned, you can do what you like.
Watch the video. They show the upcoming model (the black one) that is $98.
That's the most extreme version of "young earth creationism" I've come across. Where do they teac that? Utah?
Actually most of the "Chinese" spam does not originate there. It's paid for by American spammers, to sell American products. See the ROKSO list if you have any doubts.
Ill-informed American gun nut alert. Prepare for gusts of complete bullshit and "facts" gleaned from American gun advocacy groups trying to paint the rest of the world as "deprived" of their God-given Right to Bear Arms, and how they're all pansies/Commies/Muslims who Hate Freedom because they think guns are best left to the army and not vigilante cowboys.
In this case, I think the meaning is "create thousands of jobs IN CANADA, as opposed to Seattle. Even if the expenditure is similar, governments should prefer to spend their money on their own constituents (who will also pay tax and return a good proportion).
Each license bought allows for tech support from Microsoft. Is there any such tech support from open source developers?
Of course there is. ....
https://www.redhat.com/apps/support/
http://www.ubuntu.com/support/paid
http://www.novell.com/support/product/products.do
http://www-03.ibm.com/linux/prod_svc.html
The headline; "Changing Customers Password Without Consent" needs a possessive apostrophe ("Customer's") and in the text:
"a sense of humour rears it's ugly head" should NOT have an apostrophe.
Slashdot "editors"? Where can I get a job like that you can do blind drunk while playing video games?
Even in the US, I believe "Lloyd" is the usual form of this name. TFA (the BBC) of course spells it correctly, and includes a photo of the bank's logo.
No, it doesn't, not since early mock ups.
Correct. Also not useful to prevent tooth decay.