2. Statutory Damage Fund Claimants
The plan of allocation designates $1 million of the Net Settlement Fund to a "Statutory Damage Fund," to be distributed equally among all Fund Claimants who are not Dispute Resolution Claimants. This means that if you are a member of the Class and do not fall within the definition of a "Dispute Resolution Claimant," as set out above, you can make a claim for a payment from the Statutory Damage Fund.
Ok, so what makes me a member of the class?
4. HOW DO I KNOW IF I AM PART OF THE SETTLEMENT?
On July 12, 2004, Judge Fogel entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement and certifying the following class for purposes of the settlement: All Persons who opened a PayPal account during the period from October 1, 1999 through January 31, 2004. Excluded from the class are any judicial officer to whom the lawsuit is assigned; PayPal and any of its affiliates; any current or former employee, officer, or director of PayPal; anyone who resides in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands, or United Kingdom; and all persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the class pursuant to this notice.
What are you still seem to be describing the "Dispute Resolution Claimants."
No, there are two classes, the first is the standard settlement which only requires you to have openned your account in the window. The other class is the "disputed" class that requires that you fill out one of the two forms and receives a different settlement. The first class divides equally the sum of $1 million, the second divides according to awards.
Yes, when they crossed the line from computers to music, which IS the same business (You did read your own link, right?).
From your link: ``Providing both businesses stay within their particular areas, then trademark law allows them to coexist,'' said John Linneker, a partner in intellectual property at London law firm Taylor Wessing. ``It's when computers meet the music industry that the trademark conflict blows up.''
That's his point, as long as you are in a different business you can use the name. It's pretty clear Google is infringing on his name, once they entered the price searching business.
Are you kidding? With the marketing power of coke? The real problem is when ONLY TSA workers turn in winning cans. "I er... got it from the store, also these other six"
The point was that all their probability studies are based on our technological advancement to listen. They even acknowledge that if we can hear them, we still can't respond because of the time it would take to get there.
My point is that if they are just getting to the point they can listen at the same time we are getting to the point we can listen, it'll still take another thousand years before the messages would get back and forth so either of us can hear the other. In other words, big deal we may be able to listen better in twenty years, there may be nothing to listen TO.
Doesn't this imply they believe that alien life is thousands of years ahead of us in technology?
Consider this paragraph: Within a generation, radio emissions from enough stars will be observed and analysed to find the first alien civilisation, Shostak estimates. But because they will probably be between 200 and 1000 light years away, sending a radio message back will take centuries.
Ok, if they are on roughly the same time line we are, they'd have to have sent the messages 200 to 1000 years ago for us to GET the messages. It works both ways, they have to be AHEAD of us, significantly, to say that just because we're ready to hear them, if they exist, they'll have a message for us to hear.
While I essentially agree, you can get tricked by the samples they play. While browsing for new music by randomly clicking through the recommended links, I got to a band who's name I don't recall with a very nice song. It was kinda of a slow acustic and piano kinda ballad thing. My wife liked it and she bought it. We were playing it, and about 10 seconds after the preview stopped (about 2 minutes into the sound) it goes from being the slow love song to some kinda techno angst fest. Turns out after doing more research that it was a popular gay band, so after listening to the lyrics more carefully we came to the conclusion that that was LITERALLY the "ass pounding" section of the song. It was pretty funny, serves us right for not researching indy bands more carefully before buying.
And I'm not a good-ol-boy, why, I've never even seen the Appalacians!
Why, that's too bad. The view is breathtaking, particularly over the Shenandoah Valley. The other nice thing is that if you are white, stupid, uncaring and racist you can get the "Republican Discount" which should appeal to your cheap, greedy and selfish side.
I'd make a sheep comment, but it could be misconstrued by those tree hugging demmie hippies as they read/. from a kiosk in Starbucks, since they are too busy picking the granola from their Birkenstocks as they complain that the rich aren't doing their part for the poor, which they express by sending celebrities to high price fund raisers and complaining about the bums bothering them on the way in.
24 million people went to THAT McDonald's THAT morning? They must be busy.
Besides, one of the points of the case that helped win it was that she wasn't the first one burned, just the first one burned that badly. There were hundreds of complaints that weren't acted on.
Well the system has been in place for a very long time. You could easily say if it weren't for the diligence of the current leadership (and I have no idea who's iniative the much needed repairs fall under) the system would have been left in the state it was in. Thank goodness that soon we'll be able to access the records which were decided to be so important in the 1930s.
Well, maybe not. Many of the complaints allege that the shock of burning their mouths caused them to drop the cup. I don't recall immedeately if SHE was one of those that allegeded that, because I'm getting the details between the original lawsuit with the lady and the copycat lawsuit with the man confused in my head.
I'm still not entirely sure that I agree with your premise, though, that a company is only liable for the safety of their product if you use it on their premises. To me it seems the point of the case is they misrepresented a dangerous product as a safe one. You have a reasonable right to expect your food products, which are being dispensed into a movable vehicle to be safe to consume in that same moving vehicle. It doesn't matter that she happened to have burned her lap so much as the coffee shouldn't have been able of causing burns that severe. She's probably GLAD it's her lap and not her mouth that was burned through the dermis.
After reading through that report I'm not entirely convinced it's as far fetched as it sounds. Yes, it's clearly a very poorly designed system, but the arguement they are making is that the system wasn't designed to be able to keep running as well as provide the overhead for copying. While they didn't give reasons for it, failed back ups could cause this sort of situation, as well as a system grossly over it's intended maximum capacity.
Think about it, Slashdot crashes systems regularly. Of COURSE they need to fix it, then readdress the requests they receive in the interim. I'll believe it's entirely conspiracy and not just stupidity when they come up with other excuses after the revamp is supposed to be in place.
Doubt it, the set up for the joke to work (I know, I must be new here) is so limited as to avoid common usage. Now, you could COMBINE them (In Redmond, the lawsuits go to 11) but used on it's own there are very few situations where it makes sense. This case was actually pretty decent, in my personal view.
Besides, it's a pretty old joke so if it hasn't caught on yet, it's not very likely. It still fits the bill nicely as a pseudo-chuckle level punchline when applied to a comparison between products that seem superficially similar.
You scared the hell out of me. I thought you had my rock for a second and I had to check the room for tigers. Fortunately, I still have mine. The guy that sold it to me told me it was the only one! Small world eh?
Re:Cognitive dissonance
on
VoIP Questioned
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Because it's a conflict in what you know and new information.
In otherwords:
Point A: VoIP fails if the power is off.
and
Point B: Broadband over powerlines is better.
conflict because the base condition does not change: You can not communicate if your COMMUNICATION DEVICE itself does not have power. Cognitive dissonance is the need to rationalize or otherwise explain away information that contradicts information they already believe. In this case, it actually works both ways: VoIP must have flaws so I'll think of some whether or not they make sense. As well as: VoIP isn't as good as some other technology because it would fail in a certain condition THAT ALSO MAKES THE OTHER fail.
Re:Cognitive dissonance
on
VoIP Questioned
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What, that if your computer is off it can't send information, but it'd still be able to send information over power lines?
How exactly do they intend to maintain a network over powerlines if the power lines are down, and if the powerlines supply the power to the datacom devices that are transmitting over them?
Security through obscurity isn't intrinsically bad. That's essentially how I keep people both out of my car and my home. How many tumbler combinations are there for the typical doorknob anyway?
Slashdot Mirror
There are THREE forms, as outlined in the claim letter:
Statutory Damage Claim Form,
Short Claim Form,
Long Claim Form
2. Statutory Damage Fund Claimants The plan of allocation designates $1 million of the Net Settlement Fund to a "Statutory Damage Fund," to be distributed equally among all Fund Claimants who are not Dispute Resolution Claimants. This means that if you are a member of the Class and do not fall within the definition of a "Dispute Resolution Claimant," as set out above, you can make a claim for a payment from the Statutory Damage Fund.
Ok, so what makes me a member of the class?
4. HOW DO I KNOW IF I AM PART OF THE SETTLEMENT? On July 12, 2004, Judge Fogel entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement and certifying the following class for purposes of the settlement: All Persons who opened a PayPal account during the period from October 1, 1999 through January 31, 2004. Excluded from the class are any judicial officer to whom the lawsuit is assigned; PayPal and any of its affiliates; any current or former employee, officer, or director of PayPal; anyone who resides in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands, or United Kingdom; and all persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the class pursuant to this notice.
What are you still seem to be describing the "Dispute Resolution Claimants."
No, there are two classes, the first is the standard settlement which only requires you to have openned your account in the window. The other class is the "disputed" class that requires that you fill out one of the two forms and receives a different settlement. The first class divides equally the sum of $1 million, the second divides according to awards.
Yes, when they crossed the line from computers to music, which IS the same business (You did read your own link, right?).
From your link: ``Providing both businesses stay within their particular areas, then trademark law allows them to coexist,'' said John Linneker, a partner in intellectual property at London law firm Taylor Wessing. ``It's when computers meet the music industry that the trademark conflict blows up.''
That's his point, as long as you are in a different business you can use the name. It's pretty clear Google is infringing on his name, once they entered the price searching business.
Are you kidding? With the marketing power of coke? The real problem is when ONLY TSA workers turn in winning cans. "I er... got it from the store, also these other six"
The point was that all their probability studies are based on our technological advancement to listen. They even acknowledge that if we can hear them, we still can't respond because of the time it would take to get there.
My point is that if they are just getting to the point they can listen at the same time we are getting to the point we can listen, it'll still take another thousand years before the messages would get back and forth so either of us can hear the other. In other words, big deal we may be able to listen better in twenty years, there may be nothing to listen TO.
Completely meaningless.
Doesn't this imply they believe that alien life is thousands of years ahead of us in technology?
Consider this paragraph:
Within a generation, radio emissions from enough stars will be observed and analysed to find the first alien civilisation, Shostak estimates. But because they will probably be between 200 and 1000 light years away, sending a radio message back will take centuries.
Ok, if they are on roughly the same time line we are, they'd have to have sent the messages 200 to 1000 years ago for us to GET the messages. It works both ways, they have to be AHEAD of us, significantly, to say that just because we're ready to hear them, if they exist, they'll have a message for us to hear.
While I essentially agree, you can get tricked by the samples they play. While browsing for new music by randomly clicking through the recommended links, I got to a band who's name I don't recall with a very nice song. It was kinda of a slow acustic and piano kinda ballad thing. My wife liked it and she bought it. We were playing it, and about 10 seconds after the preview stopped (about 2 minutes into the sound) it goes from being the slow love song to some kinda techno angst fest. Turns out after doing more research that it was a popular gay band, so after listening to the lyrics more carefully we came to the conclusion that that was LITERALLY the "ass pounding" section of the song. It was pretty funny, serves us right for not researching indy bands more carefully before buying.
See, this is where English doesn't translate well. WiFI isn't a Hubby tax; she's taxing on the Hubby.
And I'm not a good-ol-boy, why, I've never even seen the Appalacians!
/. from a kiosk in Starbucks, since they are too busy picking the granola from their Birkenstocks as they complain that the rich aren't doing their part for the poor, which they express by sending celebrities to high price fund raisers and complaining about the bums bothering them on the way in.
Why, that's too bad. The view is breathtaking, particularly over the Shenandoah Valley. The other nice thing is that if you are white, stupid, uncaring and racist you can get the "Republican Discount" which should appeal to your cheap, greedy and selfish side.
I'd make a sheep comment, but it could be misconstrued by those tree hugging demmie hippies as they read
24 million people went to THAT McDonald's THAT morning? They must be busy.
Besides, one of the points of the case that helped win it was that she wasn't the first one burned, just the first one burned that badly. There were hundreds of complaints that weren't acted on.
Well the system has been in place for a very long time. You could easily say if it weren't for the diligence of the current leadership (and I have no idea who's iniative the much needed repairs fall under) the system would have been left in the state it was in. Thank goodness that soon we'll be able to access the records which were decided to be so important in the 1930s.
Well, maybe not. Many of the complaints allege that the shock of burning their mouths caused them to drop the cup. I don't recall immedeately if SHE was one of those that allegeded that, because I'm getting the details between the original lawsuit with the lady and the copycat lawsuit with the man confused in my head.
I'm still not entirely sure that I agree with your premise, though, that a company is only liable for the safety of their product if you use it on their premises. To me it seems the point of the case is they misrepresented a dangerous product as a safe one. You have a reasonable right to expect your food products, which are being dispensed into a movable vehicle to be safe to consume in that same moving vehicle. It doesn't matter that she happened to have burned her lap so much as the coffee shouldn't have been able of causing burns that severe. She's probably GLAD it's her lap and not her mouth that was burned through the dermis.
Apparently you've never watched Highlander.
Nu-uh.
After reading through that report I'm not entirely convinced it's as far fetched as it sounds. Yes, it's clearly a very poorly designed system, but the arguement they are making is that the system wasn't designed to be able to keep running as well as provide the overhead for copying. While they didn't give reasons for it, failed back ups could cause this sort of situation, as well as a system grossly over it's intended maximum capacity.
Think about it, Slashdot crashes systems regularly. Of COURSE they need to fix it, then readdress the requests they receive in the interim. I'll believe it's entirely conspiracy and not just stupidity when they come up with other excuses after the revamp is supposed to be in place.
Doubt it, the set up for the joke to work (I know, I must be new here) is so limited as to avoid common usage. Now, you could COMBINE them (In Redmond, the lawsuits go to 11) but used on it's own there are very few situations where it makes sense. This case was actually pretty decent, in my personal view.
Besides, it's a pretty old joke so if it hasn't caught on yet, it's not very likely. It still fits the bill nicely as a pseudo-chuckle level punchline when applied to a comparison between products that seem superficially similar.
You scared the hell out of me. I thought you had my rock for a second and I had to check the room for tigers. Fortunately, I still have mine. The guy that sold it to me told me it was the only one! Small world eh?
Because it's a conflict in what you know and new information.
In otherwords:
Point A: VoIP fails if the power is off.
and
Point B: Broadband over powerlines is better.
conflict because the base condition does not change: You can not communicate if your COMMUNICATION DEVICE itself does not have power. Cognitive dissonance is the need to rationalize or otherwise explain away information that contradicts information they already believe. In this case, it actually works both ways: VoIP must have flaws so I'll think of some whether or not they make sense. As well as: VoIP isn't as good as some other technology because it would fail in a certain condition THAT ALSO MAKES THE OTHER fail.
What, that if your computer is off it can't send information, but it'd still be able to send information over power lines?
How exactly do they intend to maintain a network over powerlines if the power lines are down, and if the powerlines supply the power to the datacom devices that are transmitting over them?
Security through obscurity isn't intrinsically bad. That's essentially how I keep people both out of my car and my home. How many tumbler combinations are there for the typical doorknob anyway?
Again?
I reject your theory. I only recently saw Wolf Blitzer tell John Kerry he "needs to piss off and die already."
Ahem, you have a typo. You meant:
software
Didn't you?