Now take someone living in Japan and you'll see that they don't have our obesity and health problems. Probably because they don't use cars as much as we do and use their nice public transportation and walk a lot and their diet consists of generally healthy things like fish.
Ever have that dream where a long lost uncle in your family that was filthy rich and you never knew about keels over and leaves you as their heir in the will?
And the folk who Hate (with a capital H) the idea that Google is doing it. And the folk who wanted to do what Google is doing but didn't have the balls/means to do it first.
Read up on class action lawsuits. If you don't understand them then don't bother posting comments to this story till you do. It'll help you avoid looking like a fool.
Yes, I'm coming off as an ass. Yes, it's because I'm frustrated with the same question coming up every fucking time the Google settlement is discussed. No, it's not meant to be personal.
The Settlement covers Books only if they were published on or before January 5, 2009. Books published after January 5, 2009 are not included in the Settlement. Further, the Settlement only covers Inserts that are contained in Books, government works or public domain books that were published on or before January 5, 2009.
Secondly, the EULA doesn't state that the retailer of the product is obligated to refund the user's money for the Microsoft license.
As you say, bullshit.
By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, contact the manufacturer or installer to determine their return policy for a refund or credit.
Actually it's more like purchasing a car and upon putting the key in the ignition and attempting to start the car, you are presented with a legal document requiring you sign away a number of your rights concerning the car.
You can, if you have the know-how, remove the manufacturer provided starter and ignition system, and replace it with your own, and thus get it running without agreeing, but are then stuck with the cost of doing that along with the cost of the original system.
This of course, ignores the fact that in our analogy, the car is being made and sold by the same company and thus cost of the ignition system would be hard to separate from the cost of the rest of the car, where in reality the car is being assembled from off the shelf parts and the cost of the starter system they've chosen is simply being passed along to the consumer.
Au Contraire, if you sell a product which has undisclosed terms refusing those terms should result in a refund. In order to use Microsoft Windows, you must accept their EULA. Unless you are claiming the Lenovo forced him to agree to the EULA prior to purchasing the computer, then those terms were undisclosed up to the point where he booted the computer and was presented with them.
On one hand, haven't had to deal with Wikipedia editors before, I understand the pain. On the other hand, everything you've complained about is something that is also 'understandable'.
Wikipedia wants to be a reference guide. In otherwords, they want to be the people who consolidate and present existing information, not people who provide 'new' information.
So adding raw information without having a source is verboten.
And the reason for 'no blogs' is just as understandable. While I'm admitidly pulling this number out of thin air, my experience is that 90% of the blogs out there are gone two years later. Often, completely gone as in not only did the author stop updating but you can't even find the old content outside of being lucky enough for a Google cache or Wayback Machine snapshot.
Additionally, when you edit an article, that marks it as changed on the logs. Editors that are being 'conciencious' (or just officious) often review these articles to ensure that someone isn't stealthly defacing the entire site. Just because the external links section managed to miss being caught when the article was written, doesn't mean that when someone comes back and looks at it, they should ignore the fact that it's simply full of old blog links.
Many of the problems with Wikipedia are in fact with the culture that has taken it over (or always was there). But sometimes the problem really is the submission itself and people not getting the 'point' of Wikipedia.
That being said, I think a number of Wikipedia editors could use a life time supply of suppositories to help with their issues.
I'd argue the reverse. If you aren't exempt (i.e. you receive overtime pay) then take be on the clock as much as you want, as long as you are actually getting paid for it (and if you aren't then you damn well better be talking to the DOL).
If you are exempt however, you are part of the problem by putting in so much time and not kicking up a fuss. America is full of 'idiots' who aim for that mythical salary wage thinking that they are going to get a fair shake from their boss (i.e. you put in 60 hours a week for a while, you should be able to cut back some in compensation afterwards).
Here's the facts of life, the more work you put in as a salaried employee, the less labor they have to pay out. Even the bosses that are honest have to budget and are going to base it on what's getting done now and what's not getting done vs. "Well things are going ok right now but that's only because Tim is putting in 50 hours a week..." things just don't work that way in real life. Trust me.
You are NEVER going to get a fair shake as a salaried worker in America without fighting for it. Frankly, if you are salaried, and you aren't looking to be the CEO some day, then letting yourself be put into a situation where you are putting in more than 40 hours a week on a regular bases is both foolish and harmful for the rest of your peers.
And what kind of evidence would it take to convince a judge that this has happened?
About the same amount that it would take to convince someone that your copyright infringement was protected as fair use, an arbritrary and undetermined amount that would only be defined at the moment the case was being decided.
I think that's "arbitrary/fanciful", not generic... and I think you'll find that Apple computer didn't make it impossible for you to sell apples, what they did is get a lock on the association between apples and computers.They could not, for example, sell products associated with music without paying off the old Apple records (the label/recording studio started by the Beatles).
Because the Beatles themselves trademarked Apple prior to "Apple" doing so. Thus proving the issue with 'generic'. You can trademark anything, generic or no, as long as no one else has and as long as your use of it can be defined in a way that you aren't attempting to trademark the 'genericness' of the term. Remember, a trademark in essense, your calling card. It has to have a distictive character that allows the consumer to identify you by it.
You can't trademark Apple as a grocers distributor, because that would be too close to what an apple is. You can't trademark Apple as a computer maker, because that 'identity' is already in use. You can't trademark Apple as a music company, because that 'identity' is also already in use.
But you probably could call your new rocketship company "Apple" (assuming there isn't one already). And you could do so even though Apple Inc. is still selling computers and even though Apple Records is still selling music.
And thus, there isn't really a way to 'generize' something in a way that would inoculate it from being trademarked later.
Trademarks that are lost to generic use are lost because they lose their identity as individual products, we call any paper tissue product klennix, these days so the company that trademarked it lost their trademark. But even now, if I opened Klennix Logging or Klennix Autos, I'd still be able to trademark it.
The way you make something generic is by convincing everyone to use it in a generic sense. Even then though, Apple is a trademark yet an apple is about as generic as you can get.
I doubt there could be such a thing since the point of a trademark is significantly different from that of copyright.
Trademarks are meant (not that they always are) to simply be an 'identity'. In other words, you trademark something in order to prevent others from appearing to be you by using that mark.
You trademark the word "Edge" because you presumably do business in some form or another as "Edge". Either you sell "Edge" or you are "Edge" and are selling something, or you have a character "Edge" as an advertisement, and etc.
Thus, there is no real "release to the public" analog, other than simply abandoning your trademark by no longer using it. And that doesn't really 'trademark left' it, it just means it's no longer currently considered a trademark. If someone else came along after you abandoned the trademark, they could just as easily start their own "Edge" trademark.
The dictionary was based on Wiktionary. So I would imagine it could quite possibly contain the fabled seven words and many others. Regardless, it's disingenuous to say that you aren't censoring apps and that the developer did it voluntarily, when the actual truth is you were rejecting the app and the developer had the choice of waiting for an undetermined amount of time (till you actually implmented the partenal controls) or 'self-censoring'.
That's like saying, "No, we didn't force a confession out of him, we just kept hitting him till he felt like talking."
"I'm somewhat inclined to believe the only reason Apple are so hell-bent on denying you service with any carrier of your choosing is due to their exclusive (and soon-up-for-renewal) contract with AT&T."
My very first computer was actually a Timex/Sinclair ZX81 with a membrane Dvorak keyboard and a port for 16K ram upgrades. However given the games for it consisted of things that would make a WarioWare minigame look complex, I chose not to mention it. ^_^
On a system designed with it in mind, yes it was. I'm possibly a rare individual who grew up starting with an Atari ST (two buttoned mice that were made out of bricks it seemed), moved on to a Mac (the famous ACB one button mouse), and then to the PC (cheap as shit multi-button mice).
While having more buttons in the Windows world was definately a must, back in the System 7 days and before, having one button was not an issue and given most PC mice in the day were made of plastic that felt as if it would shatter if sneezed at forcefully, having a mouse that had 'heft' meant I actually felt as if I had better control on those rare few games that were worth playing than I did on the PC games that came later.
Slashdot Mirror
That and they tend to kill themselves before they can become part of the statistic.
Ever have that dream where a long lost uncle in your family that was filthy rich and you never knew about keels over and leaves you as their heir in the will?
The folk complaining are the ones who still have that dream or the ones who make money off them.
And the folk who Hate (with a capital H) the idea that Google is doing it. And the folk who wanted to do what Google is doing but didn't have the balls/means to do it first.
Read up on class action lawsuits. If you don't understand them then don't bother posting comments to this story till you do. It'll help you avoid looking like a fool.
Yes, I'm coming off as an ass. Yes, it's because I'm frustrated with the same question coming up every fucking time the Google settlement is discussed. No, it's not meant to be personal.
Does this Settlement cover Books published in 2009?
As you say, bullshit.
Actually it's more like purchasing a car and upon putting the key in the ignition and attempting to start the car, you are presented with a legal document requiring you sign away a number of your rights concerning the car.
You can, if you have the know-how, remove the manufacturer provided starter and ignition system, and replace it with your own, and thus get it running without agreeing, but are then stuck with the cost of doing that along with the cost of the original system.
This of course, ignores the fact that in our analogy, the car is being made and sold by the same company and thus cost of the ignition system would be hard to separate from the cost of the rest of the car, where in reality the car is being assembled from off the shelf parts and the cost of the starter system they've chosen is simply being passed along to the consumer.
Au Contraire, if you sell a product which has undisclosed terms refusing those terms should result in a refund. In order to use Microsoft Windows, you must accept their EULA. Unless you are claiming the Lenovo forced him to agree to the EULA prior to purchasing the computer, then those terms were undisclosed up to the point where he booted the computer and was presented with them.
On one hand, haven't had to deal with Wikipedia editors before, I understand the pain. On the other hand, everything you've complained about is something that is also 'understandable'.
Wikipedia wants to be a reference guide. In otherwords, they want to be the people who consolidate and present existing information, not people who provide 'new' information.
So adding raw information without having a source is verboten.
And the reason for 'no blogs' is just as understandable. While I'm admitidly pulling this number out of thin air, my experience is that 90% of the blogs out there are gone two years later. Often, completely gone as in not only did the author stop updating but you can't even find the old content outside of being lucky enough for a Google cache or Wayback Machine snapshot.
Additionally, when you edit an article, that marks it as changed on the logs. Editors that are being 'conciencious' (or just officious) often review these articles to ensure that someone isn't stealthly defacing the entire site. Just because the external links section managed to miss being caught when the article was written, doesn't mean that when someone comes back and looks at it, they should ignore the fact that it's simply full of old blog links.
Many of the problems with Wikipedia are in fact with the culture that has taken it over (or always was there). But sometimes the problem really is the submission itself and people not getting the 'point' of Wikipedia.
That being said, I think a number of Wikipedia editors could use a life time supply of suppositories to help with their issues.
Two words: Mirrored Sunglasses.
Bet you it uses Microsoft Natel tech.
I'd argue the reverse. If you aren't exempt (i.e. you receive overtime pay) then take be on the clock as much as you want, as long as you are actually getting paid for it (and if you aren't then you damn well better be talking to the DOL).
If you are exempt however, you are part of the problem by putting in so much time and not kicking up a fuss. America is full of 'idiots' who aim for that mythical salary wage thinking that they are going to get a fair shake from their boss (i.e. you put in 60 hours a week for a while, you should be able to cut back some in compensation afterwards).
Here's the facts of life, the more work you put in as a salaried employee, the less labor they have to pay out. Even the bosses that are honest have to budget and are going to base it on what's getting done now and what's not getting done vs. "Well things are going ok right now but that's only because Tim is putting in 50 hours a week..." things just don't work that way in real life. Trust me.
You are NEVER going to get a fair shake as a salaried worker in America without fighting for it. Frankly, if you are salaried, and you aren't looking to be the CEO some day, then letting yourself be put into a situation where you are putting in more than 40 hours a week on a regular bases is both foolish and harmful for the rest of your peers.
I'll save you some time, there is no such law. Accrual rates can be capped even in employee friendly California.
On the other hand, Californians are protected from "use it or lose it" plans.
See here.
About the same amount that it would take to convince someone that your copyright infringement was protected as fair use, an arbritrary and undetermined amount that would only be defined at the moment the case was being decided.
Because the Beatles themselves trademarked Apple prior to "Apple" doing so. Thus proving the issue with 'generic'. You can trademark anything, generic or no, as long as no one else has and as long as your use of it can be defined in a way that you aren't attempting to trademark the 'genericness' of the term. Remember, a trademark in essense, your calling card. It has to have a distictive character that allows the consumer to identify you by it.
You can't trademark Apple as a grocers distributor, because that would be too close to what an apple is. You can't trademark Apple as a computer maker, because that 'identity' is already in use. You can't trademark Apple as a music company, because that 'identity' is also already in use.
But you probably could call your new rocketship company "Apple" (assuming there isn't one already). And you could do so even though Apple Inc. is still selling computers and even though Apple Records is still selling music.
And thus, there isn't really a way to 'generize' something in a way that would inoculate it from being trademarked later.
Trademarks that are lost to generic use are lost because they lose their identity as individual products, we call any paper tissue product klennix, these days so the company that trademarked it lost their trademark. But even now, if I opened Klennix Logging or Klennix Autos, I'd still be able to trademark it.
The way you make something generic is by convincing everyone to use it in a generic sense. Even then though, Apple is a trademark yet an apple is about as generic as you can get.
They did, twice. Like most adaptations that are tied to both industries, they sucked. ^_^
I doubt there could be such a thing since the point of a trademark is significantly different from that of copyright.
Trademarks are meant (not that they always are) to simply be an 'identity'. In other words, you trademark something in order to prevent others from appearing to be you by using that mark.
You trademark the word "Edge" because you presumably do business in some form or another as "Edge". Either you sell "Edge" or you are "Edge" and are selling something, or you have a character "Edge" as an advertisement, and etc.
Thus, there is no real "release to the public" analog, other than simply abandoning your trademark by no longer using it. And that doesn't really 'trademark left' it, it just means it's no longer currently considered a trademark. If someone else came along after you abandoned the trademark, they could just as easily start their own "Edge" trademark.
The dictionary was based on Wiktionary. So I would imagine it could quite possibly contain the fabled seven words and many others. Regardless, it's disingenuous to say that you aren't censoring apps and that the developer did it voluntarily, when the actual truth is you were rejecting the app and the developer had the choice of waiting for an undetermined amount of time (till you actually implmented the partenal controls) or 'self-censoring'.
That's like saying, "No, we didn't force a confession out of him, we just kept hitting him till he felt like talking."
Dude, she's your sister. That's sick.
Quickstart guide included with your new Microsoft Natural Pressure Sensitive Bob Keyboard:
That and their control fetish.
"Apple - Think Less"
On the other hand if you peruse an actual list of 'real' Apple slogans, some of them work without any changes.
"Apple - What kind of man owns his own computer?"
My very first computer was actually a Timex/Sinclair ZX81 with a membrane Dvorak keyboard and a port for 16K ram upgrades. However given the games for it consisted of things that would make a WarioWare minigame look complex, I chose not to mention it. ^_^
On a system designed with it in mind, yes it was. I'm possibly a rare individual who grew up starting with an Atari ST (two buttoned mice that were made out of bricks it seemed), moved on to a Mac (the famous ACB one button mouse), and then to the PC (cheap as shit multi-button mice).
While having more buttons in the Windows world was definately a must, back in the System 7 days and before, having one button was not an issue and given most PC mice in the day were made of plastic that felt as if it would shatter if sneezed at forcefully, having a mouse that had 'heft' meant I actually felt as if I had better control on those rare few games that were worth playing than I did on the PC games that came later.
Depending on your... interests, so is a Cattle Prod.
I would counter your story with the one I linked. And the fact that Apple was doing everything possible to prevent that information from getting out.