Things aren't as clear cut as you seem to think. Trademarks will normally only ever apply to the domain in which they are registered; however, in exceptional circumstances this requirement can be waived; this was done, for example, to prevent the use of the Microsoft name as a furniture shop. It was felt (in my opinion rightly) that piggybacking off someone else's trademark like this would be unreasonable.
Objecting to the use of his trademark for most software programs would be unreasonable, but I can see grounds for Vista being considered differently; although his trademark refers to a different market, the influence of the Windows brand is sufficient to totally destroy any connection between "vista" and "Télé Vista". By becoming so dominant, Microsoft have created an extra burden of care for themselves. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to be more thorough in their trademark checks when their trademark will be waved in front of billions of people than when creating something rather more modest.
And worse, in an age where anyone can order checks with any account number on them (or even print them themselves) You've always been able to do this - you can take a piece of paper right now, write your bank information and payment instructions on it, sign and it can be used as a cheque. There was even a case in Britain of a payment order painted on the side of a cow being held to be a valid cheque. Now, I agree with the fact that printing someone's signature on the cheque is an awful idea, but being able to have cheques on any account number is nothing new.
If you don't bother to find out what's inside before looking after it and it turns out to be full of counterfeit money, should you really be unaccountable because you just held on to the safe? In law there is often a requirement that people either know that something will do harm or are reckless as to whether it will; I would suggest that accepting locked containers without asking the contents makes you at least partly liable for the contents because you have been reckless as to whether or not they will be harmful or illegal.
Just to clear things up, the Telegraph is a conservative paper, the Times is a centre-right paper, a long way to the left of the Telegraph and actually moving towards the centre - they've dropped support for the Conservative party, for example.
GREAT. And with the way this project has been headed, they're going to be SURE that storing the text of the last 200 pages I've looked at in memory, so I can be sure to search through everything my browser has seen in the last week, in addition to the utterly crappy caching of the last however many pages I've had open since I opened my browser, and the memory footprint of my browser being open will somewhere around 80% of my 2GB of memory. ARGH. You mock it, but being able to search through the sites you've visited is actually really useful once you get used to it. Of course I don't have them in memory, they're written to disk, but the number of times I've wanted a page I was reading and not been able to remember its name or URL, just what was on it... searching the pages you've been to today is rather more accurate than searching the whole web with Google.
That pressure already exists; good journalists are assumed to be those who get stories first. People want papers that report news first, and journalistic awards rarely go to follow-ups. This pressure has separated news reporting into two camps, the authoritative trustworthy sources (newspapers of record, BBC News etc) and those with less scruples - in Britain Channels 4 and 5 always have plenty of retractions and sensationalism, as do lower quality newspapers - although tabloids tend to avoid the problem by not containing any news at all.
Have the goods delivered to a house you've previously staked out - one belonging to someone who won't be in when the postman calls. Leave instructions for the goods to be left in a safe places - behind a plant pot or somesuch location. Then go and grab the stuff when the postman's left.
I'm glad to know that that was peaceful, but unfortunately a number of protest groups have given camcorders a bad press with police; there was a case last year of a few protesters assaulting police and then filming them retaliate, to be broadcast on the news as "police brutality". Just goes to show that cameras do lie I suppose.
But where were the no tresspassing signs? Taking this analogy one step further, can someone get in trouble for crossing through a private (yet clearly unsecured) field if it isn't marked as "private" / "no tresspassing"? It should be up to the owners to secure their property or at least mark it such that others know it is restricted/private. With a physical trespassing case, the trespassing must be brought to the attention of the trespasser before any legal action can be taken against them. So no, they can't get in trouble.
Not to get contradictory, but CD shouldn't "strictly" be written with dots; in American English they should, but in British English CD is perfectly acceptable, and is even preferred by many English style guides - which, it should be noted, are often given precedence over their American counterparts.
Secondly, some acronyms and initialisms aren't written in all capitals: Unicef, Nato, scuba, laser. CD's was just an example people would have seen.
Thirdly, even if you take CDs as the plural (assuming context doesn't make it unclear), single-letters have always been pluralised with an apostrophe: Seven letter C's, for example.
And finally I'd just like to point out that CDs can very easily be written instead of CDS - or vice versa - if you're typing quickly.
If it requires more energy to create the ethanol that we get out of it, we have to create that energy somehow. This means that the greenhouse emissions won't be the same unless the fuel burns cleaner than petrol.
1: It's "tortillas". An apostrophe (') usually connotes possession, but never marks plurality. This is basic English.
Not quite true. Most usage guides recommend the use of an apostrophe when pluralizing acronyms that could otherwise become confusing. A commonly given example is CD's rather than CDs where the latter could conflict with an acronym - like "Compact Disc Single". It all depends on context.
Unless of course you meant the specific language "Basic English", in which case you may well be right, it does tend to have absolute rules like that.
I didn't suggest it, I just pointed out a feature of a cartoon. The finglonger's not real. And even if it were, you'd still be replying to the wrong comment.
Unless they're been very foolish they'll have liability insurance - it's too easy these days for a teacher to get embroiled in a lawsuit over nothing to take the risk yourself. Most teaching union insure their members up to a few million per incident; even part-time music teachers here are extended £1 of liability cover, because otherwise it's not worth taking the risk that a poorly-maintained piano crushes someone's foot.
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno. If they sold small soft furnishings it wouldn't be a massive stretch.
No idea if they did or not.
Things aren't as clear cut as you seem to think. Trademarks will normally only ever apply to the domain in which they are registered; however, in exceptional circumstances this requirement can be waived; this was done, for example, to prevent the use of the Microsoft name as a furniture shop. It was felt (in my opinion rightly) that piggybacking off someone else's trademark like this would be unreasonable.
Objecting to the use of his trademark for most software programs would be unreasonable, but I can see grounds for Vista being considered differently; although his trademark refers to a different market, the influence of the Windows brand is sufficient to totally destroy any connection between "vista" and "Télé Vista". By becoming so dominant, Microsoft have created an extra burden of care for themselves. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to be more thorough in their trademark checks when their trademark will be waved in front of billions of people than when creating something rather more modest.
If you don't bother to find out what's inside before looking after it and it turns out to be full of counterfeit money, should you really be unaccountable because you just held on to the safe? In law there is often a requirement that people either know that something will do harm or are reckless as to whether it will; I would suggest that accepting locked containers without asking the contents makes you at least partly liable for the contents because you have been reckless as to whether or not they will be harmful or illegal.
Just to clear things up, the Telegraph is a conservative paper, the Times is a centre-right paper, a long way to the left of the Telegraph and actually moving towards the centre - they've dropped support for the Conservative party, for example.
You mock it, but being able to search through the sites you've visited is actually really useful once you get used to it. Of course I don't have them in memory, they're written to disk, but the number of times I've wanted a page I was reading and not been able to remember its name or URL, just what was on it... searching the pages you've been to today is rather more accurate than searching the whole web with Google.
Unless she's actually a very large Asian woman and it's a clever trick!
That pressure already exists; good journalists are assumed to be those who get stories first. People want papers that report news first, and journalistic awards rarely go to follow-ups. This pressure has separated news reporting into two camps, the authoritative trustworthy sources (newspapers of record, BBC News etc) and those with less scruples - in Britain Channels 4 and 5 always have plenty of retractions and sensationalism, as do lower quality newspapers - although tabloids tend to avoid the problem by not containing any news at all.
Have the goods delivered to a house you've previously staked out - one belonging to someone who won't be in when the postman calls. Leave instructions for the goods to be left in a safe places - behind a plant pot or somesuch location. Then go and grab the stuff when the postman's left.
I'm glad to know that that was peaceful, but unfortunately a number of protest groups have given camcorders a bad press with police; there was a case last year of a few protesters assaulting police and then filming them retaliate, to be broadcast on the news as "police brutality". Just goes to show that cameras do lie I suppose.
Here in Britain you can film police. If you're doing it to amuse yourself by making fun of them they might not be too happy about it though.
Not to get contradictory, but CD shouldn't "strictly" be written with dots; in American English they should, but in British English CD is perfectly acceptable, and is even preferred by many English style guides - which, it should be noted, are often given precedence over their American counterparts.
Secondly, some acronyms and initialisms aren't written in all capitals: Unicef, Nato, scuba, laser. CD's was just an example people would have seen.
Thirdly, even if you take CDs as the plural (assuming context doesn't make it unclear), single-letters have always been pluralised with an apostrophe: Seven letter C's, for example.
And finally I'd just like to point out that CDs can very easily be written instead of CDS - or vice versa - if you're typing quickly.
If it requires more energy to create the ethanol that we get out of it, we have to create that energy somehow. This means that the greenhouse emissions won't be the same unless the fuel burns cleaner than petrol.
1: It's "tortillas". An apostrophe (') usually connotes possession, but never marks plurality. This is basic English.
Not quite true. Most usage guides recommend the use of an apostrophe when pluralizing acronyms that could otherwise become confusing. A commonly given example is CD's rather than CDs where the latter could conflict with an acronym - like "Compact Disc Single". It all depends on context.
Unless of course you meant the specific language "Basic English", in which case you may well be right, it does tend to have absolute rules like that.
I've seen a number of "mistaken" confusions of Rathaus and Ratnest (abbreviation of Rattennest, "rat's nest") before.
I don't really think I can add to that.
There's already a word for those: Slashdot stories.
I didn't suggest it, I just pointed out a feature of a cartoon. The finglonger's not real. And even if it were, you'd still be replying to the wrong comment.
How do you lick your tongue? And why would you wipe your shirt?
He uses it in a later episode though, so I assume the what-if machine inspired him to invent it.
RTFA. Wait...
I guess I can let you off this time...
Unless they're been very foolish they'll have liability insurance - it's too easy these days for a teacher to get embroiled in a lawsuit over nothing to take the risk yourself. Most teaching union insure their members up to a few million per incident; even part-time music teachers here are extended £1 of liability cover, because otherwise it's not worth taking the risk that a poorly-maintained piano crushes someone's foot.