Anyway, this is totally off topic, back to the Batteriser nonsense!
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91225355-OPP-6.pdf[/url]]
Because these are the only subject of this opposition before the trial and appeal board, applicant further requests that this opposition be dismissed.
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91225355-OPP-7.pdf[/url]]
Opposer never consented in writing, or otherwise, to the abandonment. As a result, Opposer respectfully requests pursuant to 37 CFR § 2.135 that the Board enter a judgment in its favour in Opposition No. 91225355. Applicant’s request that the opposition be dismissed as a result of the abandonment is improper and should be denied.
After the commencement of an opposition, concurrent use, or interference proceeding, if the applicant files a written abandonment of the application or of the mark without the written consent of every adverse party to the proceeding, judgment shall be entered against the applicant.
Wikipedia biggest issue is "trust references not truth"
Unless they change that behaviour you can't read any technical articles without a lot of doubt...
After that incident I've completely lost trust in Wikipedia, that's just a lair of trolls.
Ronz is one of at least two people who are hell bent on getting my Wikipedia page removed.
So obsessed that my Talk page is bigger than Donald Trumps!
Wikipedia biggest issue is "trust references not truth"
Unless they change that behaviour you can't read any technical articles without a lot of doubt.
I'm working on documenting an old device, and the Wikipedia page is full of errors, I corrected them with explanation in the edit comment,to get them reverted a few minutes later because "no references so it's not valid".
After that incident I've completely lost trust in Wikipedia, that's just a lair of trolls.
Wikipedia biggest issue is "trust references not truth"
Unless they change that behaviour you can't read any technical articles without a lot of doubt.
I'm working on documenting an old device, and the Wikipedia page is full of errors, I corrected them with explanation in the edit comment,to get them reverted a few minutes later because "no references so it's not valid".
After that incident I've completely lost trust in Wikipedia, that's just a lair of trolls.The problem is that there are a lot of people who claim to be experts, or who really are experts but are completely wrong anyway. The only way Wikipedia can determine what is true is by delegating the problem to "reliable sources". After all, if the majority of the worlds experts agree on something no-one can fault Wikipedia for saying it is so (even if in some cases it turns out to be wrong).
Wikipedias biggest issue, imo, is that every subject matter that is the slightest bit controversial becomes a war-zone (huge time sink and endless source of frustration) and in the end the side with the largest crowd of zelots win (it's not supposed to work like that, but it does). So you can't really trust anything that's controversial, especially if it's an article that has gotten little media attention so only few people have it on their watch-list, Daves page is a perfect example. Then there are paid editors (advertisers/lobbyists) that edit incognito in order to promote some special interest, the Batteriser is as good example as any. We know they paid for Youtube likes (and dislikes) so why not Wikipedia.
Anyway, I'm fed with Wikipedia, still using it, but not even try to help editing/updating things.
Why does a magazine continue to post this:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2928997/batteriser-is-a-250-gadget-that-extends-disposable-battery-life-by-800-percent.html
Why does a magazine continue to post this:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2928997/batteriser-is-a-250-gadget-that-extends-disposable-battery-life-by-800-percent.html
Because magazine and blogs typically don't delete old posts and articles, and that's a good thing from an archive point of view. If it needs a correction then they can amend it.
It's out of sight and out of mind.
I hope that this doesn't just fade away....
I hope that this doesn't just fade away....it already has, at least for most.
Thank goodness for screenshots!
Thank goodness for screenshots!Your screenshots can always be redefined as fake images, as part of a conspiracy. And then be used against you, as evidence.
You're attacking the hell out of this $2.50 device like if somebody spent $2.50 it would be the end of the world. I'm not worried about spending $2.50. I'll find out if it freakin' works. If it works, you know, we'll get a few of them, we could spend ten bucks or whatever - and, you know, somebody will say ... well ... if I get scammed, I get scammed.