Background: Uber's offices in Montreal were raided a few days ago by Revenue Quebec: http://globalnews.ca/news/1998322/montreal-uber-offices-raid... . What is new news is that the URL above (a major Montreal newspaper) says that the local CEO called Uber HQ in San Francisco, who then tried to remotely encrypt data on Uber corporate servers, laptops, phones, and so on, during the raid. Revenue Quebec investigators noticed and are now expanding their seizure order.
If you read the report, the retraction letter was sent to Science, presumably by email, on May 19, 2015.
I'm okay with Science giving some due process here. Contacting the primary author and other parties, the peer reviewers, discussing it with their editorial staff, and so on. The world isn't going to end because Science hasn't yet made a decision on May 21 about something sent to them on May 19. The odds are exceedingly high that a retraction will be issued.
Your characterization of Science "standing by what they printed no matter what" is a gross distortion of the facts here, as Science has done no such thing.
> Your characterization of Science "standing by what they printed no matter what" is a gross distortion of the facts here, as Science has done no such thing.
I have to disagree; I think jacquesm has the comment closest to the truth.
My comment is a minor distortion of the facts -- later in the article we get this:
> Science tweeted that it was assessing the retraction request and would in the meantime publish “an Editorial Expression of Concern.”
Here's the thing. Science isn't doing any research itself. Once a paper's author has admitted the data was faked, there is no role for Science to play; they can't look into the past and determine that it was actually real. They've acknowledged receipt of the message, and they're willing to print a notice that the paper is a lie -- but they don't want to retract it, because that would damage their record.
> The world isn't going to end because Science hasn't yet made a decision on May 21 about something sent to them on May 19.
They have made a decision. They're going to print an unofficial warning. Without more pressure from the public, they will not print a retraction.
Remember, Green is the primary author. He contacted them; for them to contact him is somewhat superfluous.
Yes, committing to print a warning letter is a decision. The claim I responded to, "Science hasn't yet made a decision on May 21 about something sent to them on May 19", is clearly false. They have made one. They've purposely deferred a different (though closely related) one. Why? What do you think could conceivably come to light that would make the Expression of Concern appropriate, but a retraction by Science inappropriate?
Groups tend not to move as quickly as individuals because groups require discussion. Science probably will retract it, but they need to discuss it first, and they likely have protocols that they follow.
Green is not the primary author. Lacour is the primary author. Green is the older, more established, secondary author; he's supposed to be playing a sort of mentor role to the primary author. He has sent a letter outlining his concerns about the paper, but he didn't do the work himself in the first place.
Lacour has not indicated he supports the retraction request and it is extremely reasonable for Science to contact him about it and hear what he has to say before proceeding.
But it's only you presuming a limitation on the NSA's actions with no basis for making that assumption. The fact that certain documents X have come out showing that Y happened in place Z does not mean that Y isn't happening elsewhere as well.
Indeed, the document you link to says "our targets throughout the world". Your characterization of the program/document as "only used for hard targets in Syria" is just an outright lie.
As mentioned by others, that's not how trademark law works. Soda and drones are not likely to be confused in the marketplace. I'd bet you $1000 on longbets.org that KO do not cause this company to change the name of their toy drone company.
My understanding of law leaves lots to be desired, but wouldn't the trial, even if they won, be way too expensive? And there is always the risk of losing, Coca-Cola can certainly afford better lawyers.
coca cola will contact them, but that won't necessaruily result in a chage. As pointed out, drones are a distinct market from sugary drinks, sot he likelihood of consumer confusion is low. It's true that Coke's legal department will write a grumpy letter anyway, in order to create a legal record of actively defending their existing mark, which can be raised in court if they are ever confronted with a genuine infringer.
I assume/hope the Spirte team have budgeted a few $ for the legal expenses in replying to such a letter, but agree with the poster below that the cost might well be covered by the value of free publicity over a trademark dispute. I hope that's not a deliberate strategy, as it's the sort of thing that could turn into an abusive practice.
If you had clicked the link I provided, you might come to understand that since 1995, U.S. trademark law does not just work in the way you described, but also includes the concept of "dilution", where famous marks are protected by law even though there is zero chance of consumer confusion.
You should be looking at the Trademark dilution revision act of 2006 which has superseded it. While Coke would easily get an injunction against blurring, there are counter arguments about similarity, and the lack of intentional or factual associations with the famous Sprite mark, not to mention it's lack of inherent distinctiveness (as opposed to say '7up'.) The situation is more nuanced than you suggest.
So you can just put a couple of cones across a highway and stop all traffic for a few hours? Cool! I'll bet you can even camouflage the transmitter so that no one can figure out why all traffic has stopped until they come out with a really sensitive detector and realize that there's something stuck 30 feet up in the tree branches instructing all vehicles to go into emergency stop mode.
You can stop opperations at London Heathrow within 15min with one or two phone calls. Yes, it is that easy. People regularly don't do it because (1) what is good for and (2) what ever it is good for, is it worth paying the damage caused for the rest of your life?
--- In Germany, a live TV-show with 10.000 spectators in the studio (hosted by Heidi Klum) was canceled on Tuesday because of a fake bomb-threat-call. Stuff like that remains the exception.
If the cars are stopping because of the device, I think you can say that they have successfully detected it, and expect that they would provide some explanation as to why they have stopped.
That doesn't solve the problem of localizing the device, but I think you would want the implementation of such a thing to have some robust distance bounding, so it might not be a careful, sensitive process, more of walk up to where your phone says it is thing.
On the other hand meeting commitments is a pretty basic life skill, and probably one you should learn. It is no harder to be places at 9:00 than it is to be there at 9:06. Being late often signals to the other people involved that you do not respect them or their time. Whether that is true or not, whether you mean to say that or not, that's the signal that is received. It's even used in power games, where the more powerful person intentionally makes the other person wait for no reason.
It's all well and good for every bold young man to think that he is a unique and special snowflake, the "One" who can see through illusions, take the red pill, and become a superhero who saves the world.
In reality, you aren't that special and you have to work with others.