He had problems with meeting his responsibilities , and at the weekend had a bottle of beer. Or two , some Bacardi , and also some vodka.
I disappeared for the weekend , went to Nanjing.
When I came back, I heard the sound of tins being opened early in the morning.
This isn’t the first time this has happened.
Last weekend he drank all my brandy and the police came round because he was outside smashing things up.
He had a habit of sleeping in odd places ‘close to nature’.
People would wake me to come to the aid of Edward, outside, in a pool of his own wee (or whatever ). Sometimes he was conscious , sometimes not.
China has it’s fair share of alcoholic teachers.
The Russian I used to work with was drunk 24/7.
One of the other teachers commented “I never realized he was drunk till I saw him sober .”
Another stocked up on Bijiou to get him through his day at Kindle.
On Monday it all came to a head when Ed turned up for work on the sauce.
Police were called. Poor Eddie had to spend the best part of the day in the cells explaining and clearing things up with the Chinese authorities 。
Employers , linestart have threatened to blackball him.
Effectively making it impossible for him to get work in China.
Seems that one of the richest companies in Silicon Valley is having trouble finding lawyers to correctly T & C it’s latest browser release, Chrome.
Deep in the User Agreement, which all you downloaders have signed up to ,is something which we suspect Google has been doing all along. This just proves us right.
So here it is in black and white and from the Google-Horse’s mouth.
By submitting, posting or displaying the content, you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
Thanks to the US firm of lawyers acting on Google’s behave for the head’s up on that one.
Last year, as a gift I purchased a domain name and some hosting for my my sister, as she promised to go on a Dreamweaver course and populate the site.
After a years hosting which I paid up front, I let the contract lapse because she had done nothing.
Previous Experience As is usual with a web hosting, if you don’t want it, just leave it, and when you don’t pay, your site is deleted from the server along with your DNS info after 1 year.
It has been like this since 1997 when I started designing websites.
Pipex/Webfusion Hosting This being the case with all other hosting contracts. Leaving a fixed term contract to lapse, paid up-front, no problem you may think. Well not if you’re hosting with Pipex/Webfusion.
Since the end of the hosting period of one year, I’ve received requests I pay £105.64 for another years hosting.
Clause It turns out Webfusion have inserted a clause which says you are bound to host until you cancel.
Check I checked their contract. This term was not highlighted or highlighted in any of the confirmation emails.
Bullying Tactic The question is whether I’ll be bound by the Webfusion contract. Most consumers feel that when they accept a contract, it is always binding. In business this is true.
Ask yourself: – “Now how many times have I clicked on a Google advertiser in the AdWords section and thought it was an organic result?”
This is what the Australian Consumer And Competition Commission have just launched a case against Google, (the first government body to do so), to find out.
Case facts From the ACCC’s site, information about the case cites an Australian publisher Trading Post Australia Pty Ltd using the names of two competitors in localised AdWords campaigns, (“Kloster Ford” and “Charlestown Toyota”).
This, in it’s simplest terms is a case of Passing off, an advertiser using trademarks and trading names to attract business through deception.
In addition and in a seemingly unrelated statement:- “Google, by failing to adequately distinguish sponsored links from ‘organic’ search results, has engaged and continues to engage in misleading and deceptive conduct” the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) said.
Thinking By asserting Google is deriving advertising revenue’s from cases where it knows passing off is taking place, the ACCC are effectively attempting to shift the duty of care, hoping to reveal the entrails of Googles’ advertising, targetting and information management stategy in the process.
Chances It’s a wide ball.
The ACCC statement for bringing the action is spurious and without foundation.
Intent Does Google derive income in the knowledge advertisers are passing off?