(One of the 2001 actors was guester star of 2nd pilot)
That would be Gary Lockwood, who played Mitchell in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and Frank Poole in "2001".
For once, he'd be on topic.
2015 models already have a DEF system.
I can understand not reading TFA. But it's in TFS, for f***s sake.
One dealer said the group was told that early testing of a small sample of repaired cars showed that the fix made 'no discernible difference' in the cars' mileage, horsepower or torque.
Silly Locke2005. Penalties are for the little people.
What part of "assuming this is true" were you having a problem understanding?
Assuming this is true...
What should happen is that the "genius" who thought this up should be convicted and sent to prison for 30 years (or whatever they threatened Aaron Swartz with), for breaking the CFAA.
What actually will happen is that $BIGCORP will get a trivial slap-on-the-wrist fine.
If you used Spotify, you were NEVER a customer of theirs, you were their PRODUCT.
Why the DOJ? Who do you think is charged with enforcing the criminal penalties (5 years/$500K) in the DMCA?
47 in Trek seriously predated Abrams. Joe Menosky started it with TNG.
I think that they're a fad in the same way that 1990s smartphones were a fad: the technology to build good ones doesn't exist yet. A watch needs to have a battery that lasts long enough that I never accidentally forget to charge it and end up with it not working (my current one is on its second battery and the first one lasted about 5 years) and be light enough that I don't notice that I'm wearing it. I have both of those from a Skagen watch, but if I could keep those requirements then I'd find it very useful to have things like my day's calendar sync'd to the watch, to be able to use it with Bluetooth for two-factor authentication, to be able to use something like Apple Pay and leave my wallet at home, and so on. Make it a quarter the current thickness and make the battery last a week and I'll happily buy one, but that isn't possible yet.
The same thing was true of Smartphones. It was obvious before the iPhone that there were a lot of useful things that a Smartphone could do, but until LiIon batteries, low-power WiFi chipsets and screens improved to a certain point, the downsides outweight the benefits. The difference between the iPhone and the Apple Watch is that the iPhone was released at precisely the time when the technology made it possible to build the useful thing, whereas the Apple Watch appears to be 5-10 years too early.
1) Chances are that "counterfeit" was made in the same factory line as the "real" one.
There have been a lot of cases of third-party batteries being made to significantly lower standards. Often the counterfeit ones are the QA rejects from the real factory.
2) Nikon wouldn't know if you you were using the "real" one or not.
LiIon batteries must communicate with the charger, some communicate things like serial numbers so they can tell it's a fake. A common failure mode is for the battery to expand significantly, at which point it may be difficult to remove it from the camera without causing damage that was obviously not done by the battery and thereby invalidating your warranty.
3) Relying on corporations to be sympathetic is pretty comical. Nikon doesn't care about you.
He's not relying on their sympathy, he's relying on consumer protection laws (you do have those in your country?). If I buy a battery from manufacturer A and put it in a device from manufacturer A, and it destroys the device, then it's clearly the responsibility of manufacturer A. If you buy a battery from A and it destroys a device from B then you're likely to have a lot of effort proving responsibility, and that's assuming that A is not some fly-by-night operator and still exists when you hit the problems.
As I understand the term, it's only a knockoff if it's attempting to portray itself as a different company's brand. Supermarket own brand ketchup is not a Heinz knockoff, even if it's made in the same factory with the same ingredients, because it's got someone else's name on it and isn't trying to pretend to be Heinz ketchup.
If the shoes cost $20 to make and you can get shoes for the same quality as Nike and manage to sell them for $40, making $20 profit on each one, then you shouldn't worry about putting your own brand name on them. You'll get good reviews and the value of your brand increases. The problem is when you make an inferior product and put someone else's name on it, because then you get the benefit from their reputation and they pay the cost when their reputation suffers because of the substandard goods.
Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome. -- Dr. Johnson