It's official. Australian is not English.



  • Found this on the pizza we bought tonight. I was reading through the 11 different languages the ingredients were translated into... and then found this.

    Clearly Australians don't speak the English language any more.

     pizza

     

    (click for full size)



  • Well either the translator got a few things wrong, or there are different labelling requirements for .au.

    What I find more amusing is that Gaeilge seems very much like English....



  • Nothing special. Different countries have different laws regarding food labeling. As you can see, for Australia, there is a warning regarding "contains gluten, soy products..." and in GB there isn't. It's probaby much easier to make a seperate text for each country than trying to find a text that fullfills all requirements.

    What I really like about the Australian text is the use of nested parentheses for the cheese.



  • @ammoQ said:

    What I really like about the Australian text is the use of nested parentheses for the cheese.
     

    Yes! This and the fact that we seem to read backwards in comparison to UK English (22% chopped tomatoes vs chopped tomatoes 22%) .

    I could understand the EU vs AU legal requirements but yes, Gaelic seems to have changed since I last saw it.



  •  This reminds me of something I saw last night. (I'm in Czech Republic) It was an imported miso soup, with ingredients listed in several languages on the box and a sticker over the top with the Czech ingredients. The Czech had only about half of what was listed in English. One of the items missing from the Czech was 'fish' - something important for me, since I'm a vegetarian (real vegetarian, no fish no chicken). Makes me wonder what other 'mistakes' are out there. And what would happen if someone had a bad allergic reaction to something listed on the box but not the Czech translation.  Sorry, it's OT, but just reminded me.



  • @Nyquist said:

    Filed under: She just smiled and gave me a vegemite sandwich
    TRWTF is in those guys being sued more than a quarter-century after the facts. I'm not taking sides on the matter, but I think the whole situation is just pathetic.

     

     

    @Mel said:

    Sorry, it's OT
    You must be new here.@Mel said:
    Joined on 11 Oct 2007
    Oh.



  • @Mel said:

    Makes me wonder what other 'mistakes' are out there. And what would happen if someone had a bad allergic reaction to something listed on the box but not the Czech translation.

    That's why the Aus and UK versions are so legalistic. I'm surprised they don't also have 'may have been waved somewhere vaguely within 1km of a sealed packed of nuts'. 

    Then again I'm allergic to fish, so I wouldn't have wanted to pick your product... 

      Sorry, it's OT, but just reminded me.
     

    Welcome to TDWTF where nothing is OT.



  • @Zecc said:

    @Nyquist said:
    Filed under: She just smiled and gave me a vegemite sandwich
    TRWTF is in those guys being sued more than a quarter-century after the facts. I'm not taking sides on the matter, but I think the whole situation is just pathetic.
     

    Actually thats what got me quoting them... I was just reading about the verdict last night. I have to side with Colin Hay and say it was "opportunistic greed" on the part of Larrikin Music.



  • The Australian version also has more ingredients than the English/Irish - hydrolised soya AND protein, as opposed to just hydrolised soya protein.



  • @Nyquist said:

    That's why the Aus and UK versions are so legalistic. I'm surprised they don't also have 'may have been waved somewhere vaguely within 1km of a sealed packed of nuts'. 
    Peanut butter. May contain traces of nuts



    Bottle of milk. Allergy advice: Contains milk.



    That is all.



  • @Nyquist said:

    @Zecc said:

    @Nyquist said:
    Filed under: She just smiled and gave me a vegemite sandwich
    TRWTF is in those guys being sued more than a quarter-century after the facts. I'm not taking sides on the matter, but I think the whole situation is just pathetic.
     

    Actually thats what got me quoting them... I was just reading about the verdict last night. I have to side with Colin Hay and say it was "opportunistic greed" on the part of Larrikin Music.

    I have a real problem with copyright (A) being transferrable from the original artist and (B) extending beyond the author's lifespan.  The entire purpose of copyright is to reward and protect the artist, in order to ensure the artist's continued production of artistic work.  Unfortunately, enitire industries have been created to abuse the copyright system.  Of course I also object to corporations being considered as having equal rights and priveldges as individuals.



  • @Nyquist said:

    the fact that we seem to read backwards in comparison to UK English

    Well of course you do, you're upside down!

    (Was that too obvious?)



  • @Medezark said:

    @Nyquist said:

    @Zecc said:

    @Nyquist said:
    Filed under: She just smiled and gave me a vegemite sandwich
    TRWTF is in those guys being sued more than a quarter-century after the facts. I'm not taking sides on the matter, but I think the whole situation is just pathetic.
     

    Actually thats what got me quoting them... I was just reading about the verdict last night. I have to side with Colin Hay and say it was "opportunistic greed" on the part of Larrikin Music.

    I have a real problem with copyright (A) being transferrable from the original artist and (B) extending beyond the author's lifespan.  The entire purpose of copyright is to reward and protect the artist, in order to ensure the artist's continued production of artistic work.  Unfortunately, enitire industries have been created to abuse the copyright system.  Of course I also object to corporations being considered as having equal rights and priveldges as individuals.

    Well just wait, corporations will soon actually hold US Congressional Seats: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/28/corporation-election/



  • @PJH said:

    Peanut butter. May contain traces of nuts
     

    To be fair, peanuts are not actually nuts in a biological sense; the plant is a member of the family Fabaceae (beans).



  • @rad131304 said:

    Well just wait, corporations will soon actually hold US Congressional Seats: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/28/corporation-election/

    Right, because "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of
    speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
    assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." is vague and open alternative interpretations, such as ones where Congress does make laws that abridge the freedom of speech and the right of people to assemble and petition.  Clearly, the founders realized that rights are great for individuals acting alone, but as soon as two individuals cooperate towards a common goal they become a threat and their rights must be curtailed.  A threat to what?  The power of the government; you know, that group of individuals cooperating towards common goals.  Except, when people are working together under the banner of the government, they retain rights that are stripped from individuals who attempt to do the same in the private sphere.  Yep, that sounds like what the Framers had in mind.

     

    I find it interesting that most of the people complaining about this don't mention that the media is entirely comprised of organizations of individuals who rely on the First Amendment to influence people.  I suppose there's an exception for them hidden between the lines of the First Amendment; as well as ones for unions, churches, non-profits, etc..  Hell, let's just rewrite that troublesome amendment the way Liberals want: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, of the media, the government, the unions, the non-profits, oh, and I suppose for individuals who act alone since they're weak enough to not pose a threat that way; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble (you know, alone, all by themselves, not in a group or anything), and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances entirely on their own, one-by-one, because it's a lot easier to ignore them that way."

     

    Why, that's the American way; just like when the Patriots individually composed and signed their own Declarations of Independence and sent them to King George III, with the appropriate delay between each one, of course.



  • @Medezark said:

    (B) extending beyond the author's lifespan.

    So if I spend 20 years working on the Great American Novel and then die, my children shouldn't get a single red cent?  Yeah, that's real sensible.  Although, I do tend to agree the term for copyright has been extended too long.

     

    @Medezark said:

    The entire purpose of copyright is to reward and protect the artist, in order to ensure the artist's continued production of artistic work.

    Right, and it does.  Part of what does that is the ability to transfer copyright.  Imagine how useful property rights would be if you couldn't sell anything you owned.  If you aren't allowed to transfer ownership of something, then you don't really own it; it's just a government-granted privilege, then, and not a right.

     

    @Medezark said:

    Of course I also object to corporations being considered as having equal rights and priveldges as individuals.

    Right, because when two or more people work together towards a common goal, they immediately lose all protections and rights they would enjoy individually.  That sounds like a winning idea for encouraging cooperation.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @rad131304 said:

    Well just wait, corporations will soon actually hold US Congressional Seats: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/28/corporation-election/

    Right, because "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of
    speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
    assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." is vague and open alternative interpretations, such as ones where Congress does make laws that abridge the freedom of speech and the right of people to assemble and petition.  Clearly, the founders realized that rights are great for individuals acting alone, but as soon as two individuals cooperate towards a common goal they become a threat and their rights must be curtailed.  A threat to what?  The power of the government; you know, that group of individuals cooperating towards common goals.  Except, when people are working together under the banner of the government, they retain rights that are stripped from individuals who attempt to do the same in the private sphere.  Yep, that sounds like what the Framers had in mind.

    Actually, I'm sort of looking forward to the effects of this. After all, domestic companies already basically own as much of the government as they care to purchase (witness the TARP program, for one), so the main effect will be to allow foreign countries to use puppet companies to control US foreign policy. The Chinese and Japanese hold a heck of a lot of our treasury bills, and of course there are lots of oil-producing nations with some spare cash. So we'll see some changes around here which will at least be interesting: an end to any mention of immigration as an issue, maybe a bit less moronic saber-rattling, cutbacks on support for Israel... in fact, the Republican Party is going to change its character a lot very quickly, since they are (as they have been for decades) the party which explicitly sells out. (As opposed to the Democrats, who pretend they don't.) Of course, there will be a large downside, too -- after all, the Supreme Court has already ruled (in Kelo vs. City of New London) that government can collude with companies and take private property away for the benefit of those companies, so we'll be seeing a lot more of that sort of thing. And no doubt there will be even more weakening of environmental and sanitation controls, minimum wage, and workplace regulation, which will suck. (Before you disagree: remember that before those rules were put into place, things sucked so much in America that the American people -- who can barely be bothered to vote -- worked to get them put in place. So we're in for a world of suck, at least for a while.) But hey, we're asking for it.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Medezark said:

    (B) extending beyond the author's lifespan.

    So if I spend 20 years working on the Great American Novel and then die, my children shouldn't get a single red cent?  Yeah, that's real sensible.  Although, I do tend to agree the term for copyright has been extended too long.

    It's the long term PLUS the arbitrary transferrability of intellectual property that's the galling part. I don't mind, say, paying royalties to my favorite author's heirs. Presumably, my favorite author wanted them to have the money. And I don't mind too much having to pay royalties to Faceless Corporation X for something they had no hand in doing, provided it's only for a little while. But when my favorite author's heirs sell their rights to Faceless Corporation X outright, and they can collect royalties for 70 years, that's galling. And it hurts that there's no way to guarantee safe access to unclaimed works -- there's a lot of stuff out there where the author is dead, the author's heirs are unknown, the original publisher is long-defunct, nobody has expressed any interest in claiming royalties in decades, but the work can't be considered public domain. (This happens more than you might think.)



  • @El Disposo said:

    After all, domestic companies already basically own as much of the government as they care to purchase (witness the TARP program, for one), so the main effect will be to allow foreign countries to use puppet companies to control US foreign policy.

    There are still pretty strict limits on foreign money in elections.  The Supreme Court ruling didn't change that.

     

    @El Disposo said:

    The Chinese and Japanese hold a heck of a lot of our treasury bills...

    I'm not sure how that makes a difference.  Are you implying they would use Treasury securities to pay off politicians?  Look, the politicians know those things are worthless, they're not gonna take them.

     

    @El Disposo said:

    ...and of course there are lots of oil-producing nations with some spare cash.

    Aren't most of the oil-producing nations on the verge of financial collapse due to depressed oil prices?

     

    @El Disposo said:

    ...in fact, the Republican Party is going to change its character a lot very quickly, since they are (as they have been for decades) the party which explicitly sells out. (As opposed to the Democrats, who pretend they don't.)

    Might want to check your figures there.  Democrats have long been the preferred targets of big business efforts.  Big government favors big business.

     

    @El Disposo said:

    And no doubt there will be even more weakening of environmental and sanitation controls, minimum wage, and workplace regulation, which will suck. (Before you disagree: remember that before those rules were put into place, things sucked so much in America that the American people -- who can barely be bothered to vote -- worked to get them put in place. So we're in for a world of suck, at least for a while.)

    Minimum wage and a lot of workplace regulations are distinctly harmful to the economy and to workers.  The "weakening of environmental and sanitation controls" is an absurd talking point that has no basis in truth.  Most environmental regulation is the same now as it was 20 years ago.  Air and water quality are at the highest levels since the start of the industrial revolution.



  • @El Disposo said:

    It's the long term PLUS the arbitrary transferrability of intellectual property that's the galling part. I don't mind, say, paying royalties to my favorite author's heirs. Presumably, my favorite author wanted them to have the money. And I don't mind too much having to pay royalties to Faceless Corporation X for something they had no hand in doing, provided it's only for a little while. But when my favorite author's heirs sell their rights to Faceless Corporation X outright, and they can collect royalties for 70 years, that's galling. And it hurts that there's no way to guarantee safe access to unclaimed works -- there's a lot of stuff out there where the author is dead, the author's heirs are unknown, the original publisher is long-defunct, nobody has expressed any interest in claiming royalties in decades, but the work can't be considered public domain. (This happens more than you might think.)

    So, basically it's not at all the transferability, it's the lengthy terms.  Like I said.  You yourself say you don't mind paying heirs or other recipients of the copyright, so long as it isn't for 70 years.  And the only argument you sort of make in favor of ending transferability is that the death of the creator would shorten the term.  So, your basic beef is with the term, not the property right.  Next time, you might want to save us all some time and just reply with "Agreed." or "Once again, you are right, O' Wise and Beautiful Morbius."


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.