One thing I see from you a lot is that your posts are personal attacks on the author and other posters. "...and indication of your intelligence..." "...we've come to expect little more from you..." "...then you can just be happy in ignorance..."
Why don't you stay focused on the subject matter and leave the personal insults out of it? I don't agree with everything he says, but I take it for what it is, an opportunity to discuss the subject with others.
I love to debate things, but if I was in a social setting discussing things with a group of people and you carried on like that, I, and probably most everyone else, would get up and walk away from you. You have become that guy that everyone says, "I hate that guy!" about.
If you hate Mike so much, why do you read this forum? Are you his arch-nemesis? Seriously!
I agree. The cans are of a similar theme, but if you compared them feature by feature, I don't think the claims hold up. (I am going to say this as best as I can, but I don't think my terminology is correct. Cut me some slack here. Also, I am only judging by the picture in the article.)
The font is different, the dragon is different, the color is different, the layout is different, and yet, they both raise the same impressions from me. They both evoke mental pictures of knights, fighting, and dragons. I see these cans as cousins. I can understand why United Brands is upset, but I do not think their claim is valid. It is kind of like comparing the cartons of different brands of eggnog. They are all similar, but not identical.
I believe Anheuser-Busch did copy them, (in the dragon, knight, slaying theme,) but did it well enough to legally succeed.
One the one hand, the boat is out in the opened on public property. There was no trespassing involved in the taking of the photo. If I had been on that beach with a camera, I could have taken that shot, (and been rather pleased with myself. It is a beautiful shot.)
On the other hand, it is being used for commercial purposes, not private or artistic. Do private or artistic uses have to meet different standards? When do you need a model release, and when don't you?
And as someone else said, McD's would sue in a heartbeat! They already have, many times.
And they never will. The system isn't designed to catch terrorists, it is designed to inconvenience citizens while looking like they are doing something.
The no-fly list is another part of the farce. Suspected terrorists are not put on the list so as not to tip them off that they are being watched, so that means that everyone on the list is not a suspected terrorist. However, if you openly criticized the government during the Bush-Chaney years, you were put on the list as punishment, er, I mean because you said something suspicious. Yeah, right.
I agree with you. It is beyond ridiculous. The rules are silly and there is often no consistency from one agent to another. Lets all stop flying and make it a non-issue. When the airlines are starving and the TSA has nothing to do and laid off 80% of these wind up security guards, maybe they can start using a more sensible approach like what is used in civilized countries.
Now if only they would de-bloat it. Patching is good, but rewriting would be much better.
Every good or bad idea that has ever come across the user experience has been integrated into Windows. Windows needs to take programs out of the kernel. The kernel should be impenetrable, so the OS isn't so easily corruptible. Root kits should not be possible!
The anti trust nonsense that occurred in Europe wasn't about M$ giving away a free browser, but that the browser was integrated into the kernel and could not be uninstalled. Give away all the crap you want, just don't incorporate it into the kernel so it cannot be removed, and be so easily exploited.
Re: M$ inherently has inside info that gives it unfair advantage.
I agree with you.
M$ shouldn't be making security software. They should make secure software.
I am not talking about the idiots that will click on anything, either. I am talking about the drive-by downloads that still happen in IE8, (That was supposed to stop being possible in IE7,) and the fake AV that invaded a Vista computer though M$ Outlook. XP was supposedly the safe OS. Then Vista was supposedly the Security First software. I haven't heard any nightmare stories on Win7, yet... (Except the nightmare of trying to administer it. I can't make heads or tails out of Vista or 7. Yuck! No fun at all!)
I asked this question almost a decade ago. Win2K had some security flaws. Supposedly, XP was more secure, but it was like 7 times the size. Then Vista came out and it was like 9 times the size of that. Now Windows 7 is still bigger, (but not quite as drastically, I don't think.) My question is this:
If a million lines of code has a thousand potential exploits in it, how can 7 million lines of code have less?
More code cannot give you less potential exploits. It isn't logical. It is way past time to de-bloat the OS.
It isn't that everything should be free, or that no one should pay for what they consume. The point is that it shouldn't be any part of the college's job to monitor local computer traffic. They don't even want to do it, but they have been litigated into it. A perversion if the legal system that the RIAA pulled it off, and a perversion of the colleges that they have to. (And an even worse perversion that some are going so gung-ho doing it.) There are many facets to this argument. I will give examples of a few:
You own an amusement park. Families are paying you to attend your amusement park. They are also wearing counterfeit name brand sneakers. Is it your job to check everyone's sneakers and report them to the police? No? Well, it shouldn't be the college's job to sniff out P2P traffic and report it to the police. The students are paying customers of the college. The in-room networking in the dorms is part of what they paid for. The students are just using it. If they use it for something illegal, why should that be the college's responsibility?
You own a commercial building. Someone rents a store front from you to sell t-shirts and buttons, and movie posters. If he is selling counterfeit t-shirts, should Tommy Hilfigger expect you to take responsibility for it? Should he be able to take you to court and force you to check every single business transaction that occurs on every one of your rental properties, just in case someone sells a counterfeit Hillfigger item? Now just imagine all the different manufacturers of different branded consumer goods forcing you to identify all the items in every one of your rented out stores and make sure that nothing goes on that they don't approve of on their behalf, for free, just so you don't get sued, (again!) There is an interesting business model...
You can rent a car. People do all the time. If you commit a crime using a car you rented, is the rental company responsible? Should the rental company use GPS to track where you, (and everyone else,) go, and report to the police every time you go to the bank because you might be a bank robber? Should they report to the police every time you go to the store because you might be a shop lifter? If one rental company gets successfully sued for the actions of one of its customers, that is what will happen. It will cost more to rent a car because they will have to pay for software and manpower to monitor where you go and note what parking lots you stop in.
There are many legal files you can download on P2P. Linux for one. Any other opened source software as well. By reporting ALL P2P usage, they are possibly implicating honest students. You pay your taxes, but some people cheat on their taxes. Should your local ISP report every customer that files their taxes online because they could be cheating on their taxes?
Here is another example that pisses me off. Micro$oft, Windoze, and Windows Media Player. Media player used to be this tiny little app that played sound and video files. Microsoft got into the business of selling DRM to the media companies, so now when you pay for a copy of Windoze, the media player, embedded into the OS, is checking to see if you have a license for your media files. Media player used to be tiny, now it is about 50 times its original size, because M$ is checking up on you, and is doing their best to make sure you see the media they want you to see, and buy the media they want you to buy, from them or through them, and do not see or hear media that they do not approve of. If I buy an OS, I shouldn't have to pay for the privilege of being snooped on by it.
P.S. You have every right to have someone make you a free sandwich and bring it to you. You also have every right to be disappointed when you don't get it.
I have been saying something like this for a long time.
It is just like the big media companies expecting youtube to know what shouldn't be posted. How is it youtube's responsibility? For instance, if I invented a better mousetrap, and someone started making cheap imitations of it and selling it in Walmart, (Ptueee, the sons of bitches...) should I expect Walmart to decide on my behalf that it may violate my patent, and not carry the imitation merchandise? It ain't gonna happen! How about the guy that owns a parking lot and gets $20 to let someone set up a flea market table? Is it his responsibility to search for and discover every potential copyright or patent infringement?
If I have a patent or a copyright, it is my responsibility to find infringements and prosecute them. No one else is going to do it on my behalf. What right does Time-Warner, Fox, CBS, or anyone else have to expect other people to enforce their property rights? Right now, fear of litigation has forced the venue to police and enforce other people's copyrights. It is a stupid expectation and a stupid twist of the legal system.