Sorry for the triple post... but finally what is very irritating is when you are asked to share your information they never tell you what they are actually going to do with it... the only way to find out is to accept... and then all you see is the part they want to show you they never explain the full details...THIS IS A HUGE PRIVACY CONCERN
The other day my friend put a link up from the guardian newspaper on facebook and in order for me to view the page from the link via facebook I had to agree to allow guardian to access my facebook information. I did not do this but instead had to just search google and find the page independently of facebook in order to not automatically share this information.
Indeed this work around worked but the main point is why should every link I click on leading me away from facebook require me to integrate that website with facebook?
Why cant I just click a link and go to that website?
I don't want to see which of my friends list has also visited it because to be honest I don't realy care... that's not what I use facebook for. I'm not bothered about their internet browsing habits and I'm not the sort of person who is a sheep and is more likely to be interested in something because theres a small box in the corner saying "Hey these guys you know also looked at this and therefore that means you should look at it too!"
This is why you have missed the point Mike... at every opportunity they are forcing you to integrate as many websites you visit with facebook as possible ... and this very much is a huge privacy concern.
...is the arrogance of these high end fashion labels. They attempt to price their products at prices that are so much higher than the cost of making it. They have no problem ripping people off throughout the world to further their own gain but if someone creates a knock off product at a fraction of the price then suddenly we all need to jump on the moral bandwagon with them and cry foul of these counterfeiters.
It really is disgusting. If their product were a bit cheaper then more people would buy it... simple.
Why the hell should I pay £150 for a shirt because it has a small horse on it?
completely missing the point... the general public are the people who are going to be confused and misled because the name "US Chamber of Commerce" implies falsely that this is a government organisation.
It would be nice to believe that he is doing all of this for the good of the public at large but to suggest that all these lawsuits are anything but blatant, and extremely stupid, attempts at fulfilling his own personal greed would be deluded.
If he wants $500 billion dollars why not set up a worthwhile tech company?
Similarly I don't think that contracting away rights from the artist to the record label should be allowed. In order to get your record deal you must surrender yourself to your label forever. It's just screaming out that its a broken system
I personally hate pinch zooming, it's okay at best but its never particularly accurate, zooming in is fine but trying to return to 100% is often tricky. Why are they fighting over such a mediocre feature?
Unbelievable, I'm ashamed of our courts for being so clueless.
I think the problem lies in the fact that most of the "old school" people working in the courts in the UK have no idea how the internet really works in general.
The Daily Mail is a joke of a newspaper which has consistently spread false information and whipped up mass hysteria over nothing so it does not surprise me at all that they do not seem to understand Copyright either. They don't understand anything they claim to.