Well, considering their governor, Rick Perry, is in denial about so many things that have been proven in nature, it wouldn't surprise me that the whole concept of "sex" is foreign to the state government there.
The AT&T U-Verse cap is identical to Comcast's High Speed Internet cap (350GB/month) with one important exception... at least AT&T has an "overage" charge. I think I'd be a bit more willing to accept that than Comcast's policy... they disconnect your service if you do it more than once. No overage charges... you're just gone. I know Techdirt and other tech sites complained about that when Comcast implemented it some time ago, but since then, not s lot has been said. Now that AT&T is following suit, maybe there will be more attention paid to the situation.
Wouldn't it be a simple task to use different wording that had the same meaning, like "There was no harm to animals during the creation of this film" or "We harmed no animals when we made this film"? I doubt the AHA wants to trademark every variation.
Or maybe a logo with "Kill Animals" in bold type wih the red "No" symbol (red circle and diagonal line) through it.
DMCA stands for Don't Mess with Comic(book) Actors.
Studios are not known for their sense of humor, so I'm betting that this will get the old take-down notice, regardless of whether it's fair use or not. As far as the studios are concerned, it's better to act first, then forget about apologizing later.
Even more of a basic issue: Is Comcast seeing Netflix's streaming service as a threat to its own cable service (with its OnDemand services), and sees this as an opportunity to force higher costs on the content provider and, ultimately, the consumer in an attempt to stifle the "cord cutters"? Will their next step be to lower the monthly cap (now set at 250GB) and stop metering usage to Comcast-controlled sites (like xfinity.com) so people can stream from Comcast but hit the cap when streaming from other sites (i.e. Netflix, Hulu, etc.)? Comcast is not known for its consumer-friendly attitude when it comes to its profits... they have the sweetness-and-nice commercials but if anything threatens their subscriber numbers, or the services their subscribers pay to use, the fangs are bared.
According to the original story, TSA agents did NOT break the bag, they broke the seal that attached the urostomy bag's tubing to his body. Same end result, however... I doubt a pat-down would break a plastic bag, but certainly it could break a seal. I wear an insulin pump that has a similar (smaller) tube attached to me with an adhesive seal, and I can see how an aggressive pat-down could pull the seal off. It's ridiculous.
I said the very same thing several times... the thing is, Pistole is the one who brings this up all the time. His logic is ridiculous. As you pointed out, the would-be bomber's flight originated in Amsterdam, a bit outside of US jurisdiction.
Re: Mike, I have to disagree, this is an antitrust violation
You're kidding, right? They "intentionnally [sic] don't fix it and push their antivirus solution"? Nowe, if Microsoft (a) Prevented other AV solutions from working and (b) if they CHARGED for MSE, that argument may have a shred of validity, but MSE is free... there are plenty of people out there who don't want a do-all, end-all security suite, so they opt for the free software. And, by the way, is AVG or Panda ALSO guilty of antitrust, since they, too, provide free solutions (AVG Free and Panda Cloud Antivirus)? Anybody? Anybody? Buehler?
Re: Uhh, I believe the preferred nomenclature is Trekkie - errr...
True Trek fans take great offense at being called Trekkies... it's associated with things like Shatner's "Get a Life" speech to the Star Trek convention as seen on SNL. "Trekker" is the accepted, respectful, term.
The concept has been going on for decades... it deserves respect!
The NCC-1701 and NCC-1701-A were Kirk's ships.
The NCC-1701-B was under the command of Captain John Harriman.
The NCC-1701-C was under command of Capt. Rachel Garrett.
The NCC-1701-D and NCC-1701-E were under Picard's command.
First, if the trademark is for the phrase "there's an app for that", any variation isn't covered, so "there's a map for that" is probably safe. Sesame Street is parody, so is covered by fair use.
"There's an app for that" consists of 5 common words strung together in a particular way; if I say "There is an application for that", there is no infringement, just like "I found an app for that". Likewise, I doubt if you can get sued for "Google has an app for that"... it would be different if Apple trademarked "an app for that", which would ostensibly cover the variations.
This is Texas... I think the term "altered reality" got it start there. You have a governor who wants to secede from the US, a school board who changed history in the textbooks because they disliked what they read... what do you expect?
So, you are saying, in essence, that a car manufacturer should be able to make 50 different versions of every part of every car to appease the laws of 50 different states? So if your state requires yellow stoplights and green backup lights that's OK?