I agree that HTTPS is a good thing, but browser support isn't as good as you make out. (I'm not saying they shouldn't switch, just that you're dismissing the browser support too easily without giving it due consideration.)
If we take away the police's extra money from these traps, cops won't be able to buy their children their favorite movies and cartoons. Those poor children will have to turn to piracy to watch their favorite shows. This piracy, in turn, will harm the poor corn farmers of America. Since corn is used in virtually everything, prices will go up across the board. Due to an overburdened economy, the government will have no choice but to raise taxes. More taxes means more lobbyists pushing for even worse laws. More laws will lead to more people helping each other avoid breaking those laws, starting the cycle anew.
All because you selfish bastards wouldn't think of the children!
I actually think is sort of a smart (if devious) move by Lacoste.
* They establish that they don't want to be associated with mass murders (duh)
* They manage to have their name brought into headlines
* While there is an association between the two (mass murders, Lacoste) that didn't exist before, it's not necessarily a bad one: they're "against" mass murders, and could be remembered as much for denouncing the guy as by any direct association of his wearing their clothes.
It's an abuse of and waste of police time to have to deal with it, but from a pure marketing standpoint it is kinda savvy. Hell, beforehand, I'd never even heard of Lacoste, and was interested enough that I wikipedia'd them just because of this article.
I think it goes back to the same issues Mike raises about border crossings.
You choose what to stick in a safe. It has a very limited capacity. A PC, however, can have enough room to hold every digital file you're interested in, depending on how much you want to spend on storage space and form factor.
It's not so much that you're hiding something as there may be something in there you simply don't recall off the top of your head that they use against you in another way, much like a fishing expedition.
When you say that Obama "has been the most aggressive President ever in trying to punish whistleblowers", how much of that is directly because of Obama vs underlings in government who are doing this stuff?
I know that a lot of people assume that anything done during a president's term is the president's doing, and am just curious if you're following that same train of though or if there is info pointing that Obama himself is for this type of thing (as opposed to say, powerless/spineless to stop it). Not trying to defend him or say he isn't doing it, I'm just honestly curious about it.
Damn. I knew I should have taken the blue copyrighted pill instead of that silly red public domain one. Now I'm in a world with it's own programmed rules, some that can be bent, some that can be broken, and some that have bad acting lawyers saying "I know kung fu" while distorting reality with ip based lawsuits.
He didn't turn it into something different. It's obviously still the same picture, just pixelated.
It's obviously the same in the same way that p!=p, maybe. The so similar that they're different enough that even a talented web designer proficient in Photshop couldn't modify the original and had to get a friend who was better at it to create a whole new image with the intent of making it look like first.
If that's not transformative, you're not an anonymous coward. Oh, wait.
For starters, you suck at analogies. Aside from that, I'm not entirely sure that we are trying to solve the murder problem.
We're all about (rightly) punishing murderers. But I seriously doubt the laws are there with any real intent on prevention. The main two types of people who would murder a) feel no qualms about it, so if they don't mind murdering someone they don't care about some arbitrary law made by a government they likely don't care about, and b) do it because of some momentary emotional or mental overload (they get extremely angry, paranoid, etc) and aren't able/willing at that particularly moment to worry about the law anyways.
Having said that, there's not much in there related to my point. I mean, if you want to go that route, I could say that the RIAA doesn't go after potential aliens who might exist and might be listing to music that sorta kinda sounds like it might be similar to something created by a human, during a drunken college party, so since the aren't suing the alien asses off those Plutonian Pirates for all of their Plutonian dirty money, the RIAA really doesn't care about stopping piracy. And we all know that's the trtuh, cause the RIAA is all about peace, love, and screwing others over. Amirite?
In their minds, I think that the enormous cost of fighting piracy is worth it, once they find the "solution". That is, the labels think that with enough tries, sooner or later they will find the magic bullet that kills off piracy. For good.
The problem is, of course, that even if they (by some miracle) manage to "solve" the problem of piracy, it won't stay that way. It's not a one-and-done kind of problem. Within days of most any "solution", the collective internet can and will have found some sort of way around it. Or else they'll invent a new method.
If you're sticking your fingers in your ears like the labels and don't recognize that fact, suddenly their efforts seem more ... well, not well thought out, but less crazy at least. Even if it cost them a few billion in sales to stop it now, if they manage to "stop it" for good all they have to then do is artificial scarcity to bring all of that money back to them.