What probably happened is someone in the Utah legislature got an email from a deposed Nigerian prince who wants to transfer $38.5 BILLION USD into the United States but first he needs the banking information of the entire state of Utah so he can spread out the transfers and avoid detection.
This just in: hockey causes aggression, football causes aggression, basketball causes aggression, videogames cause aggression.
Anyone stop to wonder if humans just become aggressive in competitive situations? Is it that hard to see that it's not the content of the videogames that matter, but the context in which they're played? I could play Teletubby Funtime Land on Xbox Live and I'd still have 10-year-olds calling me a "jew nigger faggot nazi" if I was beating them.
The most common argument seems to be "he could defraud potential buyers of failbook.com by stating that his domain receives considerable traffic, though the traffic is probably (at this point) only due to a similarity in name to failbooking.com."
Yes. That's completely true. So what? There's no evidence this has occurred, and if it did, the problem would lie between the owner of failbook.com and the potential buyer! Why should Ben Huh be playing internet policeman, here? What if I bought a domain "jokester.com", put up a screenshot of "jokes.com" and an estimation of the monthly ad revenue of "jokes.com"? And said "hey, buy my domain, you could make your investment back quickly if you made a jokes site only one-tenth as popular as this other, similar jokes site." Would I be committing a crime? Would you be ready to throw the thought-crime book at me? (cybersquatting, copyright, trademark, etc) Bit hypocritical for this crowd, don't you think?
1. Idiots who say that ISPs are "lying" by selling you a 10-mbit plan when you sometimes get slower speeds, and should just "build more infrastructure"
2. Idiots who say that people who download files, or stream video, are "clogging things up"
If the ISPs built their networks to ensure that every user could access their full advertised bandwidth 24/7, internet access would either be a.) incredibly slow, or b.) incredibly expensive. Deal with it.
Despite what your Senator may think, there is no difference between downloading an MP3 file, an email, a webpage, or a video. Internet traffic doesn't slow down because someone's trying to squeeze big files through a pipe. That's idiotic. Traffic slows down because routers get overwhelmed with requests and have to queue them.
If a "bandwidth hog" is someone who has their internet connection running at maximum effort for large portions of every day, it can only affect other users if there are MANY BANDWIDTH HOGS. One person downloading as much as possible 24/7 can only have a very tiny effect on the overall traffic. The REASON routers are becoming more strained is not because a few people are downloading tons of material, but because video streaming, downloading, etc are becoming MORE COMMON, meaning it is easier for the AVERAGE PERSON to run their internet connection at high usage levels (because of continuous streaming, downloading, whatever). Your internet connection slows down because of the increased usage by AVERAGE USERS, not by "bandwidth hogs."
But it claims he did not have permission to refer to the tune as the "official" song of the Canes or the team's "anthem." Banks removed both terms from his Web site under a cease-and-desist order but was still seen wearing a Canes jersey in promotional material, implying an affiliation with the team, according to the suit.
Referring to his song as the "Official song of the Carolina Hurricanes" or the "Carolina Hurricanes Anthem" seems to be cut-and-dry infringement of the Hurricanes trademark. He complied with the C&D in this respect, so I don't see what the problem is.
Seriously, though, wearing a Hurricanes jersey implies an affiliation with the team? Jerseys that are sold to the public?
I thought the porn industry's business model was to trick people into signing up for $2.99 "risk-free trials" and then continuing to charge them repeatedly for large sums, hoping they will be too embarrassed about their porn habits to contest the charges?
The (admittedly weak) argument sports leagues make is that the game is a "performance" by the players (who of course must cede their rights to the league governing body in order to play), and thus they have the right to prevent unauthorized reproduction of the performance.
It would be difficult for Blizzard to make a similar argument, as the performers are clearly the game's players, and not Blizzard.
Would a share holder put up with not getting a return on their investment? Yet you expect a person who just chucked four years of their life, sanity, and money, they should get the big mac experience?
Really? You mean I can buy stock in a company, and if the stock price drops, I can sue them and get my original investment back? Sweet!
The translation is poor, but this is most likely a default judgment rendered because Google/Yahoo ignored the lawsuit (since Argentina has no means to collect on the judgment). This happens all the time.