Here is the photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jigger_infested_foot_(2).jpg

What is a bayernude?

Actually, they may have powered down many servers. For example, nsf.gov, fastlane.nsf.gov, and research.gov all point to the same host and serve the same generic page. Additionally, since the notice pages are static, then it is entirely possible, maybe probable, that the database servers for the Library of Congress, the FCC, the NASA sites may all have been shut down.

That's good, because it has nothing to do with that.

Comparing this to the nissan.com dispute is idiotic. The owner of nissan.com had the last name "Nissan", and used the site for purposes unrelated to Nissan Motor Company. The owners of RonPaul.com are using the "fame achieved through holding elected office" by Ron Paul to profit from his trademarked name.

Mod parent up

Someone finally got it right

The one with the trademark gets the rights, if you are profiting by selling goods representative of the trademark holder.

FTFY

You do realize that the GP was replying to someone who claimed a wireless network was more likely to introduce the Stuxnet Virus, right?

Reply to undo accidental negative moderation.

How you chose to do it is pretentious. Why not just explain that you feel the joke is stupid and ignorant?

Maybe you don't understand the greedy lawyers meme. It goes something like this. Plaintiffs seek damages. Lawyers inflate damages. Lawyers charge plaintiff exorbitant sums of money. Lawyers get rich. For example, when a small company sued RIM for patent infringement, the company was awarded $612.5 million. The law firm received over $200 million of this.

The distinction between copyrights and patents is important. The distinction between copyright and patents NOT important in the context of the GPs joke. The case involved both patents and copyrights, so your correction and demand for the GP to RTFA is just arrogant drivel.

RTFA. The lawsuit in its entirety was about both.
The GP's was attempting to be funny. The choice of the word "patents" does nothing to detract from the message. Your attempt at nitpicking a humorous post is pretentious.

Meanwhile, Adobe's lobbyists are preparing a formal application to have their Adobe Reader and other software excluded from such litigation.

Maybe you are right. My experiences are limited, since I've never lived in a city to see what vehicles people own and how they generally use them.

My evidence is anecdotal, but it is true for me and everyone else I know who owns a pickup or SUV in my hometown. This evidence comes from observation and experience. So far, I trust it more than reading your opinions.

Then you wouldn't mind providing the rest of us with these countless proofs?

Please provide evidence that vast majority of SUV or truck owners would be better off renting an SUV or truck when needed. I'd like to read it, so I can be as enlightened as you the next time this topic comes around.

Mine is a 2003. It wasn't bought new.