Yep, I see no reason why fame achieved through holding elected office should afford any further special privileges.
That's good, because it has nothing to do with that.
Just check nissan.com for an example...
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.
After a while you figuratively have 'hands of stone.'
All the better to introduce the Stuxnet Virus.
You do realize that wireless can be made secure much easier than ethernet right?
You do realise that hundreds of unshielded electrical motors
You do realize that the GP was replying to someone who claimed a wireless network was more likely to introduce the Stuxnet Virus, right?
Deflating a joke is not pretentious when the joke is stupid and ignorant.
How you chose to do it is pretentious. Why not just explain that you feel the joke is stupid and ignorant?
This joke derives its humor from the Greedy Lawyers meme, which I consider supremely stupid. Americans sue each other at the drop of a hat (literally! [fastcase.com]) and we make fun of lawyers for cashing in?
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.
Anyway, the distinction between copyrights and patents is important (and I still think this specific judgment was about copyrights, even if the larger case originally involved patents) and there's nothing nitpicky about pointing out the difference.
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, This was about copyrights, not patents.
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.
You are, BY FAR, part of a tiny, tiny, tiny minority.
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.
Sorry, but anecdotal replies is nothing close to reality.
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.
Its been proven time and time again, for most people, it would be far, far, far better to own a different vehicle and to rent something else one the rare occasion you actually need to use a larger vehicle.
Then you wouldn't mind providing the rest of us with these countless proofs?
Almost I must admit, the level of ignorance, stupidity, and selfishness which frequently surrounds this topic tends to be somewhat humorous. For some reason, the seemingly very stupid minority are under the impression that simply because they are part of a tiny, tiny minority, they are therefore the vast, vast majority.
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.
Instead of buying a brand new giant truck, just buy one that's five years old and you can afford a five year old smaller car as well.
Mine is a 2003. It wasn't bought new.