This is truly stupid. How is it that the AG is going after a company whose entire business model has been fairly transparent since day one, yet the banks, credit-card companies, student loan companies, car loan companies, and many other non-internet companies have been doing this for years?

It's called branding, and any public figure needs to control their brand regardless of how honest or honorable the offender might declare themselves. You can't just let people do whatever they want with your brand, even if that brand is yourself. Otherwise Trump will do it as the precedent has been set. Really, some T-Shirt guy is mad because he's trying to profit off of something he has no right to? This isn't even a story.

This really makes no sense. If an American citizen isn't protected by the U.S. Constitution when travelling overseas then they can't be bound by it either. This negates the whole concept of extradition. If a user breaks a U.S. law in another country then they aren't subject to extradition. This would therefore mean that Julian Assange would not be able to be extradited as he isn't beholding to U.S. laws while overseas. The opposite side of that coin would indicate that if persons *are* subject to U.S. laws while overseas then those responsible for the rendition of Amir Meshal are in fact beholding to those laws. They can't have it both ways.

Ok, so to clarify right off the bat, I'm not a racist, not a bigot, not an antisemite, not an extremist, not really anything of importance in any way, shape, or form. But any speech should be free speech. I don't agree with any extremist organizations (or any organizations entirely) nor do I endorse their principles. That said, I believe that everyone, from centrists to extremists deserve the right to be able to say whatever they want. In the case of Google and Apple I don't believe that "showing" those views is an endorsement in any way. The fact is that this is censorship, and I am _VERY_ opposed to any kind of censorship. Just because I don't agree with something doesn't mean it's wrong, regardless of how offensive it might be. I'm sure that I do lots of offensive things, but I think that censorship of speech should never be done by anyone other than the person responsible for said speech. I would not want someone deciding that a really funny joke I made up should be censored because someone might be offended. That would drastically curtail my humor.

Yeah, if you let your children make their own decisions it could end horribly. They might become Republicans or something crazy like that!

I disagree. It was written in an 80-hour weekend, and admittedly had a few bugs during beta testing, but once those were resolved it went into production and there was never a single bug reported. In fact this was probably 8 years ago and although it has mostly been replaced by other applications, it is still in use at a number of customer sites. Writing code with bugs is inevitable, however refusing to fix them because "there is no such thing as bug-free code" is just asinine. It's like saying "car accidents are inevitable" and then driving away from an car you just smashed into. You're as responsible for the bad code you wrote as you are for the good code. If you weren't then you probably shouldn't get paid at all.

I really have no idea what that means but if you're indicating that this post is only about networking gear then that isn't what the post indicated. But I'm really guessing here, as your comment seems to indicate, well, nothing intelligible that I can tell.

Well, we're actually an integrator. We generally recommend new gear for two reasons: Age & insufficiency. We understand that the gear we sell is the lifeblood of many of the companies that use it. We understand that even if a 5 year old raid is sufficient to the task that it will soon begin to start failing. These are under support and the parts will be replaced quickly, but the potential for a catastrophic failure rises dramatically. Additionally, if we wait until year 6 to start pressing for replacement then it will likely be well into year 7 before it's replaced. In the case of sufficiency, often with newer hardware (raids/SANs & tape libraries specifically) there are substantial performance improvements to tbe had. When a customer grows because of the products we sell they will often come back at some later date and complain of performance issues. We try to spec gear correctly so that there is headroom, but often the customer will not have the budget for the headroom. So if you buy at the low-end you don't have that flexibility moving forward. In other words not all vendors are just trying to squeeze you for more money. Well thought out purchases will likely be useful longer if you plan correcty, even if you're paying more. Additionally, respected integrators with good references can often help you get exactly what you need even if you have no clue. Yes, that's a self-serving plug for my industry, but assuming you get actual customer references and speak with the customer then you should be much better off.

I have thought about this some, and if I own a CD with DRM on it, I cannot legally break that DRM to make a backup copy of the disk. Yet, I am entitled to a fair-use copy of that disk for archival purposes, no? If I am entitled to a fair-use copy, am I not entitled to download that fair-use copy from someone else who has already made a copy for archival purposes? By doing so, I in fact am not breaking the encryption/DRM on that disk, but rather just downloading a copy of the songs on that disk as my fair-use copy.

From everything I've been able to garner from the DMCA, along with what the RIAA and MPAA have indicated, my only option with regards to making a fair-use copy of a CD or DVD that I own, is to download it from someone else who has broken the rules of the DMCA. This means that I did not actually break the DRM of the disk, but someone else did, and I am just downloading what is rightfully mine. So, it seems that the DMCA, RIAA and MPAA are actually encouraging downloading of music CDs and movies through their attempts at discouraging my fair-use rights.
Grant M.