Hoaxfest re: Intel Inside logo || +RIAA =RICO || Apple droppings ||

js: its a giant lie: the new logos are quite similar, it is sickening that
lies and ANTI-NEWS can get a tsunami of "coverage" from every damn website
....
PUKE INSIDE is the logo for the USA ....AFAIK

MacDailyNews - Apple and Mac News - Welcome Home: "Think Different: Intel plans to 'Leap ahead' by axing 'Intel Inside,' 'Pentium,' dropped 'e' in logo
Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 10:32 PM EST

Intel's Chief Marketing Officer Eric B. Kim and CEO Paul S. Otellini are planning a sharp departure for Intel. Essentially, they are planning to blow up Intel's brand, the fifth-best-known in the world, according to BusinessWeek. Kim and Otellini are planning to do away with Intel Inside, the Pentium brand, and the widely recognized dropped 'e' in Intel's corporate logo. Former Intel CEO Andy Grove approves, saying that the plan, 'strikes me as one of the best manifestations incorporating Intel values of risk-taking, discipline, and results orientation I have ever seen here. I, for one, fully support it,' according to BusinessWeek. 'Otellini will unveil the new strategy and new products on Jan. 5, at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. Central to the effort will be the first new corporate logo in more than three decades and a $2.5 billion advertising and marketing blitz, BusinessWeek has learned.'"
-------------

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Re:ex parte(Score:5, Interesting) by Husgaard (858362) on Thursday December 29, @09:18PM (#14362377) You US people are lucky that ex parte decisions are only allowed for giving the identity of someone with a certain IP address.A few years ago, the US government bullied my country into making new law under the threat of a trade war.

This new legislation allows copyright holders to obtain an "ex parte" court order to enter and search private homes without informing the people living in these private homes if the copyright holder can show that it is "probable" that someone living there has infringed on a copyright. There is no requirement that the police be involved in such searches of private homes (first time this has been allowed in my country), and the law gives the copyright holder a right to be present at the search (never before have the other side in a civil case been allowed to be present during a search of a private home in my country).

This has regularly been abused. In very few cases the "evidence" found in such searches has ever been used in a court of law. Instead most cases have been settled before court by the people searched in fear of the copyright holders releasing information on what was found during the search (legal or not).

I used to have a hard time understanding why some people were thinking the US was imperialistic and why the US had to be opposed in any way possible, but no longer.
Tomorrow it may be my door that the US entertainment industry kicks down.

Does somebody want to take a guess if I still like the US?
------------------------------------------

Re:ex parte(Score:5, Insightful) by cnerd2025 (903423) <andrew...elgert@@@gmail...com> on Thursday December 29, @11:01PM (#14362759)

Sorry for looking out for our own interests. Oh, wait, Denmark and the EU does the same thing. And the threat of "trade war"? Is Europe really so arrogant it thinks it has some "God-given" right to trade with the US? We can trade with or without whomever we wish and cease at any time.

If you read even the description, you'd realize that the "ex parte" order is really "ex parte Doe", used to execute the Writ of Habeas Corpus. "Ex Parte" is generally illegal in the US, and should be. This "ex parte Doe" means that the Doe, in this case the accused, believes that he or she is being held without legal cause. "Ex parte" basically means that one party is using an unfair advantage over another and thus justice is not being served.

I'm no fan of the entertainmaint industry. However, keep something in mind, friend: every state, be it municipal, regional, national, or supranational, has the right to look out for itself. The EU sure does. If you have beef with how the US executes trade, then do something about it. We aren't holding a gun to your head to force something upon you. You elected the leaders who passed your laws. We didn't set up some revolution in Copenhagen or Brussels to execute our will. Your government chose that trade with the US was more important. If you dislike what your government does, then elect new people. And if you dislike the entertainment industry, then don't buy their things. You didn't make any coherent argument against them. In the US, the RIAA oversteps its legal rights, and therefore legal injunctions must be placed on them. But they are a trade union, and they do have some legal rights. Your arguments place them in no violation of yours or anyone else's rights, nor the overstepping of their rights.

Now you make some very very incoherent arguments about the US "breaking down your door". I don't know how it works in Europe, but in the US, the police [not really, BOZO] run all searches and seizures. And issuance of search and seizure warrants are Ex Parte, for good reason. Entertainment industry thugs don't just break and enter, searching for "copyright violations". That is strictly against the US Constitution.[brain much?]

Please, I'm tired of people blaming the US for this or that or the other thing, when the real problem lies in the peoples' own country. We have messed up lots of stuff, but to bitch at us just means that you're too lazy to do something about it.

--------------------

Re:Is this so unreasonable?

(Score:5, Interesting)

by Spock the Baptist (455355) on Thursday December 29, @07:30PM (#14361883)
(Last Journal: Friday October 21, @03:00AM)

Now, personally I think the US "everyone pays their own fees" system sucks, because it's wide open to abuse by large and well-funded organisations in this sort of context, but that's a separate problem.

The real problem with the state of civil litigation is that corporations are allow to act as a "person". It's a matter of an inequity of resources. A corporation typically has enormous financial, and legal resources compared to an individual.

The real solution is to treat corporations as the commercial organizational entities that they truly are, rather than as persons. For that matter governmental organizational entities also ought to be treated as such.

There needs to be a change to the civil standard between individuals from *proof by a preponderance of evidence* to a more rigorous standard. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is too strong a standard a civil standard between individuals, or between organizational entities. In a civil case between an organizational entity, and an individual where the organizational entity is the plaintiff, then the *reasonable doubt* standard ought to hold.

Part of the reason for the *proof beyond a reasonable doubt* standard in criminal cases is to prevent malicious prosecution. A high standard for burden of proof in criminal cases reduces the potential for false witness to be used as a means to 'get even with', harass, or intimidate individuals. The high standard lessens the potential impact of 'frame ups'.

==================
Remember, it's the legal system, not the justice system.
----------------

This always happens....

(Score:5, Insightful)

by Djarum (250450) on Thursday December 29, @09:29PM (#14362425)

Around Thanksgiving I was having this exact idea while talking to a friend of mine.
I am quite a law buff and I was arguing that the "ex parte" orders were illegal and if someone were to challenge them they would win. The counter that "well the person is breaking the law", you would have to remember that even though you have proof of a crime you can not arrest nor charge another.

Lets say your neighbour is making drugs next door. You see crackheads walking in and out of the house. There is weird chemical smells, and empty bottles of chemicals around. Hell lets even say he tried to sell you some and have it on video tape. Can you go across the street, knock down his door, arrest and charge him with a crime?

No, of course not. You call whatever Backwoods Nazi Law Enforcement Agency you have, they will conduct their own investagation, and then if they have enough evedence they knock down his door, arrest and charge him.

Now if the RIAA would want to follow the laws put into place in the United States they would report the person to the FBI's Copyright Infringement division and let them do their own investigation and charge the person with a crime. Most likely the FBI would take a look at the 13 year old with 300 mp3's on their drive and file it away far, far away.

The person that said that the RIAA should be charged under the RICO Act is indeed onto something. It is a form of racketeering. Also the RIAA should have to be forced to show the actual loss in revenue from each song, and where do they come up with the numbers they sue people for.
////////////////////////////////////////

"Only one major computer company focuses mainly on the non-IT part of the computing world: Apple Computer. This is partly because Apple failed to make inroads in corporations, but it's also because it prefers to aim its products at actual users, not intermediary buyers," Mossberg writes. "Some of you wonder why reviewers like me, writing for the non-IT part of the world, have consistently praised Apple products in recent years. One reason is that they are good. Another is that they have been unaffected (so far) by the plague of viruses and spyware that makes Windows users miserable. But an underlying reason is the focus on individual users... In my view, the world would be better off if the biggest computer companies started catering more to the non-IT part of the market, where most computers live."

Full article here.

==========================

Q's & A's to the posters who don't bother to w

(Score:5, Informative)

by maggard (5579) <michael@michaelmaggard.com> on Friday December 30, @03:29PM (#14367135)
(http://www.michaelmaggard.com/)

Since most of the posters seem woefully under-informed (you DID watch the video before posting?) here are responses to a few of the silly comments that have already come up:

• Q: Why stop these US$100 laptops from being sold?
  A: They're not. Quantas, their manufacturer, is free to sell the same item to anyone. However those commercial versions cost will be closer to US$200.

• Q: Why is this only for 3rd World places?
  A: It's not, the State of Massachusetts and others are already committed to large purchases. Why not get your community involved?

• Q: Why insist on targeted distribution?
  A: Because all the research shows that 'seeding' 1 per 5 kids or whatever doesn't have the same network effect (figuratively & literally) that ubiquitous use in an area does.

• Q: Why do these kids need laptops? Why not food/water/medicine?
  A: They need all of those, and those are vital things to see they get. But once those immediate needs are met the long term goal of providing an education is what will help these kids and their communities be self-sufficient, indeed able to assist other neighboring communities.

• Q: Where's the software for this?
  A: It's Redhat Linux, this is /., are you serious? OK, less inflammatory answer: With a standard cheap platform out there individuals, organizations, governments, and the communities receiving these will be able to develop what they can take advantage of.

• Q: So what's to keep unscrupulous folks from buying these out the back door of warehouses?
  A: First the local communities will likely look down on this theft of their resources pretty intensely. Second the goal is to make any trade in these universally unsavory. Will it be 100% effective? No. But this is an easy issue to rally behind and the $100 models will be distinctive from their commercial kin.