QUESTION #1: CAN you PROVE THAT NASDAQ IS NOT EXPERIENCING 99.999% UPTIME USING SQLSERVER 2005 + WINDOWS SERVER 2003 IN THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM @ NASDAQ?
After all - You said it could not, I provided documented proof it does, as well as testimonials of PERFECT OPERATION by Ken Richmond above also - who do YOU think you are fooling by this point?
Can I prove it? No. And neither can you. That's the point. You claim otherwise. You harp about this word "perfect" as if it was a metric. But it isn't. And nothing else you've brought forward is proof. You've attempted to distract from your origional claim - and these 5 9's quotes are more distractions; they have nothing to do with the NASDAQ systems in question.
I never said the statistic wasn't possible. What I did was question your data. And I've done that despite your attempts to twist things to appear otherwise. And despite your apparent ire that someone would dare point out your mistakes.
As an aside, I also can not prove unicorns do not exist. Please feel free to count proving unicorns exist as another of your victories.
QUESTION #2: Does any other system do the job @ NASDAQ that THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM does?
A nice attempt to distract from the fact that your data is flawed. I've never argued that any given system does or does not do it's "job".
P.S.=> Quit running troll - answer the 2 questions above, instead of avoiding them (& prove SQLServer cannot & does not do 99.999% uptime @ any of these locations, as the "burden of proof" is now on YOU) as you have been, running like a scared girl, or something... lol! apk
At this point, I have to wonder if you have me confused with someone else. It would explain your meandering and name-calling. Although given that your "data" exposes a certain amount of delusion, I couldn't be sure.
And once again, you've proven my point. But please - do continue congratulating yourself for winning the good fight with the "trolls". I'm sure the unicorns will forever cheer your name.
Congratulations. You've found some people willing to claim 99.999% uptime for systems using Microsoft tech. Pity none of them have anything to do with NASDAQ.
I know. You presented evidence that "finally" backed your claim for MDDS. But if you download the Powerpoint presentation, you'll see that all that the text you copied are actually several blurbs associated with four distinct systems. The 99.999% comes from MSC, not NASDAQ.
Nobody who's reading this should be surprised. Your irrefutable evidence so far has been anything but. You're either not paying attention to what's being said here or you're trying to mislead everyone who doesn't take the time to look at your "evidence".
But that won't be the final word. By the end of the day, we'll see another wall of text. We'll see more twisting of words. We'll see more name-calling and ludicrous claims. We might even see some new links as you desperately Google (or do you Bing?) for something to shore up your failed argument from the beginning of this thread (and your challenge to debate the "facts" and not make personal attacks against yourself - rules that don't apply to you it seems).
But at the end of that day, we'll also see you for what you are; hot air. After nearly a dozen posts, it is very clear that your arguments are suspect. You've played this game before and probably will again. Maybe next time you'll actually do some fact checking yourself.
So now that you can't show that the 99.999% statistic is meaningful, you've gone on to grasping for 100% uptime. Seriously - 100% uptime? Why not? Go for broke.
You see - in real enterprise environments, we use quantifiable numbers as metrics. Words like "perfect" are marketing weasel words or one-off generalizations. But please, don't let that shake you from your delusions. Go ahead and use that quote as proof to bolster your argument. It speaks volumes about where you're coming from.
It also highlights the fact that you're desperate to find something to replace the 5 9's quote that has failed to support your argument.
Saves them money too & replaced a mainframe. Perfectly... that means @ LEAST 99.999% uptime, to go along w/ NASDAQTRADER stating NASDAQ is a 99.999% uptime operation, as a whole, that is exactly what they are, each system is a part.
You're saying they're at 99.999% uptime as a whole - but that's not what your quote says. It waves out there a 5 9's figure but doesn't qualify it with any details. Who knows what that refers to?
You WANT it to refer to your argument. But there's nothing that says it does. You even go so far as using the word "perfect" as a metric. Hey - why not? You're making up things already. You might as well go for the gusto.
But please - keep posting your walls of text full of misdirection and name-calling. Then say that I'm running from the questions (and posting information that I never posted while saying I'm putting words in your mouth). The irony is wonderful.
Another wall of text. Less bold text. But still the same name calling. And still side-stepping the fact that the "99.999%" number means nothing as it can't be attributed directly to anything.
Your data is flawed and you can't avoid it no matter how much conversational hand-waving you do. But hey - don't let me stop you. Copy and paste another few paragraphs from your other posts and ignore the fact that your data has, in fact, been challenged and is suspect.
Once again - a wall of text that says nothing. Here, let me do you a favor and quote your own source:
In an environment when milliseconds matter and best ex is paramount, firms shouldn't trust in anything less that the most reliable trading platform. NASDAQ is renowned for its high performance technology and has proven reliability with 99.999+% uptime. Whatâ(TM)s more, firms count on NASDAQ for unsurpassed speed and tested capacity to execute trades quickly and efficiently.
Now if you can show me where it notes what they're talking about beyond "high performance technology", we might be able to clear this up. I'm especially interested where it mentions Microsoft products. Or even MDSS.
Here's a troublesome detail for you. The closest that source comes to mentioning a specific system is "the most reliable trading platform." And since we've already established that MDSS isn't a trading platform, it doesn't look like this has anything to do with your topic. Of course, who knows? The blurb gives no details as to what they're referring to. What systems? What qualifications? What the heck does that number mean other than a nice little marketing blurb?
You claim that people are attacking you and not your data. Yet you refuse to admit your data is lacking. You've drawn conclusions that have no justification despite all your name-calling and creative formating.
You want to prove your point? Come up with better data.
And as an aside - I don't have to put words in your mouth. You're doing a fine enough job on your own.
You said I implied something other than this -> NASDAQ has maintained the "fabled '5-9's" of 99.999% uptime on Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 (in failover clusters) since late 2005, acting as the official dissemination system of official trade data
Exactly. That's what you're implying. That what your links imply. That is not, however, what those links state.
I am not implying anything, I said what I said above in bold, & that's that - you had best prove your accusations of me implying anything.
From the article... 99.999% uptime @ 5k - 10k tpm rates on Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005, acting as the official trade data dissemination system.
Great. Show me the article saying that Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 with failover clusters accounts for their 99.999% uptime figure. Show me the article saying that the official trade data dissemination system has a 99.999% up time. You have that 5 9's figure. But it doesn't say anything about what system(s) are being considered for the blurb.
Question #1: Did I state any differently? DO MY SOURCE ARTICLE STATE DIFFERENTLY?? IF SO, show us WHERE on each account noted, thanks??
Do you state it? No. Do you imply it? Very much so. Which brings us to the next point...
AND
Question #2: - DO my sources show that Windows can & DOES do 99.999% uptime in a high tpm environs (complete w/ transactions rates figures & when/where etc. et al)??
No. They don't. Please feel free to show where they state that. Read carefully. You've given us a string of links that sure IMPLY that though. And that isn't the same thing.
You haven't seen my repair bills. Raiding is always a net loss of in-game cash for me, but I suspect someone well-geared AND well-trained in encounter tactics can win without expensively dying. I'm not either, yet. I do dailies to recover gold reserves to pay for raiding. But, obviously, YMMV.
Actually - you did catch me out being lazy. I'm (mostly) a clothie so my gear isn't taking an inordinate amount of damage short of complete and total wipes. Our plate guys (i.e. tanks) are having to foot much larger repair bills. It did dawn on me that I should check in with our tanks and see what their repairs run vs. the vendor trash they're picking up.
When we're doing Classic content or "farm" runs in Naxx, I notice a nice little handful of gold. Our tanks aren't usually beat up as much and so I'm guessing they're coming out ahead as well (again - being lazy, I didn't check and I can't say for sure).
In any case, the dailies are very good income producers. And that's not even bothering to gather resources and play the market (heck - even fishing is now an occasional profit generator).
Blizzard likes to state that epic flight skill isn't needed, but it is required to fly special mounts that attract a lot of interest from players, specifically dragons. Sorry, they can claim not needed all the want, if that were so they can't justify the price. After all if its just fluff then why is is so expensive compared to other forms of movement.
I don't agree that epic riding skills (both ground and flying) are luxury items. One can certainly make do without. But in world PvP (my stomping grounds), you're at a huge disadvantage without it. And even just simple questing and leveling takes a hit.
Having said that - I don't agree with your comment on cost. I'm not sure how much you've been out in the real world, but luxury items are often expensive. Epic flying being expensive fully falls in line with Blizzard's claims that it is a luxury item (even though I disagree with this claim).
Make gold trivial or strive to eliminate penalties, and the cost is just that. Recently blizzard introduced the ability for players to have two complete talent specifications per character. Cost 1000g! Hence something which has no lore backing, is nothing more than a convenience, yet considered "required" by any serious players again asserts the need to have lots of gold.
Not smart.
Gold is pretty darned close to trivial these days. Back in the day, I made most of my gold doing a bit of gathering and trading on the AH. Now days, gold tends to just stick in my bags without any real effort - I suspect if I put effort in to it, I'd have a goodly amount by now. Dailies produce gold. Heroics produce gold (hold on to that vendor trash). Raids produce gold. Blizzard is all but throwing it at you.
The smart player has no use for gold sellers and their scamming ilk.
Also - the big question - why would this become illegal? People do what they want with their money. If Blizzard was smart - they'd offer Gold at a price matching the market and get a cut on this. They've already ruined WoW four times over. Anyone who's played since the beginning can tell you how much more enjoyable it used to be.
I've played the game from the beginning. And the only reason I'd even consider calling WoW more enjoyable back then is because it was new. It's still fun today. I don't buy in on the idea that they've ruined the game four times over.
However, I do believe they'd gut the game following your advice. Who wants to play a game where you just buy a win? You do, apparently.
Granted - Activision / Blizzard seems to be toying with the idea. The collectible game loot cards, website advertisements, and Pepsi advertising campaign shows where they really want to go. Microtransactions are likely just a matter of time. And then you'll have your wish - WoW ruined.
But the imagery isn't the real focus of the activity.
Yes, it is. The primary function of Apollo was to produce good television.
Which they produced (and gave the Soviets something to think about). That along with a bunch of science and technology that revolutionized our lives. But yeah - it was all about the TV.
I'm not saying that the footage isn't significant. Nor do I mean to imply that NASA doesn't understand that significance. But one has to be careful not to forget everything else that was going on with the program. You note that the knowledge was important. I agree. And I would put a lot of that knowledge far above an image of a man on the moon. After all - Hollywood can make such an image. The image itself isn't as important as everything else that happened (although it's really nice to have that image as well).
Every single Government agency that exists is worried about how they appear to the public. They exist at the public's whim. Even an agency that does a decent job will lose funding if some over-eager reporter manages to portray them as incompetent and ineffective.
With that said - are you really, really sure this is the situation? Read that article again. Pay close attention to this:
Perhaps unhappy that a secret they had planned to grandly announce in three weeks had been rumbled, he added: "At this point, I'm not prepared to discuss what has or has not been found.
"The research team is preparing its final report and we'll release those findings publicly in the coming weeks."
Note how much the reporter is reading in to what is actually said. This could be NASA wanting to be thorough as much as them playing up a "mass-media" event.
I cannot imagine loosing my baby in the supermarket and then feeling like a real smart, witty person for finding her two years later.
This isn't losing the baby in the supermarket. This is losing some photographs of baby's first steps along with a few other personal items during a move across the Atlantic. It's a disappointment when one discovers that the images are lost. And it's a joy when they are uncovered. But the imagery isn't the real focus of the activity.
Orange peel is edible. It's not especially nice, but it's edible. Note also that the pith (the white bit between the interior and the skin) is the bitter part (still edible), not the peel.
Since we're in the realms of cooking - candied orange peels have been an old favorite of mine. And yes, part of that process is dealing with the pith (either removing it or blanching the peels) - some people prefer the bitter bite it provides.
"Fair use" is one of those things you can't really determine until you go to court. Granted - that's sort of the way it is with anything that involves a court. But fair use is nebulous and tends to shift from court case to court case.
Parody has been held as fair use. But even parody has limits. Ask the Penny Arcade guys about their infamous Strawberry Shortcake strip. American Greetings came after them for use of the Strawberry Shortcake character. Their intent, if I remember right, was to use a popular 80s icon to parody American McGee's treatment of another childhood favorite - Alice in Wonderland. Penny Arcade's lawyer recommended they give in. If the Penny Arcade guys were parodying Strawberry Shortcake, they might have had reasonable footing to start their fight. But as they were parodying American McGee, it didn't give them license to use Strawberry Shortcake under fair use. Again - they could certainly take it to court as you can't really tell how a fair use suit will shake out until you do. But following their lawyers' advice isn't a bad idea.
Lego porn? I'd expect the issue to be similar. Are they really parodying Lego? Or using the Lego brand to parody something else?
Slashdot Mirror
QUESTION #1: CAN you PROVE THAT NASDAQ IS NOT EXPERIENCING 99.999% UPTIME USING SQLSERVER 2005 + WINDOWS SERVER 2003 IN THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM @ NASDAQ?
After all - You said it could not, I provided documented proof it does, as well as testimonials of PERFECT OPERATION by Ken Richmond above also - who do YOU think you are fooling by this point?
Can I prove it? No. And neither can you. That's the point. You claim otherwise. You harp about this word "perfect" as if it was a metric. But it isn't. And nothing else you've brought forward is proof. You've attempted to distract from your origional claim - and these 5 9's quotes are more distractions; they have nothing to do with the NASDAQ systems in question.
I never said the statistic wasn't possible. What I did was question your data. And I've done that despite your attempts to twist things to appear otherwise. And despite your apparent ire that someone would dare point out your mistakes.
As an aside, I also can not prove unicorns do not exist. Please feel free to count proving unicorns exist as another of your victories.
QUESTION #2: Does any other system do the job @ NASDAQ that THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM does?
A nice attempt to distract from the fact that your data is flawed. I've never argued that any given system does or does not do it's "job".
P.S.=> Quit running troll - answer the 2 questions above, instead of avoiding them (& prove SQLServer cannot & does not do 99.999% uptime @ any of these locations, as the "burden of proof" is now on YOU) as you have been, running like a scared girl, or something... lol! apk
At this point, I have to wonder if you have me confused with someone else. It would explain your meandering and name-calling. Although given that your "data" exposes a certain amount of delusion, I couldn't be sure.
And once again, you've proven my point. But please - do continue congratulating yourself for winning the good fight with the "trolls". I'm sure the unicorns will forever cheer your name.
Congratulations. You've found some people willing to claim 99.999% uptime for systems using Microsoft tech. Pity none of them have anything to do with NASDAQ.
I know. You presented evidence that "finally" backed your claim for MDDS. But if you download the Powerpoint presentation, you'll see that all that the text you copied are actually several blurbs associated with four distinct systems. The 99.999% comes from MSC, not NASDAQ.
Nobody who's reading this should be surprised. Your irrefutable evidence so far has been anything but. You're either not paying attention to what's being said here or you're trying to mislead everyone who doesn't take the time to look at your "evidence".
But that won't be the final word. By the end of the day, we'll see another wall of text. We'll see more twisting of words. We'll see more name-calling and ludicrous claims. We might even see some new links as you desperately Google (or do you Bing?) for something to shore up your failed argument from the beginning of this thread (and your challenge to debate the "facts" and not make personal attacks against yourself - rules that don't apply to you it seems).
But at the end of that day, we'll also see you for what you are; hot air. After nearly a dozen posts, it is very clear that your arguments are suspect. You've played this game before and probably will again. Maybe next time you'll actually do some fact checking yourself.
So now that you can't show that the 99.999% statistic is meaningful, you've gone on to grasping for 100% uptime. Seriously - 100% uptime? Why not? Go for broke.
And thanks for proving my point.
You see - in real enterprise environments, we use quantifiable numbers as metrics. Words like "perfect" are marketing weasel words or one-off generalizations. But please, don't let that shake you from your delusions. Go ahead and use that quote as proof to bolster your argument. It speaks volumes about where you're coming from.
It also highlights the fact that you're desperate to find something to replace the 5 9's quote that has failed to support your argument.
Saves them money too & replaced a mainframe. Perfectly... that means @ LEAST 99.999% uptime, to go along w/ NASDAQTRADER stating NASDAQ is a 99.999% uptime operation, as a whole, that is exactly what they are, each system is a part.
You're saying they're at 99.999% uptime as a whole - but that's not what your quote says. It waves out there a 5 9's figure but doesn't qualify it with any details. Who knows what that refers to?
You WANT it to refer to your argument. But there's nothing that says it does. You even go so far as using the word "perfect" as a metric. Hey - why not? You're making up things already. You might as well go for the gusto.
But please - keep posting your walls of text full of misdirection and name-calling. Then say that I'm running from the questions (and posting information that I never posted while saying I'm putting words in your mouth). The irony is wonderful.
Another wall of text. Less bold text. But still the same name calling. And still side-stepping the fact that the "99.999%" number means nothing as it can't be attributed directly to anything.
Your data is flawed and you can't avoid it no matter how much conversational hand-waving you do. But hey - don't let me stop you. Copy and paste another few paragraphs from your other posts and ignore the fact that your data has, in fact, been challenged and is suspect.
Once again - a wall of text that says nothing. Here, let me do you a favor and quote your own source:
In an environment when milliseconds matter and best ex is paramount, firms shouldn't trust in anything less that the most reliable trading platform. NASDAQ is renowned for its high performance technology and has proven reliability with 99.999+% uptime. Whatâ(TM)s more, firms count on NASDAQ for unsurpassed speed and tested capacity to execute trades quickly and efficiently.
Now if you can show me where it notes what they're talking about beyond "high performance technology", we might be able to clear this up. I'm especially interested where it mentions Microsoft products. Or even MDSS.
Here's a troublesome detail for you. The closest that source comes to mentioning a specific system is "the most reliable trading platform." And since we've already established that MDSS isn't a trading platform, it doesn't look like this has anything to do with your topic. Of course, who knows? The blurb gives no details as to what they're referring to. What systems? What qualifications? What the heck does that number mean other than a nice little marketing blurb?
You claim that people are attacking you and not your data. Yet you refuse to admit your data is lacking. You've drawn conclusions that have no justification despite all your name-calling and creative formating.
You want to prove your point? Come up with better data.
And as an aside - I don't have to put words in your mouth. You're doing a fine enough job on your own.
You said I implied something other than this -> NASDAQ has maintained the "fabled '5-9's" of 99.999% uptime on Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 (in failover clusters) since late 2005, acting as the official dissemination system of official trade data
Exactly. That's what you're implying. That what your links imply. That is not, however, what those links state.
I am not implying anything, I said what I said above in bold, & that's that - you had best prove your accusations of me implying anything.
From the article... 99.999% uptime @ 5k - 10k tpm rates on Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005, acting as the official trade data dissemination system.
Great. Show me the article saying that Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 with failover clusters accounts for their 99.999% uptime figure. Show me the article saying that the official trade data dissemination system has a 99.999% up time. You have that 5 9's figure. But it doesn't say anything about what system(s) are being considered for the blurb.
Question #1: Did I state any differently? DO MY SOURCE ARTICLE STATE DIFFERENTLY?? IF SO, show us WHERE on each account noted, thanks??
Do you state it? No. Do you imply it? Very much so. Which brings us to the next point...
AND
Question #2: - DO my sources show that Windows can & DOES do 99.999% uptime in a high tpm environs (complete w/ transactions rates figures & when/where etc. et al)??
No. They don't. Please feel free to show where they state that. Read carefully. You've given us a string of links that sure IMPLY that though. And that isn't the same thing.
You and your damn half-full glass of water. ;)
This just in: 4 out of 5 Slashdot posters lack reading comprehension skills (congrats "Paul server guy" for being the stand-out).
You haven't seen my repair bills. Raiding is always a net loss of in-game cash for me, but I suspect someone well-geared AND well-trained in encounter tactics can win without expensively dying. I'm not either, yet. I do dailies to recover gold reserves to pay for raiding. But, obviously, YMMV.
Actually - you did catch me out being lazy. I'm (mostly) a clothie so my gear isn't taking an inordinate amount of damage short of complete and total wipes. Our plate guys (i.e. tanks) are having to foot much larger repair bills. It did dawn on me that I should check in with our tanks and see what their repairs run vs. the vendor trash they're picking up.
When we're doing Classic content or "farm" runs in Naxx, I notice a nice little handful of gold. Our tanks aren't usually beat up as much and so I'm guessing they're coming out ahead as well (again - being lazy, I didn't check and I can't say for sure).
In any case, the dailies are very good income producers. And that's not even bothering to gather resources and play the market (heck - even fishing is now an occasional profit generator).
Blizzard likes to state that epic flight skill isn't needed, but it is required to fly special mounts that attract a lot of interest from players, specifically dragons. Sorry, they can claim not needed all the want, if that were so they can't justify the price. After all if its just fluff then why is is so expensive compared to other forms of movement.
I don't agree that epic riding skills (both ground and flying) are luxury items. One can certainly make do without. But in world PvP (my stomping grounds), you're at a huge disadvantage without it. And even just simple questing and leveling takes a hit.
Having said that - I don't agree with your comment on cost. I'm not sure how much you've been out in the real world, but luxury items are often expensive. Epic flying being expensive fully falls in line with Blizzard's claims that it is a luxury item (even though I disagree with this claim).
Make gold trivial or strive to eliminate penalties, and the cost is just that. Recently blizzard introduced the ability for players to have two complete talent specifications per character. Cost 1000g! Hence something which has no lore backing, is nothing more than a convenience, yet considered "required" by any serious players again asserts the need to have lots of gold.
Not smart.
Gold is pretty darned close to trivial these days. Back in the day, I made most of my gold doing a bit of gathering and trading on the AH. Now days, gold tends to just stick in my bags without any real effort - I suspect if I put effort in to it, I'd have a goodly amount by now. Dailies produce gold. Heroics produce gold (hold on to that vendor trash). Raids produce gold. Blizzard is all but throwing it at you.
The smart player has no use for gold sellers and their scamming ilk.
Also - the big question - why would this become illegal? People do what they want with their money. If Blizzard was smart - they'd offer Gold at a price matching the market and get a cut on this. They've already ruined WoW four times over. Anyone who's played since the beginning can tell you how much more enjoyable it used to be.
I've played the game from the beginning. And the only reason I'd even consider calling WoW more enjoyable back then is because it was new. It's still fun today. I don't buy in on the idea that they've ruined the game four times over.
However, I do believe they'd gut the game following your advice. Who wants to play a game where you just buy a win? You do, apparently.
Granted - Activision / Blizzard seems to be toying with the idea. The collectible game loot cards, website advertisements, and Pepsi advertising campaign shows where they really want to go. Microtransactions are likely just a matter of time. And then you'll have your wish - WoW ruined.
Do you ever watch a world news program or read a newspaper's international news section?
But the imagery isn't the real focus of the activity.
Yes, it is. The primary function of Apollo was to produce good television.
Which they produced (and gave the Soviets something to think about). That along with a bunch of science and technology that revolutionized our lives. But yeah - it was all about the TV.
I'm not saying that the footage isn't significant. Nor do I mean to imply that NASA doesn't understand that significance. But one has to be careful not to forget everything else that was going on with the program. You note that the knowledge was important. I agree. And I would put a lot of that knowledge far above an image of a man on the moon. After all - Hollywood can make such an image. The image itself isn't as important as everything else that happened (although it's really nice to have that image as well).
Every single Government agency that exists is worried about how they appear to the public. They exist at the public's whim. Even an agency that does a decent job will lose funding if some over-eager reporter manages to portray them as incompetent and ineffective.
With that said - are you really, really sure this is the situation? Read that article again. Pay close attention to this:
Perhaps unhappy that a secret they had planned to grandly announce in three weeks had been rumbled, he added: "At this point, I'm not prepared to discuss what has or has not been found.
"The research team is preparing its final report and we'll release those findings publicly in the coming weeks."
Note how much the reporter is reading in to what is actually said. This could be NASA wanting to be thorough as much as them playing up a "mass-media" event.
I cannot imagine loosing my baby in the supermarket and then feeling like a real smart, witty person for finding her two years later.
This isn't losing the baby in the supermarket. This is losing some photographs of baby's first steps along with a few other personal items during a move across the Atlantic. It's a disappointment when one discovers that the images are lost. And it's a joy when they are uncovered. But the imagery isn't the real focus of the activity.
Orange peel is edible. It's not especially nice, but it's edible. Note also that the pith (the white bit between the interior and the skin) is the bitter part (still edible), not the peel.
Since we're in the realms of cooking - candied orange peels have been an old favorite of mine. And yes, part of that process is dealing with the pith (either removing it or blanching the peels) - some people prefer the bitter bite it provides.
Which is still going to cause trouble if what you have are, in fact, apples.
Kinda makes that whole "comparing apples to oranges" argument pretty stupid sounding.
Right up to the point that you bake a pie.
No kidding. This thread and the original topic is like apples and oranges.
In the broadest strokes, the GPL isn't that different from a EULA.
In the broadest strokes, an apple isn't that much different than an orange.
"Fair use" is one of those things you can't really determine until you go to court. Granted - that's sort of the way it is with anything that involves a court. But fair use is nebulous and tends to shift from court case to court case.
Parody has been held as fair use. But even parody has limits. Ask the Penny Arcade guys about their infamous Strawberry Shortcake strip. American Greetings came after them for use of the Strawberry Shortcake character. Their intent, if I remember right, was to use a popular 80s icon to parody American McGee's treatment of another childhood favorite - Alice in Wonderland. Penny Arcade's lawyer recommended they give in. If the Penny Arcade guys were parodying Strawberry Shortcake, they might have had reasonable footing to start their fight. But as they were parodying American McGee, it didn't give them license to use Strawberry Shortcake under fair use. Again - they could certainly take it to court as you can't really tell how a fair use suit will shake out until you do. But following their lawyers' advice isn't a bad idea.
Lego porn? I'd expect the issue to be similar. Are they really parodying Lego? Or using the Lego brand to parody something else?