The United States and its allies should stop pretending to take sides in conflicts in the region and allow them to pursue their own course. Our continued support of Isreal has been and continues to be a major sticking point for the region. But helping the other side(s) is not the solution. It's none of our fucking business.
From a vantage point where I have little "real knowledge" about the situation to speak of, I can disagree with your statement above with confidence. It is our business, literally. We sell weapons to Israel, Saudi Arabia and other areas and governments. We import billions of gallons of oil from the area yearly. This is our business. It may be our policies have been problematic, even unethical at times. But the US will never, ever, allow the Middle East to decide its own fate for fear that another world power (Russia, China) gain a strategic advantage in the area and have controlling interests in this region which we draw a large part of our energy and economy from.
in a pre-emptive strike, the National Technical Defense 31337 unit air dropped 500 Microsoft IIS servers into Afghan territory. Once fully deployed, this powerful weapon has the potential to slow or even stop all communications with Afghanistans internal network.
Last year the FTC, then headed by a Clinton appointee, voted 3 - 2 in recommendation that Congress pursue new laws regarding privacy of information, including (but not limited to) Online Marketing databases and other electronic means of sale of personal data. This year, George Bush appointed FTC chair Muris has reversed the FTC's stance and says that "exisiting laws should be enforced."
What is congresses stance on this issue and how closely do they hang on the words of the FTC. Plus what existing laws out there are not being enforced is Muris referring too?
Go work for Sun then, they are hiring aren't they? If you can't get a job there, your pretty much stuck I guess eh? I will see you at the grocery store, I will just look for the nerdy guy with food stamps
Sybase runs on both - currently clients cannot save files locally and print locally on Unix implementation, this is a kind of a big deal. Trust me, I had envisioned Sybase on two of my Sun 450's:(
You got me on Peoplesoft - my implemenation is version 7.3 and they did not have implementation for non IIS at that time. --MY BAD--
As for J2EE, Every company is focusing on it, more signifcantly than these two listed, Oracle is moving towards full Java implementation as well (using JDBC instead of ODBC, Java implementation of SQLNet, and Java as stored procedures.) With J2EE I would think that playing field will be evened to a great extent in the future as Java improves and its functionality allows application implementation to be truly platform independent and provide browser clients all of the same functions (print, save, blah) that the bastardized MS J+ libraries or ActiveX can now bring to a Microsoft desktop and browser.
Also remember the evil strategists at Microsoft will play the "We can just make Internet Explorer 7 work better with our new.net Java library than the standard J2EE library."
Applications are written for it. Thats really it, it is the API. Most N tier type application systems (Sybase Enterprise App Server, PeopleSoft, I could go on) are not written for non MS systems.
Really? To any desktops? Or just to Windows desktops?
you got me there.. I know when I am licked! Just show me a business with more than say, 1000 employees, with all Linux or Beos on their desktops (exclude REd Hat Inc and all CAD shops please!) I am NOT talking about a bunch of college kids or a group of "l337 d00dz"
But this sounds like it reinforces my first point. MS stuff is nicely integrates with other MS stuff. Maybe that's what you mean by "has an intrinsic advantage".
see above.. As much as you resist Microsoft, you must admit that they currently OWN the desktop OS market for businesses.
And if you wouldn't put it in a DMZ, then that leaves only the internal applications you mention.
Exactly, all of my companies internal applications (custom developed) have migrated from fat client to web based thin clients. This is a very common scenario today in large businesses - I have a static desktop environment (8000 PC's) so it is easy to leverage MS functionality.
If I was concerned about making external applications I would not be writing for a static audience. Therefore I would not want to leverage Microsofts "tweaks" on the W3 Internet standards because it would decrease the availability for systems that don't use MS OD / IE. This would eliminate the advantage that Microsoft has internally, and make it not desirable for this application. If I REALLY wanted to make an internal app on IIS public - I would utilize a VPN / Tunnel solution. Although usually external data requests from internal systems can be handled through a much more simple process (usually EDI X.whatever transaction.)
I agree fully with your open source remark. IIS is not in itself a revenue driver for Microsoft so why not make it open source? It might make it more complex and ruin MS's Point and Click admin theme for server products. But I have said before that PHB's who think that MS's point and click admin leads to a low TCO are eating their words and probably looking for a job =P To avoid the high costs having a server exploding, IIS (Microsoft) admins should have the technical experience of a Unix admin. You can't take an accountant, put him in front of a server and call him an admin.
However, I must disagree with your statement about not considering running IIS at all. A good system analyst will weigh the value gained (in your case the data mining software) versus the risk of loss (having your server haxor'd.) If a network is designed in this way, you would already have *nix and Open Source infrastrucutre on your public area / DMZ.
Remember that IIS has an intrinsic advantage in delivering dynamic application content to desktops. I am a MCSE and work on Unix and MS systems, I would never put MS technology in the DMZ, but then again, my company couldn't survive without our MS web based thin applications internally.
My feelings are mixed on this one. I don't like the FCC monitoring web sites like this - what is next? Banner Ads? Non-trapping pop ups? As much as I hate the infinite windows, what if (although far-fetched) there were "trapping" ads for the Boy Scouts, or some Christen group? Would the FCC REALLY care about this? My worries are this precedent may be used further down the line to censor web content in some way.
IMO the FCC should make a standard for browsers (read Internet Exploder) to not allow this function to operate on their browsers. This may also serve the double purpose by limiting the security holes Microsoft can put on your machine through unneeded bells and whistles on IE.
Okay maybe ssomeone here with a higher mental capacity can help me -
I Have @Home service, But I pay my bill to AT&T @Home. My cable TV is Comcast, but I pay my bill to ATT Cable. When I call for service, A Media One truck pulls up.
I am beginning to think all of these cable companies are a smokescreen for Microsoft.
Lets hurl a dozen VAX, Punch Card readers, and an IBM 701 out there. We can even hurl the ancient operators when they get cranky about retraining to answer phones at a helpdesk and say "You have a problem with MS Word.. umm.. I am gonna page teh Unix admin at home"
I am a NT 4 and Win2k MCSE (can't believe I am admitting on/. I should post this Anonymous Coward.) I take every chance to remind the high-ups that blindly choosing one platform for all network functions is a BAD IDEA. Lets face it - if there is one thing *nix platforms and Open Source apps can do, is provide a QUALITY piece of infrastrucutre software.
Conversely, large applications (ERP's, N-tier web interfaces blah blah) work better on NT (generally) because the API is friendlier to your clients (which are naturally running MS.) If you don't believe me, try installing Sybase Enterprise Application Server on Unix and get clients to save files and print locally.
Being a Business major, I understand what MS brings to the table in TCO - mainly that they will always have the lights on, but so will Sun, HP-UX, and possibly Red Hat. The truth of the matter is that the OS level is going to be smaller of concern than the applications that run on them. I think that any PHB that decides on a platform across the board is managing from the advertisements in CIO magazine. I say you define your network logicaly and wisely pick your physical model utilizing the best solutions for each problem (infrasturucre = Linux, Database = Sun / HP-UX etc., App servers, desktops, misc servers = NT/2K.)
They can find personnel who know both well, and command a higher salary - or have redundant admins because you hire unix admins who have such a disdain for MS they won't touch it and the MS admins who have no clue about Unix. It may cost more, but tough luck - cost of doing business.
The solution is emergency override from a remote location for all aircraft controls. This would eliminate the threat of an airplane hijacking being any more of a danger than to the passengers.
additionally, procedures for obviously direct deviations from pre-defined flight paths which immediatly include air force presence would help - but shooting down a plane isn't a savory thought.
after today, I swear to god that if I am ever unfortunate enough to be on a hijacked plane, I will give my life to try and incapacitiate the attackers. I think many Americans feel the same.
Re:Felten! FeltEn! Dumbass!
on
ACM vs. RIAA
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
If speling maters that much to you. I wouuld find another bored to flame on
RIAA promoting MP3's
on
ACM vs. RIAA
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
The money the bloated record exec's spend on this lawsuit will only drive up the price of CD's which will lead to more MP3 sharing and more underground groups who will be cracking the lame security RIAA lugheads can think of.
Felton would do nothing but help the RIAA better thier security by being a white hat. Like there aren't thousands more people out there who can hack security - and about 99.999% of those people wouldn't be nice enough to tell the RIAA about it like Felton.
If you ever study law you will study the tort issues of Strict Liability. Strict Liability laws mandate that companies that deal in extremely dangerous businesses (Extremely dangerous businesses could be considered flying people through the air, nuclear industries, fireworks - see below for my rebuttal on medical issues) are fully liable for any injury without exception or fault. For example, if nuclear waste is being stored, and every possible safety precaution is taken that could be imagined, and something goes wrong - the company is liable. period - thats it, there is no legal argument the company can make. Even if someone malicously tampers with the container and that person is injured - that person can hold the company liable. If you think this is idoitic, or untrue, reply back in this thread and I can provide a ton of links on cases involvig strict liability.
By being a software company that takes on the job of writing systems for industries with such Strict Liabilty issues, you should be CLEAR that your software will be held to the same regard. Any company that engages in a Strcit Liability industry is aware of the expected 100% success rate and the risk (and cost) of even being %.0001 wrong must be considered the risk and cost of doing business.
I will admit that the heart surgeon example was off topic a bit in hindsight, but I included it to further prove the importance of 100% success in certain industries Medicine is particularly tricky, But if a heart surgeon screws up (forgets to clamp a vessel or something) he is liable for malpractice, yeah yeah.. it raises rates - but wait until the surgeon srews up on a loved one and your tune will change.
Let's face the truth here, in a capitalist society - companies will reduce the cost of operating as much as possible at all times. If Strict Liability laws weren't in place, companies would provide the lowest cost safety precautions that they felt would allow them to say "hey... we tried!!" in court after they radiated / burnt / crashed / drowned 1000 people.
That is totally inexcusable. Dealing with nuclear issues is done so under strict liability - no foul ups permitted. Think that is crazy?? Think that is too much to be expected of a company?
What is an acceptable error rate for heart surgeons? What is an acceptable error rate for airplane systems? Let me illustrate with airlines what Strict liability really means.
Do you know that in 1999 there were 5,645,179 departures from large air hubs alone? (http://www.bts.gov/publications/airactstats/) A failure rate of only %.001 (that is one thousandth of a percent) would mean 56 airplanes would crash EVERY YEAR!!!
Companies that make software for issues that are so dangerous that they have millions of lives at stake should be finacialy and criminally liable for any mistakes they make that put anyone in danger..
--EOM
When Comacast-ATT@HOME merge, you can send print jobs to the ga-zillion printers that are hanging off NetBIOS shares on MS boxes saying "WE HAVE FOUND A VIRUS ON YOUR PC, PLEASE SEND $1 TO THIS ADDRESS" blah blah blah... I am sure it is quasi-legal
I need to comment on your comment - If all companies suck, why are you even using a computer? Sounds like you should pull a kaczynisky [sp].. anyhow back to the topic
Actually my cable modem experience for the 2 years (I have ATT @HOME, soon to be Comcast I guess) is fair to good. I have had a few outages - but I don;t even bother to call anymore, the people answering first level support are dipwads. If I need to call I immediatly start screaming until I get a 3rd or 4th level tech - then they tell me "Oh, hmm.. looks like someone has your IP.. or "Lets reboot the router and see what happens"
yeah, I heard a rumor that Ford mentioned he was planning, or possibly thre was an idea of, another IJ Movie when featured on "Inside the Actors Studio" on Bravo.. I haven't seen it myself so I can't vouch for rumors truthfulness or not..
Hmm reminds me of the time Barney went after the L.A. Chicken mascot (or was it San Diego??) I'll explain in a bit...
As far as I can remember from Biz Law, the use of a copyright for satire is ok as long as
A. you don't directly sell the copyright or profit from it's use (Selling a barney being eaten by T-rex T-shirt is a no-no, using a unlicensed image on anything you sell - direct profit is key here!)
B. the satire does not directly impact the market share the copyright has over it's intended audience. Barney satires on SNL are okay because SNL is an adult show, it's on late etc. The LA Chicken use to do a skit where he beat up a Barney, but because the baseball game is a place where many children go, Barney's lawyers argued that the Chicken beating up the dinosaur had a direct impact on the children who watched the show and lead them to reduced market share blah blah blah...
I don't think the webstie is selling this list of how to kill barney, and I don't think it is reasonable to argue that a child could surf to this site or that the web master could control traffic to his site anyhow (Besides, a little kid shouldn't be on the internet alone!!) So it sounds like a bunch of ambulance chasing lawyers, or the company is banking on the website shutting down due to pressure.
Fight On I Say!!! Destroy the evil purple wretch and his army of suits!!!
wow, all that and you still have time to read slashdot forums and reply to us silly poor folk!
I can imagine that every one of "you's" there are many, many, many, many more "others." Noth that I am bashing your job - or your succsess. I just think bragging is tacky. In fact if you were really a serious business owner you would be telling us not to go into poor and all about ethics and morals and crap. After all, you could just be stirring up some competition for yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
it is important as it is a destablized power vaccum in an area far ore rich with oil.
The United States and its allies should stop pretending to take sides in conflicts in the region and allow them to pursue their own course. Our continued support of Isreal has been and continues to be a major sticking point for the region. But helping the other side(s) is not the solution. It's none of our fucking business.
From a vantage point where I have little "real knowledge" about the situation to speak of, I can disagree with your statement above with confidence. It is our business, literally. We sell weapons to Israel, Saudi Arabia and other areas and governments. We import billions of gallons of oil from the area yearly. This is our business. It may be our policies have been problematic, even unethical at times. But the US will never, ever, allow the Middle East to decide its own fate for fear that another world power (Russia, China) gain a strategic advantage in the area and have controlling interests in this region which we draw a large part of our energy and economy from.
This just in,
in a pre-emptive strike, the National Technical Defense 31337 unit air dropped 500 Microsoft IIS servers into Afghan territory. Once fully deployed, this powerful weapon has the potential to slow or even stop all communications with Afghanistans internal network.
Last year the FTC, then headed by a Clinton appointee, voted 3 - 2 in recommendation that Congress pursue new laws regarding privacy of information, including (but not limited to) Online Marketing databases and other electronic means of sale of personal data. This year, George Bush appointed FTC chair Muris has reversed the FTC's stance and says that "exisiting laws should be enforced."
What is congresses stance on this issue and how closely do they hang on the words of the FTC. Plus what existing laws out there are not being enforced is Muris referring too?
Go work for Sun then, they are hiring aren't they? If you can't get a job there, your pretty much stuck I guess eh? I will see you at the grocery store, I will just look for the nerdy guy with food stamps
Sybase runs on both - currently clients cannot save files locally and print locally on Unix implementation, this is a kind of a big deal. Trust me, I had envisioned Sybase on two of my Sun 450's :(
.net Java library than the standard J2EE library."
You got me on Peoplesoft - my implemenation is version 7.3 and they did not have implementation for non IIS at that time. --MY BAD--
As for J2EE, Every company is focusing on it, more signifcantly than these two listed, Oracle is moving towards full Java implementation as well (using JDBC instead of ODBC, Java implementation of SQLNet, and Java as stored procedures.) With J2EE I would think that playing field will be evened to a great extent in the future as Java improves and its functionality allows application implementation to be truly platform independent and provide browser clients all of the same functions (print, save, blah) that the bastardized MS J+ libraries or ActiveX can now bring to a Microsoft desktop and browser.
Also remember the evil strategists at Microsoft will play the "We can just make Internet Explorer 7 work better with our new
Applications are written for it. Thats really it, it is the API. Most N tier type application systems (Sybase Enterprise App Server, PeopleSoft, I could go on) are not written for non MS systems.
Really? To any desktops? Or just to Windows desktops?
you got me there.. I know when I am licked! Just show me a business with more than say, 1000 employees, with all Linux or Beos on their desktops (exclude REd Hat Inc and all CAD shops please!) I am NOT talking about a bunch of college kids or a group of "l337 d00dz"
But this sounds like it reinforces my first point. MS stuff is nicely integrates with other MS stuff. Maybe that's what you mean by "has an intrinsic advantage".
see above.. As much as you resist Microsoft, you must admit that they currently OWN the desktop OS market for businesses.
And if you wouldn't put it in a DMZ, then that leaves only the internal applications you mention.
Exactly, all of my companies internal applications (custom developed) have migrated from fat client to web based thin clients. This is a very common scenario today in large businesses - I have a static desktop environment (8000 PC's) so it is easy to leverage MS functionality.
If I was concerned about making external applications I would not be writing for a static audience. Therefore I would not want to leverage Microsofts "tweaks" on the W3 Internet standards because it would decrease the availability for systems that don't use MS OD / IE. This would eliminate the advantage that Microsoft has internally, and make it not desirable for this application. If I REALLY wanted to make an internal app on IIS public - I would utilize a VPN / Tunnel solution. Although usually external data requests from internal systems can be handled through a much more simple process (usually EDI X.whatever transaction.)
I agree fully with your open source remark. IIS is not in itself a revenue driver for Microsoft so why not make it open source? It might make it more complex and ruin MS's Point and Click admin theme for server products. But I have said before that PHB's who think that MS's point and click admin leads to a low TCO are eating their words and probably looking for a job =P To avoid the high costs having a server exploding, IIS (Microsoft) admins should have the technical experience of a Unix admin. You can't take an accountant, put him in front of a server and call him an admin.
However, I must disagree with your statement about not considering running IIS at all. A good system analyst will weigh the value gained (in your case the data mining software) versus the risk of loss (having your server haxor'd.) If a network is designed in this way, you would already have *nix and Open Source infrastrucutre on your public area / DMZ.
Remember that IIS has an intrinsic advantage in delivering dynamic application content to desktops. I am a MCSE and work on Unix and MS systems, I would never put MS technology in the DMZ, but then again, my company couldn't survive without our MS web based thin applications internally.
My feelings are mixed on this one. I don't like the FCC monitoring web sites like this - what is next? Banner Ads? Non-trapping pop ups? As much as I hate the infinite windows, what if (although far-fetched) there were "trapping" ads for the Boy Scouts, or some Christen group? Would the FCC REALLY care about this? My worries are this precedent may be used further down the line to censor web content in some way.
IMO the FCC should make a standard for browsers (read Internet Exploder) to not allow this function to operate on their browsers. This may also serve the double purpose by limiting the security holes Microsoft can put on your machine through unneeded bells and whistles on IE.
--cgeek--
Okay maybe ssomeone here with a higher mental capacity can help me -
I Have @Home service, But I pay my bill to AT&T @Home. My cable TV is Comcast, but I pay my bill to ATT Cable. When I call for service, A Media One truck pulls up.
I am beginning to think all of these cable companies are a smokescreen for Microsoft.
Lets hurl a dozen VAX, Punch Card readers, and an IBM 701 out there. We can even hurl the ancient operators when they get cranky about retraining to answer phones at a helpdesk and say "You have a problem with MS Word.. umm.. I am gonna page teh Unix admin at home"
??!?!?
--cgeek--
I am a NT 4 and Win2k MCSE (can't believe I am admitting on /. I should post this Anonymous Coward.) I take every chance to remind the high-ups that blindly choosing one platform for all network functions is a BAD IDEA. Lets face it - if there is one thing *nix platforms and Open Source apps can do, is provide a QUALITY piece of infrastrucutre software.
Conversely, large applications (ERP's, N-tier web interfaces blah blah) work better on NT (generally) because the API is friendlier to your clients (which are naturally running MS.) If you don't believe me, try installing Sybase Enterprise Application Server on Unix and get clients to save files and print locally.
Being a Business major, I understand what MS brings to the table in TCO - mainly that they will always have the lights on, but so will Sun, HP-UX, and possibly Red Hat. The truth of the matter is that the OS level is going to be smaller of concern than the applications that run on them. I think that any PHB that decides on a platform across the board is managing from the advertisements in CIO magazine. I say you define your network logicaly and wisely pick your physical model utilizing the best solutions for each problem (infrasturucre = Linux, Database = Sun / HP-UX etc., App servers, desktops, misc servers = NT/2K.)
They can find personnel who know both well, and command a higher salary - or have redundant admins because you hire unix admins who have such a disdain for MS they won't touch it and the MS admins who have no clue about Unix. It may cost more, but tough luck - cost of doing business.
--cgeek--
The solution is emergency override from a remote location for all aircraft controls. This would eliminate the threat of an airplane hijacking being any more of a danger than to the passengers.
additionally, procedures for obviously direct deviations from pre-defined flight paths which immediatly include air force presence would help - but shooting down a plane isn't a savory thought.
after today, I swear to god that if I am ever unfortunate enough to be on a hijacked plane, I will give my life to try and incapacitiate the attackers. I think many Americans feel the same.
If speling maters that much to you. I wouuld find another bored to flame on
The money the bloated record exec's spend on this lawsuit will only drive up the price of CD's which will lead to more MP3 sharing and more underground groups who will be cracking the lame security RIAA lugheads can think of.
...
Felton would do nothing but help the RIAA better thier security by being a white hat. Like there aren't thousands more people out there who can hack security - and about 99.999% of those people wouldn't be nice enough to tell the RIAA about it like Felton.
Please send them to
The Linux Cluster to Rule the world foundation
1 Evil Way
Capernaum City, The Secret Uninhabited Island Base
666-31337
They will be put to use in charitable organiztions
Sorry to say your wrong - but your wrong.
If you ever study law you will study the tort issues of Strict Liability. Strict Liability laws mandate that companies that deal in extremely dangerous businesses (Extremely dangerous businesses could be considered flying people through the air, nuclear industries, fireworks - see below for my rebuttal on medical issues) are fully liable for any injury without exception or fault. For example, if nuclear waste is being stored, and every possible safety precaution is taken that could be imagined, and something goes wrong - the company is liable. period - thats it, there is no legal argument the company can make. Even if someone malicously tampers with the container and that person is injured - that person can hold the company liable. If you think this is idoitic, or untrue, reply back in this thread and I can provide a ton of links on cases involvig strict liability.
By being a software company that takes on the job of writing systems for industries with such Strict Liabilty issues, you should be CLEAR that your software will be held to the same regard. Any company that engages in a Strcit Liability industry is aware of the expected 100% success rate and the risk (and cost) of even being %.0001 wrong must be considered the risk and cost of doing business.
I will admit that the heart surgeon example was off topic a bit in hindsight, but I included it to further prove the importance of 100% success in certain industries Medicine is particularly tricky, But if a heart surgeon screws up (forgets to clamp a vessel or something) he is liable for malpractice, yeah yeah.. it raises rates - but wait until the surgeon srews up on a loved one and your tune will change.
Let's face the truth here, in a capitalist society - companies will reduce the cost of operating as much as possible at all times. If Strict Liability laws weren't in place, companies would provide the lowest cost safety precautions that they felt would allow them to say "hey... we tried!!" in court after they radiated / burnt / crashed / drowned 1000 people.
That is totally inexcusable. Dealing with nuclear issues is done so under strict liability - no foul ups permitted. Think that is crazy?? Think that is too much to be expected of a company?
What is an acceptable error rate for heart surgeons? What is an acceptable error rate for airplane systems? Let me illustrate with airlines what Strict liability really means.
Do you know that in 1999 there were 5,645,179 departures from large air hubs alone? (http://www.bts.gov/publications/airactstats/) A failure rate of only %.001 (that is one thousandth of a percent) would mean 56 airplanes would crash EVERY YEAR!!! Companies that make software for issues that are so dangerous that they have millions of lives at stake should be finacialy and criminally liable for any mistakes they make that put anyone in danger.. --EOM
This is on subject don't worry!!
When Comacast-ATT@HOME merge, you can send print jobs to the ga-zillion printers that are hanging off NetBIOS shares on MS boxes saying "WE HAVE FOUND A VIRUS ON YOUR PC, PLEASE SEND $1 TO THIS ADDRESS" blah blah blah... I am sure it is quasi-legal
--EOM
I need to comment on your comment - If all companies suck, why are you even using a computer? Sounds like you should pull a kaczynisky [sp].. anyhow back to the topic
Actually my cable modem experience for the 2 years (I have ATT @HOME, soon to be Comcast I guess) is fair to good. I have had a few outages - but I don;t even bother to call anymore, the people answering first level support are dipwads. If I need to call I immediatly start screaming until I get a 3rd or 4th level tech - then they tell me "Oh, hmm.. looks like someone has your IP.. or "Lets reboot the router and see what happens"
--EOM
yeah, I heard a rumor that Ford mentioned he was planning, or possibly thre was an idea of, another IJ Movie when featured on "Inside the Actors Studio" on Bravo.. I haven't seen it myself so I can't vouch for rumors truthfulness or not..
Hmm reminds me of the time Barney went after the L.A. Chicken mascot (or was it San Diego??) I'll explain in a bit...
As far as I can remember from Biz Law, the use of a copyright for satire is ok as long as
A. you don't directly sell the copyright or profit from it's use (Selling a barney being eaten by T-rex T-shirt is a no-no, using a unlicensed image on anything you sell - direct profit is key here!)
B. the satire does not directly impact the market share the copyright has over it's intended audience. Barney satires on SNL are okay because SNL is an adult show, it's on late etc. The LA Chicken use to do a skit where he beat up a Barney, but because the baseball game is a place where many children go, Barney's lawyers argued that the Chicken beating up the dinosaur had a direct impact on the children who watched the show and lead them to reduced market share blah blah blah...
I don't think the webstie is selling this list of how to kill barney, and I don't think it is reasonable to argue that a child could surf to this site or that the web master could control traffic to his site anyhow (Besides, a little kid shouldn't be on the internet alone!!) So it sounds like a bunch of ambulance chasing lawyers, or the company is banking on the website shutting down due to pressure.
Fight On I Say!!! Destroy the evil purple wretch and his army of suits!!!
no attack.. the world needs porn masters as much as they need doctors, cops, lawyers, and maniac dictators...
wow, all that and you still have time to read slashdot forums and reply to us silly poor folk! I can imagine that every one of "you's" there are many, many, many, many more "others." Noth that I am bashing your job - or your succsess. I just think bragging is tacky. In fact if you were really a serious business owner you would be telling us not to go into poor and all about ethics and morals and crap. After all, you could just be stirring up some competition for yourself.