Not only are you not answering my questions, you are seem to be contradicting yourself:
It is a problem [that Redhat don't want them to do that] because[...]Red Hat has no right to interfere with that.
No. That's exactly why it is not a problem.
It's not about the feelings but about Red Hat's legal threat to very existence of CentOS.
I would dispute that this is a "threat to very existence of CentOS" and that it is "legal". Remember that as long as they are not causing confusion with RedHat's products in the way they trade CentOS, it is not a trademark issue.
It is newsworthy because Red Hat is using closed source-like approach to intimidate competing distributions
OK. I accept that (assuming this part of some sort of pattern in the company's behaviour).
Wrong! An entity can stop another entity from any use of their TM that causes a "likelihood of confusion" among consumers.
OK. The exact wording depends on your jurisdiction. I was defining a trade mark in broad terms; obviously you need to look at your local trademark law for the detailed definition.
However, I think that we are agreed that Centos's use is not a trade name and would not cause likelihood of confusion among consumers.
Also, an entity can stop other commercial entities from using the mark if it is actually diluting their registered TM.
My understanding is that that is not true at least in my jurisdiction (UK). So, for instance, Hoover cannot sue me for calling my Dyson vacuum cleaner a "hoover".
Granted, in the case of open source code you don't strictly need to credit the original author...
No. Actually you do need to credit the copyright holder under all the free-software licenses I have ever seen (esp. the GNU GPL). In fact, you probably have to to make the license make legal/logical sense. How could a license be given out that did not state who was giving out the license?
So, if Recalcitrantly-Euphemistic-Development -House-Abusing-Trademarks doesn't want credit for their work, I would agree with you, this turns into a non-issue.
No. If some dumbass at RHAT asks them not to do so, it doesn't change the fact that they legally have to do so. Whereas the request of that dumbass at RHAT is just that, a request (which they can ignore).
Is there even a definable difference? They are totally different areas of the law (stopping consumer confusion between products they buy and stopping verbatim copying of intellectual works). I think you will find Hemos is just trolling again. Don't feed the trolls.
Why would it be a problem that Redhat don't want them to do that? Why should Centos's developers care about the feelings of the Redhat, Inc. Why is this news worthy?
TMs are partially desiged to protect consumer confusion.
In fact the are entirely designed for that reason, which is exactly why RHAT's claims are incorrect.
A trademark registration only stops others from using the mark as a trade mark (i.e.: the name they use to trade/sell their product under) so this doesn't cover stuff in the software (that's why Mozilla can't sue Microsoft over MSIE's HTTP UA product token for instance).
It is perfectly acceptable to even change the main trading name of Centos to "RedHat-based Centos" as this is descriptive; they would not be claiming when selling the product that it is RedHat, but just Redhat-based.
Mr. Gates: Now that's what I call a dead patent law. The JURI is no longer out on that patent law...its most definitely deceased.
Commissioner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!
Mr. Gates: STUNNED?!?
Commissioner: Yeah! 'E was stunned by all the public backlash! Patent laws stun easily, major.
Mr. Gates: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That patent law is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not two years ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following prolonged internal diplomacy.
Commissioner: Well...uhhh...we prefer to do things dead slow and sure like in the EU!
Mr. Gates: Well...the dead bit is most certainly right. Look, why did it fall flat on his back the moment I got home last time? I never had these problems with Congress...
Commissioner:Remarkable patent law, id'nit, squire? Lovely contradictions and those beautiful convoluted sentences!
Mr. Gates: Look, I took the liberty of examining that patent law when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had got as far as it had in the first place was that no one had actually READ it.
(pause)
Commissioner: Well, o'course they don't! They're not payed enough for that...at least they are, but we pay 'em NOT to read 'em. That's the trick, you see. Trust me...that patent law will fly straight through as an A-item in the fisheries committee...just like...a parrot, sir...you know parrots love a bit of fish...the great thing is, sir, that the ministers and MEPs avoid it like the plague on account of it stinkin' to 'igh 'eaven...
Mr. Gates: Never find how 'igh your damn committee stinks, this patent law wouldn't fly through your committee if you put four million volts through every minister present! 'E's bleedin' demised!
Commissioner: No no! 'E's just a li'l slow!
Mr. Gates: 'E's not slow! 'E's passed on! This patent law is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! 'E's pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked thebucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PATENT LAW!!
(pause)
Commissioner: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek round the back) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back , and uh, we're right out of patent laws.
Mr. Gates: I see. I see, I get the picture.
Commissioner: I got a HIPC initiative. Uhhh...your good...ummm...friend, Mr. Brown had this idea you see but he hasn't got the means...
(pause)
Mr. Gates: (sweetly) Pray, will it take out my competitors?
Commissioner: Nnnnot really.
Mr. Gates: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?
Commissioner: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)
Mr. Gates: Well.
(pause)
Commissioner: (quietly) You know I thought that uhhh...spread in Teen Beat was rather good...uhhh...D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?
At risk of stating the obvious (which unfortunately probably needs doing on/.), a trademark registration only stops others from using the mark as a trade mark (i.e.: the name they use to trade/sell their product under) so this doesn't cover stuff in the software (that's why Mozilla can't sue Microsoft over MSIE's HTTP UA product token for instance).
It is perfectly acceptable to even change the main trading name of Centos to "RedHat-based Centos" as this is descriptive; they would not be claiming when selling the product that it is RedHat, but just Redhat-based.
In summary, if RHAT are claiming a trademark violation for this stuff, they can take a hike.
Mr. Gates: Now that's what I call a dead patent law. The JURI is no longer out on that patent law...its most definitely deceased.
Commissioner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!
Mr. Gates: STUNNED?!?
Commissioner: Yeah! 'E was stunned by all the public backlash! Patent laws stun easily, major.
Mr. Gates: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That patent law is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not two years ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following prolonged internal diplomacy.
Commissioner: Well...uhhh...we prefer to do things dead slow and sure like in the EU!
Mr. Gates: Well...the dead bit is most certainly right. Look, why did it fall flat on his back the moment I got home last time? I never had these problems with Congress...
Commissioner:Remarkable patent law, id'nit, squire? Lovely contradictions and those beautiful convoluted sentences!
Mr. Gates: Look, I took the liberty of examining that patent law when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had got as far as it had in the first place was that no one had actually READ it.
(pause)
Commissioner: Well, o'course they don't! They're not payed enough for that...at least they are, but we pay 'em NOT to read 'em. That's the trick, you see. Trust me...that patent law will fly straight through as an A-item in the fisheries committee...just like...a parrot, sir...you know parrots love a bit of fish...the great thing is, sir, that the ministers and MEPs avoid it like the plague on account of it stinkin' to 'igh 'eaven...
Mr. Gates: Never find how 'igh your damn committee stinks, this patent law wouldn't fly through your committee if you put four million volts through every minister present! 'E's bleedin' demised!
Commissioner: No no! 'E's just a li'l slow!
Mr. Gates: 'E's not slow! 'E's passed on! This patent law is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! 'E's pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked thebucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PATENT LAW!!
(pause)
Commissioner: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek round the back) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back , and uh, we're right out of patent laws.
Mr. Gates: I see. I see, I get the picture.
Commissioner: I got a HIPC initiative. Uhhh...your good...ummm...friend, Mr. Brown had this idea you see but he hasn't got the means...
(pause)
Mr. Gates: (sweetly) Pray, will it take out my competitors?
Commissioner: Nnnnot really.
Mr. Gates: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?
Commissioner: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)
Mr. Gates: Well.
(pause)
Commissioner: (quietly) You know I thought that uhhh...spread in Teen Beat was rather good...uhhh...D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?
Yes, OK, one patent on a human being has been dropped by the USPTO on the grounds that it breaks the US constitution--obviously the guy didn't profer the necessary bribes.
However, even if this sticks, one is still allowed to genetically engineer humans in the US, human genes are still copyrightable in the US, human *genes* are still *patentable* in the US (and many patents on them have been issued) which is effectively the same thing as patenting the actual human (and the same objections should be true), and one is allowed to patent non-human organisms in the US (so if I let my GM crops contaminate your land/crops, I can then sue you into the ground for patent and copyright infringement--uhhh, isn't that the wrong way round).
So, basically, as they don't sell any other (e.g.: real) products, they now have a 2 for 1 offer...but they're double the price. Oohhh...I've got to buy one now.
I mean, it's not like the variables have naughty names, right?
Hmmm...I wouldn't be so sure about that. From drivers/usb/spca50x.c (USB camera driver) in the leaked MSW source:
/*
* Function compares two strings.
* Return offset in pussy where prick ends if "prick" may penetrate
* int "pussy" like prick into pussy, -1 otherwise.
*/ static inline int match(const char* prick, const char* pussy, int len2) {
int len1 = strlen(prick);//length of male string
int i;//just an index variable
const char* tmp;//temporary pointer for my own pleasure// We skip all spaces and tabs
for (i = 0; i len2)
return -1;//Fuck off, no fucking
if (!strncmp(prick, tmp, len1))
return i + len1;
return -1; }
The lameness filter is very lame.
Awfully, awfully lame.
Its lameness is beyond comprehension.
Oh yes it is very lame.
The lameness filter is really lame.
Extremely lame.
Yes. From that perspective, Airbus may be considered better than the alternative.
(Although Airbus are IMO a corrupt company, the production and use of those planes is particularly bad for the environment (and aimed at rich people), and they are (for very questionable reasons) receiving lots of public EU money to produce the planes--which ironically (due to deals they have with other criminal companies) is being spent on flouting (good) EU environmental directives (which the EU are turning a blind eye to).)
Well, as someone who has actively campaigned against GM crops and Airbus, and doesn't like steel tariffs; I don't think that the EC are doing enough to stop those kind of things. (Or did you mean Airbus was actually something positive?)
You think this patent law has nothing to do with the fact that the US has introduced similar laws (it should be noted with (IMO) disasterous effect)?
The US and EU are geographical areas, so I can't insult it, but I know what you mean. However, the insult (if it is that) stands.
You may not like to believe this, but in the Real World, all the other countries are trying to kiss the arse of the gov. of the US of A (who after all have all the nukes and WMD, and have shown they aren't afraid to use them).
Some Europeans have, yes, made meagre efforts to question the way in which the US is going around bombing and taking over other countries; but, in practice, over little things like patent law, they'll most definitely do what ever the US tells them and the pressure from that side of the pond (esp. GWB and Bill Gates) on this issue has been well documented by the press and the FFII. The €C have said that this is all about harminisation (with the US); they don't deny this is why the directive was proposed.
Obviously the answer is 42; I would never argue with you about that (though quite what the question is is another matter). But, in context, I was talking about answering the great-great-grandparent post (that you had just replied to) which ended in STR.
There is also a certain individual (who has just come back from a trip to Brussels) who seems to (somewhat succesfully) be trying to influence the UK government & the €C: Sir Billy (of the Gatepeople).
He, also seems to be the one influencing our good friend, Dubya.
The context of the word, positive, in your post (which I don't BTW agree with) was that you were saying one side (for the directive) are taking positive steps and another (against) are not.
As the word, positive, was being applied to both parties, you must have meant something more (and at a higher level) by the word than just "for whichever side they are on".
And, FYI, the correct answer was "Arthur Dent, Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy".
Slashdot Mirror
However, I think that we are agreed that Centos's use is not a trade name and would not cause likelihood of confusion among consumers.
My understanding is that that is not true at least in my jurisdiction (UK). So, for instance, Hoover cannot sue me for calling my Dyson vacuum cleaner a "hoover".Is there even a definable difference? They are totally different areas of the law (stopping consumer confusion between products they buy and stopping verbatim copying of intellectual works). I think you will find Hemos is just trolling again. Don't feed the trolls.
Why would it be a problem that Redhat don't want them to do that? Why should Centos's developers care about the feelings of the Redhat, Inc. Why is this news worthy?
A trademark registration only stops others from using the mark as a trade mark (i.e.: the name they use to trade/sell their product under) so this doesn't cover stuff in the software (that's why Mozilla can't sue Microsoft over MSIE's HTTP UA product token for instance).
It is perfectly acceptable to even change the main trading name of Centos to "RedHat-based Centos" as this is descriptive; they would not be claiming when selling the product that it is RedHat, but just Redhat-based.
The Sketch (contd...)
Mr. Gates: Now that's what I call a dead patent law. The JURI is no longer out on that patent law...its most definitely deceased.
Commissioner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!
Mr. Gates: STUNNED?!?
Commissioner: Yeah! 'E was stunned by all the public backlash! Patent laws stun easily, major.
Mr. Gates: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That patent law is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not two years ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following prolonged internal diplomacy.
Commissioner: Well...uhhh...we prefer to do things dead slow and sure like in the EU!
Mr. Gates: Well...the dead bit is most certainly right. Look, why did it fall flat on his back the moment I got home last time? I never had these problems with Congress...
Commissioner:Remarkable patent law, id'nit, squire? Lovely contradictions and those beautiful convoluted sentences!
Mr. Gates: Look, I took the liberty of examining that patent law when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had got as far as it had in the first place was that no one had actually READ it.
(pause)
Commissioner: Well, o'course they don't! They're not payed enough for that...at least they are, but we pay 'em NOT to read 'em. That's the trick, you see. Trust me...that patent law will fly straight through as an A-item in the fisheries committee...just like...a parrot, sir...you know parrots love a bit of fish...the great thing is, sir, that the ministers and MEPs avoid it like the plague on account of it stinkin' to 'igh 'eaven...
Mr. Gates: Never find how 'igh your damn committee stinks, this patent law wouldn't fly through your committee if you put four million volts through every minister present! 'E's bleedin' demised!
Commissioner: No no! 'E's just a li'l slow!
Mr. Gates: 'E's not slow! 'E's passed on! This patent law is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! 'E's pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked thebucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PATENT LAW!!
(pause)
Commissioner: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek round the back) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back , and uh, we're right out of patent laws.
Mr. Gates: I see. I see, I get the picture.
Commissioner: I got a HIPC initiative. Uhhh...your good...ummm...friend, Mr. Brown had this idea you see but he hasn't got the means...
(pause)
Mr. Gates: (sweetly) Pray, will it take out my competitors?
Commissioner: Nnnnot really.
Mr. Gates: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?
Commissioner: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)
Mr. Gates: Well.
(pause)
Commissioner: (quietly) You know I thought that uhhh...spread in Teen Beat was rather good...uhhh...D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?
Mr. Gates: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure.
Copyright
The original dead parrot sketch was written by Graham Chapman, et. al. for Monty Python's Flying Circus and is © 1989 Pantheon Books/Random House, Inc. My modification of it is co
Here's something I wrote the other day:
The Cast:
- Mr. Gates
- A European Commissioner
The SketchA `customer' (with brown envelopes and chequebook aready) enters the €C in Brussels.
Mr. Gates: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
(The commisioner does not respond.)
Mr. Gates: 'Ello, Miss?
Commissioner: What do you mean "miss"?
Mr. Gates: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
Commissioner: We're closin' for lunch.
Mr. Gates: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this patent law what I purchased not two years ago from this very office.
Commissioner: Oh yes, the, uh, the computer-implemented inventions one...What's, uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Gates: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Commissioner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Gates: Look, matey, I know a dead patent law when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Commissioner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable law, idn'it, ay? Beautiful sophistory and ambiguity!
Mr. Gates: The anbiguity don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
Commissioner: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!
Mr. Gates: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up!
...
Mr. Gates: You let the European Parliament kill 'im, didn't you!
Commissioner: I never!!
Mr. Gates: Yes, you did!
Commissioner: I never, never did anything...
(Mr. Gates takes patent law out of briefcase and thumps it on the desk. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)
contd...(due to limit on post size)
It is perfectly acceptable to even change the main trading name of Centos to "RedHat-based Centos" as this is descriptive; they would not be claiming when selling the product that it is RedHat, but just Redhat-based.
In summary, if RHAT are claiming a trademark violation for this stuff, they can take a hike.
IANALOEAUSC.
The Sketch (contd...)
Mr. Gates: Now that's what I call a dead patent law. The JURI is no longer out on that patent law...its most definitely deceased.
Commissioner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!
Mr. Gates: STUNNED?!?
Commissioner: Yeah! 'E was stunned by all the public backlash! Patent laws stun easily, major.
Mr. Gates: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That patent law is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not two years ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following prolonged internal diplomacy.
Commissioner: Well...uhhh...we prefer to do things dead slow and sure like in the EU!
Mr. Gates: Well...the dead bit is most certainly right. Look, why did it fall flat on his back the moment I got home last time? I never had these problems with Congress...
Commissioner:Remarkable patent law, id'nit, squire? Lovely contradictions and those beautiful convoluted sentences!
Mr. Gates: Look, I took the liberty of examining that patent law when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had got as far as it had in the first place was that no one had actually READ it.
(pause)
Commissioner: Well, o'course they don't! They're not payed enough for that...at least they are, but we pay 'em NOT to read 'em. That's the trick, you see. Trust me...that patent law will fly straight through as an A-item in the fisheries committee...just like...a parrot, sir...you know parrots love a bit of fish...the great thing is, sir, that the ministers and MEPs avoid it like the plague on account of it stinkin' to 'igh 'eaven...
Mr. Gates: Never find how 'igh your damn committee stinks, this patent law wouldn't fly through your committee if you put four million volts through every minister present! 'E's bleedin' demised!
Commissioner: No no! 'E's just a li'l slow!
Mr. Gates: 'E's not slow! 'E's passed on! This patent law is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! 'E's pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked thebucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PATENT LAW!!
(pause)
Commissioner: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek round the back) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back , and uh, we're right out of patent laws.
Mr. Gates: I see. I see, I get the picture.
Commissioner: I got a HIPC initiative. Uhhh...your good...ummm...friend, Mr. Brown had this idea you see but he hasn't got the means...
(pause)
Mr. Gates: (sweetly) Pray, will it take out my competitors?
Commissioner: Nnnnot really.
Mr. Gates: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?
Commissioner: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)
Mr. Gates: Well.
(pause)
Commissioner: (quietly) You know I thought that uhhh...spread in Teen Beat was rather good...uhhh...D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?
Mr. Gates: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure.
Copyright
The original dead parrot sketch was written by Graham Chapman, et. al. for Monty Python's Flying Circus and is © 1989 Pantheon Books/Random House, Inc. My modification of it is co
Here's something I wrote the other day:
The Cast:
- Mr. Gates
- A European Commissioner
The SketchA `customer' (with brown envelopes and chequebook aready) enters the €C in Brussels.
Mr. Gates: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
(The commisioner does not respond.)
Mr. Gates: 'Ello, Miss?
Commissioner: What do you mean "miss"?
Mr. Gates: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
Commissioner: We're closin' for lunch.
Mr. Gates: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this patent law what I purchased not two years ago from this very office.
Commissioner: Oh yes, the, uh, the computer-implemented inventions one...What's, uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Gates: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Commissioner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Gates: Look, matey, I know a dead patent law when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Commissioner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable law, idn'it, ay? Beautiful sophistory and ambiguity!
Mr. Gates: The anbiguity don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
Commissioner: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!
Mr. Gates: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up!
...
Mr. Gates: You let the European Parliament kill 'im, didn't you!
Commissioner: I never!!
Mr. Gates: Yes, you did!
Commissioner: I never, never did anything...
(Mr. Gates takes patent law out of briefcase and thumps it on the desk. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)
contd...(due to limit on post size)
However, even if this sticks, one is still allowed to genetically engineer humans in the US, human genes are still copyrightable in the US, human *genes* are still *patentable* in the US (and many patents on them have been issued) which is effectively the same thing as patenting the actual human (and the same objections should be true), and one is allowed to patent non-human organisms in the US (so if I let my GM crops contaminate your land/crops, I can then sue you into the ground for patent and copyright infringement--uhhh, isn't that the wrong way round).
Not only are ethics not excluded from the law, but the purpose of the law is the implementation of ethics (i.e.: law = an ethical code).
That's probably not so true of higher education lecturers. For further and high school that is probably usually true.
So, basically, as they don't sell any other (e.g.: real) products, they now have a 2 for 1 offer...but they're double the price. Oohhh...I've got to buy one now.
Probably the MSW source doesn't have any jokes or any comments at all worth talking about in it and that is what they want to hide.
Or, actually, they could just remove all the comments. What they don't want people to see is the atrocious code.
s/some professional astroturfer called/some professional astroturfer called Simon Gentry
killing and users (and it helps a lot if they are in that order).
Sometimes its just got to be done. An idea that I must admit I...uhh...stole.
(Although Airbus are IMO a corrupt company, the production and use of those planes is particularly bad for the environment (and aimed at rich people), and they are (for very questionable reasons) receiving lots of public EU money to produce the planes--which ironically (due to deals they have with other criminal companies) is being spent on flouting (good) EU environmental directives (which the EU are turning a blind eye to).)
Well, as someone who has actively campaigned against GM crops and Airbus, and doesn't like steel tariffs; I don't think that the EC are doing enough to stop those kind of things. (Or did you mean Airbus was actually something positive?)
The US and EU are geographical areas, so I can't insult it, but I know what you mean. However, the insult (if it is that) stands.
You may not like to believe this, but in the Real World, all the other countries are trying to kiss the arse of the gov. of the US of A (who after all have all the nukes and WMD, and have shown they aren't afraid to use them).
Some Europeans have, yes, made meagre efforts to question the way in which the US is going around bombing and taking over other countries; but, in practice, over little things like patent law, they'll most definitely do what ever the US tells them and the pressure from that side of the pond (esp. GWB and Bill Gates) on this issue has been well documented by the press and the FFII. The €C have said that this is all about harminisation (with the US); they don't deny this is why the directive was proposed.
Obviously the answer is 42; I would never argue with you about that (though quite what the question is is another matter). But, in context, I was talking about answering the great-great-grandparent post (that you had just replied to) which ended in STR.
He, also seems to be the one influencing our good friend, Dubya.
The context of the word, positive, in your post (which I don't BTW agree with) was that you were saying one side (for the directive) are taking positive steps and another (against) are not.
As the word, positive, was being applied to both parties, you must have meant something more (and at a higher level) by the word than just "for whichever side they are on".
And, FYI, the correct answer was "Arthur Dent, Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy".
</response>