[JLL]

If you're thinking about using MySQL or PostgreSQL instead it's not an option right now.

PostgreSQL might be, but we have a working solution right now with redundancy and a change in database is not a top priority right now.

Everything else is open source though (JBoss, Apache, Tomcat, FOP and much much more).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by JLL

If you're thinking about using MySQL or PostgreSQL instead it's not an option right now.

PostgreSQL might be, but we have a working solution right now with redundancy and a change in database is not a top priority right now.

Everything else is open source though (JBoss, Apache, Tomcat, FOP and much much more).

I'm not questioning the wisdom of using Oracle, because I obviously know nothing of the details about what the database is responsible for, how many users you have, etc. I honestly wasn't trying to ask a leading question.

I am wondering at what point using Oracle becomes justifiable over Postgres. Oracle is obviously superb at running enterprise level databases, I'm just wondering at what point a database and its traffic is considered enterprise level

[JLL]

Oracle might be overkill for us but the enterprise version has features not found in their cheaper versions (or for many years not found in open source databases).

We have 150 users internally running out in house developed app for managing customers and the items we sell, and the same database is used for our homepage: Bruun Rasmussen Kunstauktioner

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by JLL

Oracle might be overkill for us but the enterprise version has features not found in their cheaper versions (or for many years not found in open source databases).

We have 150 users internally running out in house developed app for managing customers and the items we sell, and the same database is used for our homepage: Bruun Rasmussen Kunstauktioner

That's cool... MySQL didn't even gain data replication until one of the 3.x versions (I believe), and is only gaining some other enterprise features now in 5.x. I'm not sure how long Postgres has been along, but it of course is Unix only (which might be a problem for some).

It does sound like someday the DB can be replaced with Postgres whenever your license expires or whatever, but I do understand the legacy/history issues behind many databases. Many environments are stuck with maintaining some really old data, I'm sure you aren't alone

[kamina]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I'm not questioning the wisdom of using Oracle, because I obviously know nothing of the details about what the database is responsible for, how many users you have, etc. I honestly wasn't trying to ask a leading question.

I am wondering at what point using Oracle becomes justifiable over Postgres. Oracle is obviously superb at running enterprise level databases, I'm just wondering at what point a database and its traffic is considered enterprise level

Once support, uptime or scaling are crucial. We are getting a new database server at work with 64GB of ram and 8 opterons. Most of us in IT are giggling at how Mysql will scale with it, as that is what has been specified (and what we generally use). However most of us would use Oracle once something this big is needed.

[24klogos]

prepare for Vista

...Fall 2011 is around the corner

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

Unbelievable ! That is a complete and blatant rip off of the Mac OS. This sort of thing really gets me - first of all Linux GUIs seemed to want to rip off Windows as closely as possible, and now they are trying the same with the Mac. Why can't they try and create something original for once ?

How dare anyone copy live resizing, transparent windows, and : gasp : animation on a computer.

It's a brand new OpenGL based X11 server and they just want to run it through it's paces. That's it. Just because Apple has animated interfaces doesn't mean everyone else can't.

[dmetzcher]

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

Have you seen this ?

Vista’s UI is Better Than This!? ~ Chris Pirillo

Unbelievable ! That is a complete and blatant rip off of the Mac OS. This sort of thing really gets me - first of all Linux GUIs seemed to want to rip off Windows as closely as possible, and now they are trying the same with the Mac. Why can't they try and create something original for once ?

At the very least, this should be illegal under copyright laws. For instance, if I'd created a work of art, and then found that someone else had stolen my ideas and reproduced said artwork, I would be able to prosecute them (eg if it were a book, or a painting). Why should it be any different because the 'artform' is a computer interface ?

You are talking about patent law, not copyright law. Copyright law does not apply here. Patent law WOULD apply, if Apple had a patent on something being duplicated.

Personally, I think it's an impressive design, at the very least, and it's certainly not going to hurt Apple's business. The average user is not going to ditch their Mac for a Linux box just because Linux gets a little flashier. Also, the only thing I see that's Mac-like, really, is the fact that there is a Dock and Expose. (Oh, and the cube switch thing, I guess.)

I don't understand why users get so angry when someone improves upon (or tries to) the features of Apple, Microsoft, or Linux. Competition is good, and it causes the guy who was copied to go back and design things even better the next time.

I wonder if you want Apple to be sued over Spaces when Leopard is released. You do realize that Spaces is just the multiple desktops (though probably an improved design) that Linux already had, don't you? Or, one could say that the creator of Desktop Manager, or Virtue Desktops, should be suing Apple, for stealing their idea of multiple desktops for the Mac OS.

Everyone borrows from everyone else. Every app you use was inspired by the developer's use of other applications. Very little is completely original in any OS or with any application. They are all improvements on several themes. If we required developers to design from the ground up every time, we'd get no where fast, and users wouldn't be happy.

On a side note, I hope Apple steals the cut command from every other OS and adds it to the Finder in Leopard.

[Gee4orce]

Congratulations - you've completely missed my point.

What I'm saying here is WHY DOESN'T copyright apply ? What I'm talking about is the design - the look and feel - not the mechanical specifics.

Audi can make cars. So can BMW. They both are pretty much the same thing - engines, wheels, you get the idea. Do you not think that these businesses go to extraordinary lengths to keep their designs secret. Yes - what the cars actually look like. That's because, design sells - it's valuable. Anything that is a valuable company asset, that has taken a substantial amount of R&D investment, and offers a competitive advantage should be protected.

Allowing anyone to come along and steal your best design ideas is - or at least, should be - no different. Whether you're a car manufacturer, a graphic designer, or a computer interface developer.

Apple felt exactly the same way back in the 90's - that's why they sued Microsoft, and famously sold out. This time around it's more clear cut IMO - we're not talking about whether windows per se are copyrightable ideas - rather that the exact look and feel is something that should be protected.

[Chuckit]

You can't copyright an idea.

[cakey]

So if the icons weren't shiny it would be ok with you??

[dmetzcher]

Originally Posted by Simon

100% agreed.

This is on Linux, people. If anything it's flattery. Apple isn't going to lose a single customer due to XGL or this skin.

If this were a serious Apple competitor like MS, I'd expect Apple to sue and I'd agree with that, but this is free software for a niche market. I really think there's nothing to be worried about. If anything, it's nice to see others acknowledge Apple's superior GUI design. There's nothing worse than working on a Linux box skinned to look like XP.

Suing is only a possibility if Apple has a patent on something being copied. They can't sue someone for creating/adding a similar feature to one present in their own OS. They (Apple) do that sort of thing themselves. If you could sue for features that are copied (sans a patent on those features), Apple would be headed to court to defend themselves right now. Spaces is NOT an original idea. Apple is borrowing it from Linux in the first place, and from other OS X developers, who have released applications that bring the feature to OS X already.

We live in a far too sue-crazy society. Innovation is a good thing, and I wouldn't be so quick to put my support behind Apple for suing people out of business. If they were as powerful as Microsoft, they would be equally as evil as many of you think MS is. The fact is that any public company will go to great lengths to protect itself, even if the methods used are less-than-good for the consumer. Don't be so quick to defend anything that any public company does when it comes to dragging developers into a court room. Most times, the company has no case in the first place, and they are using our court system (and our tax dollars and the time of our public servants) to keep their grip on a market.

[dmetzcher]

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

Congratulations - you've completely missed my point.

What I'm saying here is WHY DOESN'T copyright apply ? What I'm talking about is the design - the look and feel - not the mechanical specifics.

Audi can make cars. So can BMW. They both are pretty much the same thing - engines, wheels, you get the idea. Do you not think that these businesses go to extraordinary lengths to keep their designs secret. Yes - what the cars actually look like. That's because, design sells - it's valuable. Anything that is a valuable company asset, that has taken a substantial amount of R&D investment, and offers a competitive advantage should be protected.

Allowing anyone to come along and steal your best design ideas is - or at least, should be - no different. Whether you're a car manufacturer, a graphic designer, or a computer interface developer.

Apple felt exactly the same way back in the 90's - that's why they sued Microsoft, and famously sold out. This time around it's more clear cut IMO - we're not talking about whether windows per se are copyrightable ideas - rather that the exact look and feel is something that should be protected.

Alright, I guess I did miss your point. Either you weren't clear, or I read it wrong. Either way, I'm not sure that there was a need for your smart-ass reply. Simply saying, "that was not my point, let me ask it in more detail...", would have been fine. Do you talk to people in-person in the same way, say, at work, or at school (whichever applies to you)? Or, do you save that tone for people on a Web forum, or over the phone, where you don't have to face the person to whom you are speaking?

Anyway...here's your answer. I'll take another stab at it. Copyright law applies when you actually copy something. I believe something similar, which is what we are talking about here, not an exact copy, would not, in fact, be a copyright violation.

For example. If I were to paint something, say, a landscape, and you were to come along and paint it from the same perspective, you would violate my work if you actually copied my painting, but not if you simply painted the same thing. That's probably not a perfect, or even near-perfect comparison, but it's the best I can come up with right now, as I'm annoyed.

On another side note, I go into several (about 5-7) Mac-related forums on a daily basis. This forum, by far, is the one that has comments that are so strikingly similar to those that appear in the Digg.com comments sections it's scary. There are more nasty comments and attitude thrown around on this forum than any other I visit, and many of them come from moderators, which is even worse.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by dmetzcher

We live in a far too sue-crazy society. Innovation is a good thing, and I wouldn't be so quick to put my support behind Apple for suing people out of business.

I think you misunderstood my statement. I explicitly said that Apple shouldn't sue anybody over this. However, back in the day when MS ripped Apple off and Apple sued I perfectly agreed with that. Had Apple won that case MS and Apple would both be different companies today.

[hegsie]

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

But my whole point is that it's the Eye Candy that's getting copied. I'm not arguing that the general functionality of virtual desktops of docks or whatever else are Apple inventions, or even then every OS should re-invent the wheel. Clearly, Apple themselves have taken ideas from the community, and this kind of idea sharing drives innovation, and Is A Good Thing.

What's getting me is the specifics - the eye candy so to speak - it a complete and utter rip off. Why not go and invent something else - something better, something different - instead of just copying Apple's innovation here ? I'd love to see an OS with an ultra high tech interface inspired by the Matrix or Minority Report or something else - but instead they can't seem to see beyond copying what Windows and Mac OS have already done.

To use an analogy - I could start an Web search engine company tomorrow - that's fair game, and nobody can stop me doing that. I might even have some cool new technology to incorporate into it. But what would be beyond the pale would be for me to call the company Google and have a multi-coloured text logo....

Are people so naive to believe that any ideas are real innovations in the industry software is an evolution, where survival of the fittest rules. Good concepts are adopted and bad ones die off, what really irks me is that mac fanatics seem to think that Apple is the greatest innovator in technology, they're not!!!!

Apple didn't create the desktop metaphor they bought/got it from a stupid Xerox executive, the special effects that Apple incorporates in the Mac are just the same. All Apple does is evolve the ecosystem in a direction that they think will profit themselves, software engineers understand this and I personally can't believe that one would be so ignorant of the world around themselves.

[Gavin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

You can't copyright an idea.

What?

Copyright is precisely for protecting an idea.

Your thoughts, your creations, your art, your work. These things belong to you. You have the right to profit from them, or not, as you see fit. A copyright gives you a way to go after the bastards that try to steal your ideas from you.

Now, defending your rights in court or keeping your idea from being freely exploited by the public is another matter. But, while the concept of a T-shirt is generic, if you are making exact replicas of an Abercrombie and Fitch shirt you can expect to be contacted by their lawyer.

[Gee4orce]

Originally Posted by dmetzcher

Anyway...here's your answer. I'll take another stab at it. Copyright law applies when you actually copy something. I believe something similar, which is what we are talking about here, not an exact copy, would not, in fact, be a copyright violation.

Almost. Just recently, the author of Holy Blood, Holy Grail took Dan Brown (of Da Vinci Code fame) to court because he complained that his ideas had been stolen wholesale. He lost, in this instance, but the case never would have gone to court if it weren't possible to defend plagarism using copyright law.

Originally Posted by dmetzcher

For example. If I were to paint something, say, a landscape, and you were to come along and paint it from the same perspective, you would violate my work if you actually copied my painting, but not if you simply painted the same thing. That's probably not a perfect, or even near-perfect comparison, but it's the best I can come up with right now, as I'm annoyed.

Good analogy. So, lets say that you are Da Vinci, and your artworks are fetching $1M each. I come along, and paint a rather coy looking ladyman with a 1/2 smile, in exactly the same style as you, with the same brush techniques and sell my work for $500K. Now, if I were to try and pass off my painting as one of yours, it's called forgery, and very illegal.

I"m not claiming these guys are trying to pass off their work as genuine Mac OSX, or that OSX is as beautiful as the Mona Lisa - but don't you think at the very least it shows a deep lack of imagination to not even try and do something original and different ?

I mean, if I want the Mac OS X, I can run the Mac OS X - I don't want or need a bad (or good) copy of it's UI on a Linux distro. If, however, I want a cool linux distro with a wicked interface, I can't get one because these guys chose to spend their not inconsiderable time and talents just ripping off Mac OS X.

Originally Posted by dmetzcher

On another side note, I go into several (about 5-7) Mac-related forums on a daily basis. This forum, by far, is the one that has comments that are so strikingly similar to those that appear in the Digg.com comments sections it's scary. There are more nasty comments and attitude thrown around on this forum than any other I visit, and many of them come from moderators, which is even worse.

I used to moderate here. It's a thankless task.

[Gee4orce]

Originally Posted by hegsie

Are people so naive to believe that any ideas are real innovations in the industry software is an evolution, where survival of the fittest rules. Good concepts are adopted and bad ones die off, what really irks me is that mac fanatics seem to think that Apple is the greatest innovator in technology, they're not!!!!

Apple didn't create the desktop metaphor they bought/got it from a stupid Xerox executive, the special effects that Apple incorporates in the Mac are just the same. All Apple does is evolve the ecosystem in a direction that they think will profit themselves, software engineers understand this and I personally can't believe that one would be so ignorant of the world around themselves.

Uh ?

I'm not sure what your getting at here ? Apple have a fantastic track record as an innovator - I don't see how you can doubt that ? Just to take 1 example - the layout of every laptop since about 1991 has been influenced by the original Powerbooks. Up until then, you had all sort of weird designs, with the keyboard at the front, a trackball on the lid (I kid you not). Then there's the Newton Messgepad, the iPod.

I've never claimed Apple are the biggest innovator in IT, but they punch way, WAY above their weight when compared to any other company I can think of. Point out some counterexamples if you think I'm wrong.

[dmetzcher]

Originally Posted by Gavin

What?

Copyright is precisely for protecting an idea.

Your thoughts, your creations, your art, your work. These things belong to you. You have the right to profit from them, or not, as you see fit. A copyright gives you a way to go after the bastards that try to steal your ideas from you.

Now, defending your rights in court or keeping your idea from being freely exploited by the public is another matter. But, while the concept of a T-shirt is generic, if you are making exact replicas of an Abercrombie and Fitch shirt you can expect to be contacted by their lawyer.

You are confusing copyright law with patent and intellectual property law. Copyright does not work in the same way. It does not protect an idea. Patent law protects ideas. Copyright protects a specific work (i.e. - a written document or audio/video recording). Copyright is automatic, and there are fair use laws that allow others to use portions of your work in their own, especially for news organizations and those who report news, for profit or not.

Trademarks and patents are not automatic, although a case can be made that someone had an implied trademark on something, but that's up to a jugde. Patents protect ideas (i.e. - inventions, or new ways of doing something). They can also protect improvements to already patented ideas, although that sort of patent would only allow you to own the improvement, not the original item.

[dmetzcher]

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

Almost. Just recently, the author of Holy Blood, Holy Grail took Dan Brown (of Da Vinci Code fame) to court because he complained that his ideas had been stolen wholesale. He lost, in this instance, but the case never would have gone to court if it weren't possible to defend plagarism using copyright law.

That case was in the UK. Patent laws there are not identical to those here. At this point, we'd be talking about two different countries laws. I believe that many were saying, when the case was in court, that borrowing a theme, even with details kept in-tact, is allowed. For example, take a vampire movie. Surely the basis for all vampire movies is the same. Vampires drink blood. They infect humans through a bit. They usually go for the neck. They burn in sunlight.

No one would claim that I cannot essentially take all those things, written originally by someone else, and use them in my own story. Dan Brown won his case, I believe, by using that argument (either that, or it's the argument I heard everyone else talking about at the time).

[dmetzcher]

Incidentally, all this discussion on patent and trademark law is what causes so many people to defend Apple when they threaten to sue someone for, let's say, posting pictures of the new Leopard OS. Many people defend Apple, but what they fail to understand is that these cases will never go to court. The Apple attorneys (if they are worth their salaries) already know this. They do it to threaten people and scare them into removing the pictures. Posting pictures of a newsworthy item (Leopard) is NOT copyright infringement. It falls completely under fair use, not just for use by the media, but also for use by the general public. Copyright law is not a blanket statement that "you own it, and no one else can use any part of it". For more information on this, google "copyright law fair use".

Some argue that the developers who leaked the pictures in the first place broke the law by doing so, and so the person who posted the pictures is also breaking the law. That's incorrect as well. The developer(s) may have violated a non-disclosure contract with Apple by releasing the pictures, but that is a civil matter, handled by a civil court, rather than a criminal matter (e.g. - it is not illegal). Apple can sue the developers, but not the person to whom they leaked the images. Also, if someone were to get a copy of Leopard from BitTorrent, or some other illegal means, though that might, itself, be against the law, posting pictures or videos of Leopard gained by using the illegal copy is not against the law. In addition, Apple cannot sue, because they have no non-disclosure contract with the person who posted the pictures, regardless of how the pictures (or videos) were attained.

So many people are willing to defend corporations that it's scary. It one step away from a fascist system where corporations can own whatever they like, including the people and government, without regard for individuals. The fact is, fair use is part of copyright law.

I had to get that out, (1) because it pertains to copyright law, and that's part of this discussion, and (2) because I see so many people saying, "yeah, go Apple, sue them!", and "well, stop complaining that Apple threatened you, you posted pictures of their OS on your Web site, and that's illegal". It's nonsense. Would people be so quick to defend corporations if they wanted to hide illegal activity, or maybe just immoral activity, from the people of this country, claiming that the activities are their intellectual property, or that telling the world about such activities would release details regarding their intellectual property? What about politicians? Could they claim that IP law protects them because they came up with a great new way to handle the accounting for their campains (remember that campains are alway incorporated businesses in the United States, for tax purposes)? After that, where will it end.

The copyright laws allow fair use, and were designed to be this way, for several reasons, and people need to scrutinize corporations every time they claim to have a copyright on something. They are usually misrepresenting themselves, and attempting to scare away the media (which includes bloggers, Google, and YouTube, now), and the general public.

To those who seek to defend corporations who wish to limit our fair use laws, all I can say is that you are selling your own rights for the promise of absolutely nothing. Limiting fair use stifles creativity. Period.

[Chuckit]

They don't threaten people under copyright law, as I recall; they threaten them for leaking trade secrets.

[dimmer]

Apple didn't create the desktop metaphor they bought/got it from a stupid Xerox executive,

Nope, you got that 100% wrong. The Xerox STAR and other prototypes had no "desktop" metaphor at all (it didn't really make sense in what was in effect a minicomputer-based setup. The desktop was total Apple innovation.

Apple have been constantly innovative: yes, they've taken in their fair share of ideas as well, but everyone remembers when NIH ("Not Invented Here") was considered their bane?

[Gee4orce]

Originally Posted by dmetzcher

That case was in the UK. Patent laws there are not identical to those here. At this point, we'd be talking about two different countries laws. I believe that many were saying, when the case was in court, that borrowing a theme, even with details kept in-tact, is allowed. For example, take a vampire movie. Surely the basis for all vampire movies is the same. Vampires drink blood. They infect humans through a bit. They usually go for the neck. They burn in sunlight.

No one would claim that I cannot essentially take all those things, written originally by someone else, and use them in my own story. Dan Brown won his case, I believe, by using that argument (either that, or it's the argument I heard everyone else talking about at the time).

That's probably why we're talking slightly at cross-purposes then, because I live in the UK It's probably also why that case cam to court here, rather than in the US

As for jumping to defend corporations - no sirree ! I shudder at the thought of the power that US corporations have, with their links to lobbyist in the US government - go read 'Stupid White Men' or 'Fast Food Nation' for some chilling insights.

[cakey]

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

Good analogy. So, lets say that you are Da Vinci, and your artworks are fetching $1M each. I come along, and paint a rather coy looking ladyman with a 1/2 smile, in exactly the same style as you, with the same brush techniques and sell my work for $500K. Now, if I were to try and pass off my painting as one of yours, it's called forgery, and very illegal.

Bad analogy but I'll use it anyway...

What the xgl/compiz/gdesklets developers are essentially doing is providing "paints", "brushes" and a "canvas" for users to create their own pictures. If people like to emulate the look and feel of OSX its their own damn business.

[dmetzcher]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

They don't threaten people under copyright law, as I recall; they threaten them for leaking trade secrets.

Yes, which is also completely legal. If someone leaks information about something, including the name of a CIA agent, for example, the person who reports that leak does not see the inside of a court room, and that's a criminal case, where the person who leaked the information to press is in danger of being brought up on criminal charges by the government. In a civil case, they would never see the inside of a criminal courtroom. The media, and private citizens, are allowed to report to the public ANYTHING that they hear or see regarding a corporation, so long as they are doing so with good intent (as opposed to spreading statements that they know to be false, which is illegal). Taking screenshots or videos of an OS, or any application, and posting them on a blog, or the evening news, falls under the "fair use" provisions of US Copyright Law. Apple has no case, and it never will, unless Congress amends the Copyright Act.

I thought that Apple cited their copyright (which they do not have, technically, on screenshots or videos made by users) in the legal threats. Now I'm second-guessing myself. In any case, it's still the same basic argument, and it's still the same result. It's a scare tactic.

[dmetzcher]

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

That's probably why we're talking slightly at cross-purposes then, because I live in the UK It's probably also why that case cam to court here, rather than in the US

As for jumping to defend corporations - no sirree ! I shudder at the thought of the power that US corporations have, with their links to lobbyist in the US government - go read 'Stupid White Men' or 'Fast Food Nation' for some chilling insights.

I've read the former, but not the latter book. If you are shuddering at the thought of US corporations going for one power-grab after another, and you are across an ocean, imagine how many of us in the US feel. These bastards have practically purchased our government, and "We the People" have stood by and allowed it to happen. What do we get for it? I'm still waiting for the answer to that one. I think we get to keep on believing that, some day, if we play by all the rules, we can own our own huge corporation, and then we'll be happy that we sold off our nation to people like ourselves. The American dream is, frankly, never going to happen for 99% of the people in this country, and we all need to stop pretending that it might, and start fighting the corporations every time they make headlines with some garbage (or rubbish, if you prefer) claim that they own yet another one of our rights. Perhaps then we can stop focusing on things that benefit the top 2% of this country, and start focusing on things that benefit all of us.

And now that I went and got all political, I'm going to stop talking.

[dmetzcher]

Originally Posted by cakey

Bad analogy but I'll use it anyway...

What the xgl/compiz/gdesklets developers are essentially doing is providing "paints", "brushes" and a "canvas" for users to create their own pictures. If people like to emulate the look and feel of OSX its their own damn business.

That's a good point, and I'm glad you made it. I thought that's what was going on, but I've never used this technology, so the video was all I had to go on. I'd started to type something similar, based on someone else's comment earlier, but deleted it for fear that I'd be wrong and someone would pounce on me.

[Gee4orce]

Originally Posted by cakey

Bad analogy but I'll use it anyway...

What the xgl/compiz/gdesklets developers are essentially doing is providing "paints", "brushes" and a "canvas" for users to create their own pictures. If people like to emulate the look and feel of OSX its their own damn business.

hey - I think that's a good analogy If that's what's happening, than I don't have a beef with that at all. I would object to a company, or organisation, passing off someone else's work as their own...

[Gee4orce]

Originally Posted by dmetzcher

I've read the former, but not the latter book. If you are shuddering at the thought of US corporations going for one power-grab after another, and you are across an ocean, imagine how many of us in the US feel. These bastards have practically purchased our government, and "We the People" have stood by and allowed it to happen. What do we get for it? I'm still waiting for the answer to that one. I think we get to keep on believing that, some day, if we play by all the rules, we can own our own huge corporation, and then we'll be happy that we sold off our nation to people like ourselves. The American dream is, frankly, never going to happen for 99% of the people in this country, and we all need to stop pretending that it might, and start fighting the corporations every time they make headlines with some garbage (or rubbish, if you prefer) claim that they own yet another one of our rights. Perhaps then we can stop focusing on things that benefit the top 2% of this country, and start focusing on things that benefit all of us.

And now that I went and got all political, I'm going to stop talking.

Unfortunately , we all suffer from you governments policies - especially now that my country has become the 51st state of the USA . This discussion could very rapidly degenerate though, so I'll stop there !