While your argument for discovery has some logic to it, it is based on a false assumption of fact : that Malibu Media, once it obtains the name and address of the internet account subscriber, will serve a subpoena on that person in an attempt to find out the name of the person who should be named as a defendant.

Malibu Media's uniform practice, once it gets the name and address, is to immediately amend the complaint to name the subscriber as the infringer/defendant and then serve a summons and amended complaint, not a subpoena, on the subscriber.

This is in every single case .

wants, needs and desires of the human race will expand

Says the guy who wants 99,999 ferraris so he can drive a different one every day. You don't? Huh, weird, I guess there is a limit on want, need, and desire.

There's reasons why this is bullshit (for instance, scarcity of raw materials and energy) but "people want infinite things" isn't one of them.

This does not seem to be a serious problem to me...Even if their conclusions are true.

If the "global warming alarmist religion"'s conclusions are true, then we're fucked. If that doesn't seem a serious problem to you, then I'd hate to see what is.

So why didn't your uncle simply get his driver's license back when he was 16? They should have solved the problem in the previous generation!

The only way this matters is if the percentage of people sharing your cousin's circumstances is large or increasing, and I see no reason to believe that's the case. It's not as if these requirements are new, after all.

Furthermore, I suspect that in the vast majority of cases where the parent lacks a license, it's because the family lives somewhere like Manhattan where the child doesn't actually need one either.

In other words, this is a non-issue that you only think is important because one of the tiny number of people who are affected by it happens to be somebody close to you.

So should parents be held responsible for driver's education of their children in the same way that they are held responsible for the child getting to school and back? For example, should it be considered neglect on the parent's part to either A. not hold a driver's license or B. not take the child out for practice driving?

No, I'm saying it's not the State's responsibility to let unqualified people have drivers' licenses just because their parents couldn't be bothered to teach them, or to subsidize their parents' fuck-up!

And by the way, "resort[ing] to paying $50 per hour for a driving instructor" is a false dichotomy: just because your uncle can't/won't help, doesn't mean that's the only other choice. What about your aunt; can't he drive with her? What about your cousin's uncle (i.e., your dad)? What about over-25 family friends? What about a random neighbor, who is not an "instructor" and therefore probably would charge much less than $50/hour? What about you?

What's with the uncalled-for vitriol? I was just replying to the AC; he was the one who brought up the idea of non-individually-owned autonomous vehicles! All I was doing was pointing out that his assertion (that autonomous vehicles would reduce road use) was wrong.

Individually-owned autonomous vehicles would either fail to change the amount of road use vs. the status quo (in the case where they're parked in the same location as the user all the time), or increase road use (in the case where the vehicle drops off the user and then returns home to park). Reducing road use is no a possibility.

Of course, shared use -- like a bus -- is a different thing entirely, and not one that my previous post or the paragraphs above considered. And autonomous vehicles won't really change a damn thing about buses, since they could already be considered autonomous (from the perspective of the users). In other words, anything that could be done by an autonomous bus could already be done by the driver (and/or dispatcher) now.

Don't get me wrong here... I have no grudge against Iowa. I think it just happens to be like other Midwestern states where except for a couple of major cities, it's primarily farm land and rural areas, where most of the car traffic is on interstates, traveling through the state to a destination elsewhere.

FYI, every state is like that, except maybe for Alaska (because there aren't many roads) and Hawaii (because there aren't any other states to drive to).

Every other state, including Maryland and Virginia (which I use as examples because you mentioned the metro DC area) are primarily farm and rural areas. Sure, the I-95 corridor might be crowded, but you also have to consider the parts of the states east of Chesapeake Bay or west of I-81.

You've mentioned that as if it's a problem in two different stories now, and I don't understand. All that requirement means is that the parent of the new 16-year-old driver certifies that they've let the kid drive around for 50 hours with the parent in the car when he had his learner's permit, which is a low bar to hurdle.

Obviously, that's harder to deal with for an adult trying to get his driver's license, but the easy solution to that is simply to get the damn thing at 16 instead of waiting for no reason!

What's the big deal?

Indeed. But there's one more you missed.

No, I listed scenarios. The thing you think I missed is a reason for the scenario to occur, not a scenario itself.

It won't be until autonomous driving starts to drastically reduce the population that owns cars before you see significant decline in road use.

Autonomous vehicles that aren't owned by individual drivers (or rather, passengers) would increase road use. With the current situation, a driver drives from origin to destination and the car stays at the destination until the driver returns. With automation, the vehicle drives from origin to destination and then continues to the next trip origin. Unless, for every trip from point A to B, there's always somebody already at point B that wants to go to point C (as opposed to somebody at point C that wants to go to point D), the autonomous, no-passengers drive from B to C will be a net increase in road use.

What autonomous driving will really reduce is the need for parking.

The article talks about how "per-capita driving has peaked," but that's not the whole issue. It makes sense to stop building roads when the total amount of driving has peaked. For that to happen, one of several scenarios needs to occur:

• Per-capita driving peaks and population peaks too
• Per-capita driving continues to increase but population declines enough to offset it (maybe the situation in the rust belt?)
• Population continues to increase, but per-capita driving decreases fast enough to offset it.

They took some chemicals from my son's chemistry stocks that they're going to take and test in their lab that they felt were dangerous chemicals

"Your honor, our lab tested every one of the bottles and found that this evil person had 83 bottles of marijuanas!"

FF7's getting a remake, they should get in on that.

It sounds like if you are not verifying certificates then it's not critical, but if you've got client certificates to identify/authenticate users you need to update.

If you're running any kind of client connection (for instance, consuming a https webservice) then you'll need to update (unless they're using gnutls or nss instead of openssl)