I saw a demo, around 2003, of a sintering machine the military used to build prepare parts in the field. Rather than shipping a part they could produce and machine it as needed remotely; all they needed was the appropriate instruction set and they were good to go. When I asked abut the strength and durability of the parts they said it was as good or better than normal spares.

Meanwhile, AT&T says that strong net neutrality regulations will ruin their ability to squeeze more profit from the internet.

There, fixed it.

You are correct that lawyers are trained to think in very specific ways relative to the law. That doesn't mean that cannot think like normal conscionable people; however when they are asked to provide a legal opinion or draft a legal document they will ensure it is written to accomplish specific legal goals, which often requires very precise and specific language. Th eons I worked with certainly could step out of that mode but when we asked for legal opinions that went back to their legal training and experience. If you want some thing to be open and shareable they would write a document that accomplishes that and ensures it stays open and shareable; which requires ensuring the item couldn't be incorporated in something without sharing the results if that is what you want when you say "open and shareable."

IANAL, but at that point IKEA would be saying the site is OK to continue as is because are not infringing on IKEA's trademark. Any request s after that would be superfluous since they are not infringing. At that point, the site might want to trademark their name to protect it from being grabbed by IKEA.

No, they actually like things to be laid out in a manner that clearly defines their position and what they want done. Unclear statements and random advice comes back to haunt the person who said them and the lil ego avoid that.

Why? You confuse someone who is trained to use specific language with someone who is incapable of understanding broad concepts.

A C&D is a pretty typical first step when defending a trademark; and not unreasonable. That protects the brand owner while still allowing them to negotiate in an amicable manner;which is what it appears happened in this case.

I.e. every commercial says 'Coke is a trademark of Coca-Coal Industries' when they use a Coke product placement. As long as you assign who own the trademark you're using you can use it (with some legal caveats I'm sure).

Product placement is different from trademark dilution. I can put a Coke product in an add, where it is clear my product is not Coke, but can't call my product HackedCocaCola and use their bottle design and color scheme to contain my mix of Coke and flavoring and show it in the add.

Yes, primarily because if the decide they want to do it they have the money to do it. In addition, while there is a lot of old legacy systems running mundane tasks there are some very sophisticated computing technology and skills that can be tasked to work on the problem. This wouldn't be a run of the mill operation but rather something run out of an intelligence agency where a team could be dedicated to such a task. I am not saying they would do it; but they certainly have the capability and capacity to pull it off. The hardest part would not be the technology but figuring out how to get all the IT organizations spread across the country to agree to allow some mining software to be installed; along with the over and under on how long it would take for someone to figure out what was happening and spill the beans.

A state actor of sufficient size wouldn't need to rent space; they could just harness their existing resources in a pool. How much power could the US, for example, tap if every PC they control began harvesting Bitcoins? They have the network, admin rights to add programs, programming skill to develop the required programming, and would not care if the added electrical cost outweigh the value created since making money is not the goal. As an added bonus, some of the supercomputers could be added to the mix as well.

There is. It's called a car service; who has the requisite insurance and permits. You can even book in advance and if your plane is late they will adjust their schedule to meet you when you get in. Cabbies hate them as well but they play by the city rules and thus can operate. Uber appears to be trying to meet the city ordinances, which IMHO is as much about permit revenue as safety, so the may yet be able to take airport fares.

In many US elections you can write a name on the ballot and it is counted as a vote of that person. A candidate that does not qualify otherwise can ask voters to write in their name, hence the term "write in candidate." They are rarely successful although there have been notable instances where a party's nominee was so bad that the write in one.

It's designed to allow a party to elect the nominee and then not have all the other members of the party appear on the ballot. If you want to run as the party's choice you generally forgo the right to run on another party's ticket as part of the deal. Although, in some states you can run on multiple party tickets and all the votes for you, regardless of party line on the ballot are counted together. This results in the odd specter of candidates getting their name on the ballot multiple times; the idea being the more you are on the ballot the more likely you are to win.

People can still run as independents, they just can't run (usually since each state sets its own ballot laws) for one party's nomination and when they lose turn around and run as an independent.

That happens in the US as well. Sometimes, the party is embarrassed by the person who won the election and provide minimal support.

The thing about wedge issue is they often appeal to single issue voters who feel strongly about them and turn out in primaries; which typically have low turnouts compared to the actual election. As a result, candidates pander to those voters who will turn out and generally ignore the others who probably don't care about those issues enough to used to decide how they will vote. Of course, once they win the primary now they have to keep the base energized while managing to appeal to the more moderate group they need to get elected. The base, however, is very sensitive to appearances that the candidate "really isn't a true believer" which make sit tough to move towards the middle.

1. So how does that figure into bandwidth caps that Comcast seems to like to impose? If it's a public hotspot it could significantly increase usage.

2. When the inevitable request for an IP address is made who is on the hook to be the named John / Jane Doe? Sure, the router assigns IP addresses but how do you cough up the name? Just give the router owner's name?

3. Does logging into a hotspot imply consent to capture data streams? Probably not, but the person with access to the router could do some snooping if they were so inclined.

While corporations have more money in total they still need to decide what to spend where. Pumping $2mill in one race; rather than spreading over many, can have a significant influence on voters. I wonder if there is a spending threshold where more money has greatly diminished returns in terms of voter impact. If that is the case; you don't need to outspend other interests just spend enough to have an impact.

\

More importantly, we have votes. If people took the time to actually vote in elections, including primaries, outside spending would have less of an impact since you wouldn't be able to rely on just getting your base out to vote but actually appeal to a broader range of voters.

True, I just considered any copy protection to be considered DRM To that extent, I think the current state of DRM is overkill. I like to play games offline where I have no internet access so this nonsense of "phone home" or "Validate key online" simply mean I do not buy the game.

Agreed. Time limited seems to have become "extend for another XX years every time the copyright on a Disney movie is about to expire..."

Thanks...

Here is where I am coming from. Non-DRM games would make it much easier for the casual user to copy. Yes, TBP may have it at day 0 but that doesn't mean a lot of potential buyers get it from there, or even are aware of it. If however, X could easily make a copy and give it to friend Y without going to the TPB then you would see a lot more copying. I based this on anecdotal evidence form Apple ][ days when the easy availability of bit copiers allowed virtually anyone to make a copy and thus there was a lot of piracy, as was copying of non-DRM'd software. I doubt human nature has changed much in the intervening years. Thus, my contention that non-DRM copies would impact copying in a measurable way. YMMV

Not sure what your point is. I agree that copyright has been extended to unreasonable periods of time. Emulators, however, have kept a lot of older games still playable, although most copies are probably pirated since originals are no longer available to purchase.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on solution to measuring the impact of DRM on copying. I think there is data to show it does; you obviously disagree. That's the beauty of economics, not only can people disagree on data and theories but two can win the Nobel in the same year for saying exactly opposite things.

Pirated copies provide a good proxy for non-DRM releases of a DRM title, and pirated copies have an impact on sales; the impact is debatable but their still is a real economic impact. Therefore, it's not just "think that this is so" but borne out by evidence since non-DRM products would be much easier to pirate thus increasing the lost sales.

If you'd bothered to quote my entire statement you'd notice I agree copyrights can be considered a limited monopoly. The key is limited, because they are designed to encourage production of goods that might not be produced absent such protection.

Except you then use the limited monopoly concept to argue that since they are a monopoly they should be subject to laws that remove that monopoly. You are incorrectly applying the concept of monopoly and its remedies to copyright. In short, you are stating that because two concepts use the same term they are identical, which is clearly not the case here.

That is obvious so you don't need to restate it.

Even better, stop wasting your time by making an argument that is incorrect.