You're absolutely right. I was trying to be clever and ended up with an unexpected "+5 Insightful". I assure you, it wasn't my intent to be taken seriously.

We're trying to make smaller and smaller cars out of silicon, because then we can fit more cars onto parking lots. The number of cars we can fit onto a parking lot has been doubling approximately every 18 months for the past half-century, but we appear to be approaching some hard physical limits for the actual size of cars. In addition to the limits imposed by the size of the cars themselves (below a certain size, cars start interacting at a quantum level with the other cars around them), there are also challenges inherent in manufacturing cars at such a tiny scale. There is some new car-making technology on the horizon that may resolve these issues by using higher-frequency car-making lasers in our car foundries. But top researchers still have technical hurdles to pass before they can manufacture cars that are smaller than 7nm.

I once worked in engineering group that also had couple of architects, we called them "farcitechs" and now you all know why

It may seem obvious to you, but I felt you could be clearer on why all your architects joined the People's Army of Columbia.

Agreed that it's not in the summary, but as you correctly note, it's just a "summary". Anyone who reads the underlying blog post will read this among the facts on which the court based its opinion: "The public was allowed to search by keyword. The search results showed only the page numbers for the search term and the number of times it appeared; none of the text was visible."

So those readers who RTFA will be in the know.

Don't I wish.

A cynic might argue that the key difference in this case was that, for a change, the ISP's, and not merely defendants, were challenging the subpoenas; but of course we all know that justice is 'blind'.

An ingrate might bemoan the Court's failure to address the key underlying fallacy in the "John Doe" cases, that because someone pays the bill for an internet account that automatically makes them a copyright infringer; but who's complaining over that slight omission?

A malcontent like myself might be a little unhappy that it took the courts ten (10) years to finally come to grips with the personal jurisdiction issue, which would have been obvious to 9 out of 10 second year law students from the get go, and I personally have been pointing it out and writing about it since 2005; but at least they finally did get there.

And a philosopher might wonder how much suffering might have been spared had the courts followed the law back in 2004 when the John Doe madness started; but of course I'm a lawyer, not a philosopher. :)

Bottom line, though: this is a good thing, a very good thing. Ten (10) years late in coming, but good nonetheless. - R.B. )

I'm not sure I follow. If antennas are the most likely thing to be struck by lightning in their immediate area, in what sense don't they "attract lightning"?

If I wandered into a programming-language-of-the-week thread and started posting about Syrian refugees, I'd rightly be chastised and modded down. In no way is that the appropriate forum to air my grievances.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that "no reasonable person" would think it's appropriate. So, yeah. Insane. Unable to grasp or understand social norms.

How do you even begin to make an argument against "nothing is infinite"? What evidence is there either way? And how could you prove it one way or the other?

I think the extraordinary claim here is that one could gather enough information to even form an informed opinion.

Maybe they have none of that technology.

One of my favourite short stories.

Nothing is infinite

[Citation Needed]

So its unacceptable for them to behave this way, but its ok if the state does it?

This argument has got to stop. I am 100% against the death penalty, and this statement hurts my position by associating me with morons.

Raping and killing a 6-year-old != Killing a rapist murderer who makes society a worse place

If you honestly can't see why some people would see a difference, please shut up simply as a favour to me. If you can understand the difference but think your argument still has merit, you'll need to write a lot more than a pithy one-liner to sway people to your point of view.

Presumably, this means that Criminal A destroyed twice as much property breaking in, endangered twice as many people during getaway, had a gun in twice as many people's faces. Sounds fair to me.