Comment Re:I don't understand (Score 1) 161
I believe they do, but I don't have a link to back that up.
Comment Re:I don't understand (Score 1) 161
IIRC the DMCA only applies to user-produced content. Drudge posts everything himself, so he's not subject to the safe-harbor at all.
IANAL, TINLA, I might be wrong.
Comment Re:I don't understand (Score 1) 161
Second, there are penalties for bringing a lawsuit with not basis. See rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Frivolous litigation is unrelated to what everyone else it talking about (listing frivolous damages in an otherwise non-frivolous lawsuit).
4chan Declares War On Snow
201
With all the recent hacktivism in the news, Anonymous has decided to take on a new and powerful enemy: snow. On Sunday the group announced that it will "do everything in its power to shut snow down by attacking the Weather Channel and North Face websites, boycotting outerwear, and voting for the sun as Time’s 2010 Person Of The Year." I'm sure there are a lot of people in Minneapolis right now that would wish them luck.
Comment Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (Score 1) 385
If you don't like it, then don't read Politics stories.
Comment Re:Issue is Privacy from Other Countries (Score 1) 685
They are simply posting details about past things that the mainstream press conveniently "forgot" to tell us.
Interestingly enough, The NY Times has decided it doesn't like WikiLeaks. I would post a link, but they want a login (it's currently in the opinion section, where it belongs, but it may be archived eventually).
Comment Re:Guilty much? (Score 1) 685
POTUS is hardly a "low level bureaucrat".
Comment Re:Precedent (Score 1) 225
Actually, I'm curious: why did you use bing?
Microsoft isn't an advertising company. They don't make 98% of their profit from selling access to your time and information like Google does.
No, they make 98% of their profit wasting your time (and information? I guess that's what BSODs are for!), unlike Google
Comment Re:Dude that would be soo cool... (Score 1) 171
"Dude, you know what would be really awesome?"
"What?"
"If there was a display system that would allow multiple viewers to see a high-quality 3D image projected on a screen without the need for special glasses, regardless of where they are sitting."
"Dude... that would be totally awesome."
"We should totally invent that someday"
"Lets patent it just in case someone really does it!"
"Yeah!"
If you read the patent you'll notice that it has lots of math and such... Apple didn't just pull this out of Steve's ass.
Comment Re:Suspicious patent? (Score 2) 171
The whole point of patenting things (aside from trolling, which is actually contrary to the point, but anyway) is to get to market first because the PTO gives you a temporary monopoly (you're expected to exploit said monopoly, as a subsidy for the effort of invention).
Ergo, Apple filing a patent and then not getting to market promptly is kind of silly.
Comment Re:innovative? (Score 1) 171
It apparently is smart enough to know where the individuals are sitting and makes accommodations for that. Rather than requiring an individual to sit in a particular place like all the other systems like this do.
What about Wii head tracking (Google is your friend)?
Comment Re:Stupid (Score 1) 351
SCOTUS justices serve "during good behavior," not for life, so if the bribes are egregious enough, well...
Comment Re:Considering how long it takes to get a patent.. (Score 0, Offtopic) 142
./ !=
Comment Re:Personality Rights (Score 2, Informative) 172
Not suing is setting a precedent that you can sell, literally, Apple branded merchandise without Apple's involvement.
But the same company is, literally, already doing that!
Comment Re:Funny.... (Score 1) 172
Father? FATHER??
He is our freaking GOD!
How dare you mock us!
...no relation to Lord Xenu then?
