I guess you don't get the "fi" portion correctly.

You don't need to be anti e-reader. Just anti DRM. There's plenty of free material out there if you know where to look for it. I'm pretty sure there's others too.

Cheers!

At least by making it a criminal offense you won't go broke with attorney fees before you're even found guilty. And I also think the standard of proof would also rise to "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Cheers!

The equations you describe may be quite right (or maybe not, I'm not a seismologist), but they can never describe the sheer terror of living through a mag 8.8+ earthquake. The fear of not knowing whether the building you're in will withstand the strength of the ground motion. Of not knowing how your family and friends are faring. Or having communications networks collapsing, keeping you even more in the dark. Power lines falling, leaving you completely incommunicated with the rest of the world. Yes, I lived through one of these.

My best wishes to all affected by this catastrophe.

Constant checks like the ones all those free apps do in order to show you ads? Get the list over an SSL encrypted connection and there won't be much exposed to discovery. The code to do it is not even that complicated.

Cheers!

Italy is not the only place. I've had such conditions for over a year in Chile. I have full 3G speed up to 400 MB in a month. Go over, I'm down to 128 Kbps for the remainder of the month. Start next month, back to full speed. There are cheaper plans that throttle you to 64 Kbps after 100 MB. So far I haven't noticed any slowdowns, so I assume that I have never gone over the limit. This was all explained to me very clearly when I signed up.

Cheers!

or the higher strength.

Cheers!

So a study funded by Big Megacorp would be more reliable than a study funded by the Green Party? Maybe, maybe not. The money-driven science argument cuts both ways. The way the world seems to be going, we mere mortals might as well flip a coin on this and many other really important issues.

Cheers!

Grants Geeknet. Geeknet has the right to make and distribute copies of the post. And since the downloaders are receiving the files from an entity authorized to copy and distribute, there is no infringement of any kind. What happens if the downloader makes further copies is not clear, yet I seriously doubt there is much (if any) of that going around.

Stupid me! Wrong button.

From the ToS (emphasis by me):

Geeknet's method of reproduction, publishing and distribution is through web downloads to whoever requests them. I think this goes well beyond any "reasonable man" standards. With the usual IANAL and IANAA (I Am Not An American), so any opinions from me regarding American law might as well be a brainfart.

Cheers!

From the ToS (with my emphasis):

Not that text. The one in the actual Terms of Service that can be found at the bottom of the page. Check section 6, paragraph 2. Better luck next time.

Sue them back for emotional distress. You found a tracking device in your car and have been scared as shit that some terrorist is after you. Play their own playbook against them!

Cheers!

You don't really believe that, do you? you realize that by the act of posting the message to this site, the message and it's licensing becomes governed by the site's Terms of Service, which include a license for the site to serve the message and the site's users to download it, so the is NO infringement whatsoever. He posted, ergo he licensed. Period.

As for the "damages" you claim he would be suffering by your "infringing", you cant judge those upfront without further knowledge of his motivation. If his motivation is to proselytize for IP enforcement, then getting the message posted in a high traffic site for many to read means your downloading and reading of his post did not damage him, but actually rewarded him. As for why he might want to proselytize, for all we know he could make a living out of IP and thus have a vested interest in the subject. I'm not claiming any of these are his motives, but just claim you don't know either.

Next time try a better argumentative line.

Cheers!

Not sure about where you live, but does the post office charge the recipient for delivered mail also? If yes, you may have a point and the post office would be performing the exact behavior that is being criticized. Otherwise, your analogy would only hold if the ISP wanted to charge the content providers instead of the content consumers.

Cheers!