No, he is apply the law. Where to file is spelled out in 28 US Code 1391, and unless you can't for some reason, like you don't know where the defendant lives, the place to file is "a judicial district in which any defendant resides". The law is clear, and the judge has no choice but to follow it.

That is why under 28 US Code 1391(b) the proper legal venue is where the defendant resides. The reason why you see a lot of patent suits filed in Texas is that for large corporations, where they reside is murky since they do business everywhere and are registered the Secretary of State in most/all of the states, including Texas, so they are considered "local" under these rules. The "small guy" however lives in a specific place, so that is where the proper venue would be.

This has similarities to what I saw in inkjet printers many years ago. For a while, they were selling printers at a big discount because they would make their money on the replacement ink cartridges. Problem was the new printers came with a new full color and black cartridge and cost less than it cost to buy the two cartridges individually. It was actually cheaper to buy a new printer, take the cartridges out of the boxes, and throw away the printer, than it was to buy replacement cartridges. Same thing here - it is sometimes cheaper to buy more of a trip than you need then throw away part of it you don't need.

Regarding the cartridges, due to a couple issues that came up, such as this one, they started including cartridges that were 1/2 to 1/3 full with new printers.

Show me a plane that makes stops every few city blocks then we can accept your data as a fair comparison. Otherwise, stick to data about long-haul bus and train routes.

The comparison between planes and other modes of transit would be for longer-haul routes since planes do not provide inter-city transport. For longer routes, buses normally run fairly full. And for those that say buses aren't always full, I have been on a 737 plane between cities 1000 miles apart where there were only four passengers, including me, and on a flight to the far east where I had a row of five seats on a 747 all to myself for 12 hours.

That should read using a BUS. Damn autocorrect.

Using the same logic, using a but or going by train is also more efficient since the many seats versus a couple is also true.

To help the submitter, here is a link I found through Google: The Dark Matter Conspiracy

Because those passwords are stored with the explicit permission of the user, and because they need to be accessible so they can be used to fill in forms. On the other hand, to simply check if you have typed the Google password doesn't need the clear text password, so best practice says it should be hashed, err, I mean scrambled.

Years ago I was in the carpool lane driving with my daughter in a car seat in the back seat of my truck, which due to the vehicle's height made her invisible from outside the truck. I got pulled over, and when the officer came up to my door, he saw her, simply said "Sorry", then walked away without another word. About two weeks later I was in a similar situation in the carpool lane watching the cop come up fast behind me. I told my daughter to raise and waive her arms which made her visible. Just as the cop looked ready to turn on his lights, he suddenly dropped back and pulled out of traffic onto the left shoulder. While I wasn't guilty and didn't get a ticket in either case, having to pull over and waste the time on the first occasion, not to mention the effects of adrenaline both events caused, was not fun.

Slandering some, threatening someone, revealing people's private information like their SSN and credit card info, committing fraud, committing treason. Just a few things I can think of off the top of my head that can happen through speech that I think are valid limits on free speech. Or would you not mind if any or all of these were committed against you (minus treason since that is done against a state)?

Getting malware onto air-gapped machines through covert means predates stuxnet by a large amount (decades), with the Russians being one of the earliest practicers.

There are ways for a machine to transmit information other than a wire, that can be detected by other devices. The infected air-gapped machine could send information out through its speakers that a microphone elsewhere could hear. It could flash its screen in binary in the middle of the night that someone outside the building might see through a window. It can raise and lower its power usage through various means that might be detected at the power feed. There was even an article a month ago talking about changing the heat output of the air-gapped machine that could be detected by the thermal sensors in a nearby computer. And there are even more that I won't go into.

So there are ways to send information out even if the USB drive doesn't leave.

They are not lazier. You can find laws from a century ago that are also vague. In fact, making laws vague is and has been common for a very good reason - the drafter knows he can't anticipate all situations, so he deliberately makes the law overly broad and assumes/hopes it is used appropriately and with discretion and thought. The flip side though is when a law is overly broad it opens up the possibilities like this where a person can argue, perhaps correctly, that the letter of the law allows something the drafters never intended.

The same thing also happens in criminal laws where laws are made vague so unusual or unforeseeable situations can also be covered, but then you have a cop with an attitude citing or arresting people for things which almost everyone would agree isn't a crime, but which if you look at the law in the right way, is. An example near where I live is a person grew some vegetables in their back yard, and their small plot did so well, they had more than they personally could use. They tried to sell their excess, but the city found out and said that makes them a farm and the permits were thousands of dollars since the laws for the permits only anticipated big farms, not home farming. The city official admitted it was wrong, but said until the council changes the law, that is what she has to follow. The homeowner gave up and began donating the food to a shelter since paying thousands of dollars to sell a few vegetables was ridiculous.

That is one of the points of this lawsuit - these were grandfathered plans created under the promise of unlimited data, but AT&T went and created an effective cap by throttling the data rate. They weren't throttling the other customers so the cap wasn't a technical limitation, rather it was a punishment to the grandfathered plans to try and force them into a metered plan, which is more profitable for AT&T. The point is when a carrier, whether for mobile or wired, advertises that the data is unlimited then put arbitrary limits on the customer's ability to use the service, especially when such limits don't apply to other customers paying for different plans, then they are committing fraud by advertising it as "unlimited".

And one of AT&T's goals is to force the users to give up their "unlimited" plans since those are throttled, and to sign up for the metered plans which are not throttled. What AT&T is doing is fraud by my understanding. My original comment is that until now carriers have been arguing that this throttling was merely a network management function and not a force-the-user-to-change-plans measure, which is bullshit. We need a court to call them on it so others can cite the case for precedent and bitch slap them silly.

It would be nice though if a carrier advertised and sold a service as unlimited that they do what they said instead of applying arbitrary thresholds to degrade the delivered service to force the users to change plans to ones that are metered/limited (and more profitable for the carriers).