Doesn't seem to me like the Republican party are doing a particularly good job of placing limits (or enforcing existing ones) on government power. It has only been a few years since they supplied a president, and as I recall he took more power into his own hands (or rather that of his office) than had been customary before. He said "I'm the decider", as I'm sure you know. I think that speaks volumes about his goals.

I certainly won't make the argument that the Obama administration is better than what had gone before. I merely point out that both parties are pursuing the goal of taking power for the government. To whom do you turn? It seems unlikely that a third party candidate will win the presidential elections.

You could say they were being generous, since $313.37 is the lowest amount of money which contains the string in question.

Maybe if you're conducting the "interview" with the "reluctant" witness with your fists, then you're hesitant to tell the superior officers about it.

If they did know, there would be literally nothing they could do about it. The law simply does not provide blanket protection for a trademark in the manner you appear to believe it does. In a separate field of buisness, there can be no possibility of infringement.

Very hard to believe. The case would have literally no merit at all. In order for a case like this to succeed, the two companies have to be competing in the same line of business. The conflict between Apple (computer) and Apple (records) arose because Apple (computer) moved into the music publishing biz with iTunes. Otherwise it would never have happened.

This distinction will soon become meaningless since copyright terms will always be extended if Disney or some other sufficiently large and "important" studio / publisher request it. I wouldn't be surprised to see patent terms extended too, one day. Probably Apple or Microsoft will request it.

Of course by "important" I mean that they contribute money to the right people.

That's still a trademark issue. The mention of prior art only applies to patents. Doesn't come into play for either the FixUbuntu case or your hypothetical example of a glazier called MS Windows.

That was my first thought too. If they had this in mind, the choice of handle was really, really impressive.

Can you, though? Is there a vendor of the suit in question who will accept an ounce of gold in payment? It strikes me that one would need to convert the gold to an amount of the local fiat currency before spending it.

Whoops. Turns out I was logged in for that original post. Beg your pardon for the mix-up.

They are justified in monitoring the communications of anyone, if they get a warrant first. Otherwise they can stay the hell out of my personal affairs. To get a warrant, they need to demonstrate probable cause first, before a judge. That's how society is supposed to work. I am the AC to whom you originally replied. Forgot to log in.

They're very clear on one point. They are entirely clear that fanning the flames of hysteria regarding terrorism will allow them to get away with whatever they want. Including spying on private communications between people who are not and never will be accused of any crime. I don't want them reading my intimate communications with my loved ones. I don't want them reading my flippant communications with my friends. I don't want them reading anything. I don't want them to put my life under a microscope.

Even on a dual-layer disk? The film is listed on Wikipedia as being 197 minutes in length. The standard maximum length of a dual-layer disc is quoted as 3.5 hours, I believe. That should just about do it. With a second disc for any desired extra features. Of course, I should imagine the Blu-Ray has no such issues.

Each day I eat only a certain amount of food. None of it needs to be crap.

Only the very earliest DVDs were made in this way. They quickly figured out how to make a dual-layered DVD on which both layers could be read without flipping the disc over. I have seen a few double-sided DVDs, but not in a while.