The cognitive dissonance of complaining about renewables by saying power should be generated closer to the user is stunning....

Doesn't get much closer than my roof :)

And the cost to transfer all that gasoline/coal/oil? Certainly not negligible.

I haven't RTFR but while yes he's said he's involved, I wouldn't expect he'd have to tell them WHAT his involvement was...that's the prosecutions job.

The ruling (from accounts) seems to be separating the providing of the password from the contents of the drive - which is an unreasonable search. If they already know what he's done from what he's said, they could easily give him immunity for anything else found on the drive except what backs up what he's already said - then there's no 5th violation.

Also generally speaking, the warrant to search a drive has to be pretty damned specific, so if they already know what he did...it seems odd to request access to the drive.

A key is a physical object and as such can be compelled. You aren't participating in your testimony by providing the physical item; you have to provide LOTS of other information during disclosure so it's not like you can't be compelled to provide something that physically exists.

The difference here is that the key is theoretically in his mind and so he would have to participate in providing that; hence why it's generally been found that keys can be compelled but combinations on locks can't and similarly passwords can't be.
BR Of course the amendments have been eroding for some time now...

You know who else should get used to something? Companies who blindly let their lawyers run wild. It's called the Streisand Effect and it can be a just reward when the internet decides they don't like you because of your overly legal behavior.

Nope, it isn't. It's a very legal response but 'defend' can simply mean have the other party clearly indicate they aren't you.

I.e. every commercial says 'Coke is a trademark of Coca-Coal Industries' when they use a Coke product placement. As long as you assign who own the trademark you're using you can use it (with some legal caveats I'm sure).

Yes, that's the wrong way. Allowing lawyers to run free and wild without any thought towards what it's going to look like when you're major fan base starts hating you.

IKEA could simply require them to have big 'We aren't IKEA" banners thus avoiding the 'confusion' they claim.

Then why aren't Cogent's other peers having the same issue? The issue here is Verizon, just as it was with Comcast.

Verizon is playing favorites, Netflix is simply calling them out on it...how exactly is this a 'bad' attribute of Netflix? Hell Netflix has already paid Verizon for better access, and apparently Verizon still isn't providing it.

They already HAS paid Verizon for better service...and Verizon STILL isn't providing it...

Then call it 'Simulated 3D'. It has to be called 3D because it isn't 3D. We don't call TVs 2D because they are 2D and it would be redundant. This is pretending to be 3D and so has to be called 3D to distinguish it from normal 2D sets.

No amount of hashing will change the fact that the set you're watching is a 2D image manipulated to make you're brain *think* it's seeing a 3D image. That's not 3D, that's Simulated 3D with all the downsides of trying to make 3D simulation on a 2D medium.

It isn't in 3 dimensions. The image is manipulated to make you *think* it's in 3D, but it isn't 3D.

you don't have kids obviously ;-)

I call it a gimmick, it's not 3D since I can't move with perspective changes. A hologram would be 3D. Pretending you're looking at a 3D image isn't 3D.

Sadly I seem to be in the minority in that opinion.

Agreed. It would be nice to have such competition. It's basically how Europe is providing cellphone coverage. A utility network that everybody uses - you can switch providers with ease.

Unfortunately our entrenched monopolies have fought municipal ISPs tooth and nail because they know that when another option exists, people will leave them in droves.