Don't I wish.

A cynic might argue that the key difference in this case was that, for a change, the ISP's, and not merely defendants, were challenging the subpoenas; but of course we all know that justice is 'blind'.

An ingrate might bemoan the Court's failure to address the key underlying fallacy in the "John Doe" cases, that because someone pays the bill for an internet account that automatically makes them a copyright infringer; but who's complaining over that slight omission?

A malcontent like myself might be a little unhappy that it took the courts ten (10) years to finally come to grips with the personal jurisdiction issue, which would have been obvious to 9 out of 10 second year law students from the get go, and I personally have been pointing it out and writing about it since 2005; but at least they finally did get there.

And a philosopher might wonder how much suffering might have been spared had the courts followed the law back in 2004 when the John Doe madness started; but of course I'm a lawyer, not a philosopher. :)

Bottom line, though: this is a good thing, a very good thing. Ten (10) years late in coming, but good nonetheless. - R.B. )

Ah, and

chsh # change to zsh

This is my mantra:

vi /etc/apt/sources.list # switch to testing/unstable and add contrib & non-free
apt-get update
apt-get dist-upgrade
apt-get install vcsh mr vim zsh screen openssh-server # the most important bits & pieces
vcsh clone /mr.vcsh # clone the repo containing location info of my configuration repos
cd .config/mr/config.d
ln -s ../available.d/{what,i,need} . # enable whatever repos for code & config which I need on that machine
cd
mr -j 5 up # automagically clone, checkout, whatever ALL the things
reboot

I once got asked a question which I found hurtful and offensive, and felt tempted to 'blow up' the interview at that point. Fortunately, I resisted the temptation. As it turns out, the question was his way of introducing the next thing, which was telling me that he was offering me the job.

Here's my report on the actual ruling which is being reviewed: 2nd Circuit affirms denial of plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion in WNET v Aereo

I guess it would take a litigator to notice this, but it's quite unusual that a preliminary injunction denial would be getting this kind of appellate attention.

In the first place, it was unusual for an interlocutory appeal to be granted from the denial of the preliminary injunction motion. In federal court usually you can only appeal from a final judgment.

Similarly, apart from the fact that it's always rare for a certiorari petition to be granted, it's especially tough where the appeal is not from a final judgment, but just from a preliminary injunction denial which does not dispose of the whole case.

Sorry, but it's crap:

* Uses plywood instead of wood that's naturally resistant to water and insects, line white pine (pinus strobus)
* That build wastes a huge sheet of wood instead of starting with small pieces. That's a waste
* Need for CNC
* Insanely complex build
* Angled roof, resulting in bad support for the hive
* No room to extend the hive to harvest honey
* No immediately obvious way to access the hive from below
** No way to check on bees to see if they are all right
** No way to deploy stuff that kills varroa destructor

There's a German non-profit called Bienenkiste.de (literally "bee box"). It's a simply, sturdy design that went through over a decade of improvements and incorporates feedback from professionals. Honey yield is 1/2-1/3 of that what the same hive would get with traditional hives, but they are a lot less work and the bees are in a more natural state. This means that the bees are so relaxed, I can do all my work on the hive without smoke or protective equipment.

http://www.bienenkiste.de/doku/bauanleitung/ for instructions. Translate into English, the pictures and videos should be largely self-explanatory.

Funny, I had the same reaction when I read it. He seemed like a salesman for Google or something.

Dear Prince Bernard, If you're talking about my bank account, you're barking up the wrong tree :)

Fair use cases are very fact specific. If you start monkeying with the facts, Judge Chin might not feel the same way about it.

I don't know but please hire me as your lawyer when you do.

Thatswhatappealscourtsarefor