Well, what about a legislation change: If you train someone to do your job, and afterwards you are fired, this is taken as absolute evidence that the trainee shouldn't have been there under an H1B scheme, therefore needs to be sent home and the original worker be re-employed, with all wages paid as if he had been employed all the time; complaints can be filed for six years.

Result: If it happens to you, you can do whatever you like as long as your money lasts, then go to court and get your old job back plus all your wages paid. Being able to file a complaint for several years means it is a huge risk for the employer, which is what we want.

Ten years is the proposed _maximum_ for copyright infringement. For most crimes, there is a huge range of how bad the crime is. For example, growing pot: You might have a flower pot full, or you might have a 100 acre farm. Surely the maximum sentence should be fitting for the one using a huge farm to grow drugs. With copyright infringement, you might make a copy of a CD for a relative, or you might run a major operation with multi-million dollar revenue. You want a maximum sentence that fits the multi-million dollar operation.

Now of course it needs to be made clear which sentence is appropriate for which level of offence. For example, with copyright infringement there is probably a factor of one million in severity between the most harmless and the worst possible offenses.

Sure. Nobody stole anything. It's called stock manipulation, and if caught, someone will do a long jail sentence.

I have seen a road with a big sign "Truck drivers - your GPS is wrong". Not a bit of a problem for a mile. Then came a bit where I had problems squeezing my smallish car through (yes, I had to go careful to avoid losing either mirror), and any truck arriving there would have to reverse for a mile.

Since this isn't about absolutely avoiding left turns, but reducing the number, you could just count every right turn as a 10 second penalty, and every left turn as a 30 second penalty, and go on calculating the fastest route.

Nothing. But the poster you responded to said "if you call your app 'Apple Mail'", not "if you call your post-office based fruit delivery service 'Apple Mail'".

The details would be: What is the trademark, and to which trade does it apply? (For example, one place I worked used "Apple Security" as their security company, which was totally unrelated to the Apple Inc., with not the slightest trademark problem). And how are you using that trademark?

You are saying you are using a simple word in the dictionary. Apple is a normal word in the dictionary. Try using it for selling computers, software or music. At least give us enough for an educated opinion - even though people here are not lawyers, or not your lawyer.

Absolutely, totally wrong. Without the teenager's call, that Swat team would have stayed where they are, and nothing bad would have happened. With the phone call, here's a list of possible consequences, all of which are the teenagers fault:

1. Swat team goes out, and figures out that nothing bad is going on, without frightening anyone. Waste of tax payers money.

2. Exactly like 1, but then the Swat team isn't available when a real call comes in. As a consequence, people might lose their lives because nobody is coming to help them.

3. Swat team goes out, under the assumption that the caller might be correct. The safest way to do this is to use so much force that nobody can fire a gun, while trying not to injure anyone. Result if everything goes right is a very, very unpleasant experience for the homeowner.

4. Same as 3, but a bit of bad luck, and the home owner gets injured.

5. Same as 3, but the homeowner is in a position that makes him look dangerous. For example, cleaning the guns in his collections, or sharpening a huge kitchen knife. With his wife is with him, crying because she just sliced a bunch of onions. Anything can happen.

6. Home owner detects that there are potential intruders at his doors and gets his gun to fight them off in self defence. Bad things _will_ happen.

All these scenarios apply even if you have a well-trained team that does its best to keep everyone secure.

I wouldn't put a specific term on SWATing, I'd just treat it as what it is - attempted murder. Unless it is successful. In that case it is murder.

That's not the only problem. If Apple (or any other company) has the capability to give you access to your data if you forget your password or passcode or whatever, then obviously this can be used against you through social engineering. But it can also be used against you by the police, the NSA etc.

Your biggest protection against Apple ratting you out to any agencies is the fact that Apple deliberately avoids being able to do so. Once they have the capability, they can be forced to use it against you.

You didn't read the judges 11 page opinion then, where he makes his reasons very clear. Among other things, the trolls claim that they need the information to take people to court, but they never do; they just abuse the courts as a cheap way to get information for their blackmail scheme.

The point that an IP is not an ID is exactly the point here, because the copyright troll wouldn't have any right to the name of anyone than the copyright infringer. And the fine judge found out that these copyright trolls have in several instances just ignored court orders and have just lied to the courts.

You really, really must hate Google then. Wanting 4 billion dollars for some mp3 patents.

I'll tell you something about "unskilled" Steve Jobs: When Apple had all their plans ready for the Apple 1 computer, Steve Jobs got off his arse and sold 50 of those computers to a hobby computer store for $500 each, and the $25,000 he got was enough to buy the parts for the first 50 computers he needed to deliver, plus 50 more that he could sell. Without that money, Apple would have been dead at inception. That single sale started everything.

Job's ideas were a dime a dozen. His ability to make it stick and actually produce the thing, that's what sets him apart.

No, they didn't succeed because of their ideas, but because they managed to put money where their mouth is, and got the finances to turn the idea into something that can be sold.

I don't think you just quite go the idea. It looks like this is supposed to be a ride sharing service, not a "ride sharing service". Ride sharing service, as in "I want to go from A to B, so find me an additional passenger to go from A to B, to save some cost". Properly used, this reduces or removes your cost of driving to work. It isn't supposed to allow you to make a limit.

And properly done, I think it should be totally legal for example in the UK and in Germany. Actually, In Germany that kind of thing has been done for more than 20 years, mostly for long distance drives.