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. )

I prefer Patch Adams. Not as good, but it'll put hair on your chest.

Is the design that is selected going to fly to space?

No

*sigh*

I think a better headline would have been "Radio Shack still has at least 1,100 stores".

...the current system...[does not guarantee] distribution to the places best or helpful for society.

And it shouldn't, as people disagree on what that means and where those are.

They do? Don't most people want a place to live, food to eat, some entertainment, and some support, at the very least?

In situations where manipulative marketing and divisive politicking hasn't rotted people's brains, people overwhelming agree on at least the basics of where at least some resources should be distributed for the benefit of society.

This guy had a lot of great ideas, including:

• Guaranteed basic income linked to national average
• A cap on annual income
• A cap on personal wealth
• A cap on inheritance

Of course, he ended up getting assassinated and his program was purposefully run into the ground after his death.

And that's the real trick. The trouble is not coming up with great ideas that we know will work; the trouble is trying to implement them without getting murdered by the already-rich-and-powerful.

"Does using a word processor make you lazy with the language? Would you be better off programming with punch cards?"

I don't get it when people dis "copycat apps", claiming they are "ripping off" the original authors. Copied games are probably the purest form of the free-market in action; they provide alternate sources for the same (or similar) product, and they encourage competition.

I think [internet] communication is such a fundamental need for society that we can't risk having internet access remain in the hands of private interests. Internet access -- from the wires in the ground to the modem in your home -- needs to become a public good. Taxes should pay for everyone to have free internet access at the highest level of quality that society can reasonably afford.

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.

Yawn. Wake me when they put that cloud-based world-wide-web on the internet.