I didn't decorate my dwelling at all because I knew I would be elsewhere for the holidays.

Suing the Government and/or T3 could be problematic based on the example you cited. But there's another option: ignore the license agreement and continue distributing the material. They can try to DMCA you, and you can file a counter-notice. If they then file another counter-notice, wouldn't that give you standing to sue for a declaration that you have a right to distribute the material? If they sue you, well, you get to make your claim in court.

But what if the government promised to keep the data as secure as its diplomatic communiques? Those things must have multiple levels of security attached to them, making them impossible to compromise! Surely that would satisfy privacy-conscious individuals like yourself, right? Bueller?

At the start of my Thanksgiving bus ride, the driver announced that passengers could use their cell phones but asked that users be courteous to other passengers and keep the calls quiet and short. It seemed to work -- the bus ride was fairly quiet, as quiet as a bus full of (I would guess) 50-60 people can be. [Coughing, rustling of papers, quiet conversation with passengers seated next to one another, etc.]

But all life is sacred, right ???

Now disembarking their CELL PHONE in mid-air would require a much smaller airlock to prevent the cabin from depressurizing, and would ensure that a first offense (on a particular flight by a particular passenger) likely would be the LAST offense on that flight by that passenger. [If we made it that ALL that passenger's phones were disembarked, it WOULD be the last offense.]

On a more serious note, we don't need this type of law. All we need is for airlines to have a clearly stated policy, something like "You can talk on your phone, but keep it quiet and short. If other passengers complain, you will be asked to lower your voice or end your call. If you refuse, your phone will be confiscated and returned to you at the end of the flight. Passengers who resist the confiscation will be treated using our existing 'unruly passengers' policies, and as such may be banned from the airline or even may be arrested when we land."

So ... Gods Playing Poker as a reverse Dogs Playing Poker?

6. What impact would this have on Google's self-driving cars?

Maybe. If it was possible, whether that would be seen as a violation of the Outer Space Treaty or not is a different question.

I'd be more worried about someone using one of these on a highway on cars traveling at high rates of speed. If the transmitter were stationary a vehicle may not be in range for long enough, but if you had one mounted to the rear of your vehicle facing backwards (and shielded somehow from affecting YOUR vehicle) it could cause horrible accidents as cars behind the one that was shut down plowed into it. In Massachusetts this weekend we had a 65-vehicle accident caused by black ice on the road -- this could be worse.

I'm not a lawyer, but reading 17 USC 512 it doesn't look like there's anything requiring service to accept DMCA takedown notices electronically. Section c, subsection 2 requires companies to make their designated agent's email address available, but specifically does NOT say that they must accept notices at that email address. If companies declared that they required physical takedown notices (due, of course, to the ease with which spammers have flooded that public address with spam and fraudulent takedown notices!) it would be much more expensive for companies like Warner Bros. to (ab)use the DMCA like a shotgun.

How about a hair dryer on a motion sensor to scare the cat away with noise and hot air? Or a shop vac with the hose set into the exhaust port?

Kitty might not make it to the potted plant before it defecates.

If you want to listen to the radio while falling asleep or passing out, sleep it off in the passenger seat.

Seems to me that being certified to practice medicine by the medical organization of which you are president is a bit shaky. Of course, I doubt he'll use his medical degree again now that he's drunk the waters of political power so it's really a moot point.

Theoretically we could represent every number like this: 1111111 instead of 7. So why do we have any numbers other than 1? Because it's much less work to write 1234 and manipulate those four digits than to write or type one thousand two hundred thirty-four 1's and count and/or manipulate them.

Or, referring back to Randall Munroe's Up Goer Five the term "helium" is shorter and more precise than "that kind of air that makes your voice funny." When I explained this to my nephew who's in kindergarten the latter was good enough; when he gets older and more interested in rocketry, I'll clarify using the former. But if I were a rocket scientist, or speaking to someone who was, I'd use the former term even though it's "harder."

Yes, it leads to blackmail and intimidation. Suppose I want Kang to win the election instead of Kodos. I can threaten to harm your family or release a secret I know about you unless you vote for Kang. With the current system, unless I look at your ballot before you put it in the ballot box (and that would be difficult to do covertly in the polling place where I usually vote; it may be easier in other places) I don't know for certain how you voted. But if YOU can check how you voted, so can I. If you voted for Kodos or anyone but Kang, I'll harm your family or broadcast your secret.

In addition, you expect everyone to memorize their key pair and enter it perfectly in the voting system? People have enough trouble remembering eight character passwords (so they choose "password" or write it on a sticky note.) Asking them to remember a longer key made up of (what appears to them to be random) letters and numbers would result in them bringing a copy of their key to the voting booth ... and likely tossing it in the trash on the way out. Pose as a substitute janitor and grab those pieces of paper/sticky note then change those votes -- how likely is it that those people are going to check their votes?