I don't think this is true. It might be if his plan had been to let the company and/or the customer keep the profits - but his plan appears to have been to personally keep the profits, based on the article links. Given that, his company may well have been inclined to have him prosecuted even if the trades had resulted in profits.

"About three million sets of Buckyballs and Buckycubes have been sold in U.S. retail stores nationwide". Three million sets. 54 reports of someone swallowing them.
Not quite two thousands of a percent of those toys have been reported as having been ingested. Not a large risk at all. I'd think they were joking if it weren't for the fact that they aren't. :/

I had a friend who got pulled over on the way to a store and ticketed for both speeding and obstructing traffic.

Basically, she was going over the limit, but not enough over the limit to not be impeding a block of cars behind her. I think she managed to get one of them thrown out but I don't remember all that well.

This is not at all true. It depends on the cop and where you are. I've seen cops pull over multiple vehicles simultaneously, all of which were traveling at the prevailing speed.

If the content were removed, rather than the links, all links would stop working, whether the linking was done by Google or anyone else.

Pretty soon there will be requirements to remove links to pages that haven't removed links ... if there aren't already. The whole thing is stupid, basically.

That doesn't change the fact that Google removing the links doesn't remove the content.

Well, other than the link not being in Google. But the link is not actually their content, it's just a pointer to their content.

I know this.

The point is this:

If they send the takedown to Google, they get the link removed from the search engine, sure. But the content is still there, so what real effect does removing the link have? None.

Shouldn't those film studios be sending DMCA takedown notices to whatever ISP/etc is actually hosting that content, and not Google, who is not hosting that content?

In law words have very specific meanings, and whether or not particular ordinary layman definitions line up with those meanings is irrelevant in a legal context.

If the legal definition of insanity were equivalent to the layman's definition you propose, it would be impossible to convict anyone who committed such a crime. Anyone who did would automatically be not guilty by reason of insanity.

Do you have a source for that? My understanding is that Death Valley gets clouds, they just don't get a lot of rain because the clouds have already dumped most of their moisture on the Sierra Nevada.

Even if the claim is true, it just means someone needs to come up with an algorithm for ensuring that cloud-bits set to 0 end up over death valley at the appropriate times.

Based on the links in the article, there's an easy way to make sure it doesn't apply to most software. The critical point is 'self-replicating'. Most software is not self-replicating.

Of course, that's assuming you don't die first. ;)

Someday, you'll be responding to someone with a UID that's greater than times higher than yours ...

Every time Blizzard's response to an account being hacked is "get an authenticator", the only thing they are admitting that the user hasn't sufficiently secured data (the account password) that blizzard has no control over.