This would be a better fit at a high end copy center like Kinkos. The people working there have some technical ability, they are used to dealing with consumables, and they are already in the reproduction business. Fee schedule would be some setup cost say, $20, and a per minute print cost (say $0.20). That's fairly expensive per part, but cheaper than buying your own, and much less hassle.

I'd guess a typical store would get a few customers a week printing for a few hours each. So somewhere around $5000 per year in business. Consumables are a question (color and type variety), but would probably be less than $500 per year (electricity, plastic and extruder nozzles). If labor there was $30/hour (way high) that should be less than a half hour of setup and cleanup time (so $1500/year). Break-even point is somewhere around 9 months. Then you are making money as long as the machine lasts. Move nearer a university or R&D business area and your usage rate probably rises fast.

Of course, if you are really going to offer this service these kinds of extrusion based printers aren't the best choice. They are just the cheapest. Higher end systems can print faster, higher tolerance parts with none of the part shape restrictions. Plus they are easier to operate and keep running.

I'm betting someone has run these kinds of numbers and it's a little to small-potatoes to risk it yet.

Every jurisdiction I've ever lived in had a legal out for rapid response. Most are worded to allow immediate access to any information or location required to counter an immediate threat of harm (to persons, property, or in some cases evidence of a crime). The clauses all require the approval of a warrant within a short time period (24-72 hours). The point is: requiring a warrant doesn't inhibit emergency responders from entering your house if they hear gunshots, searching a building for a fugitive, etc. The law already has a mechanism to deal with exigent circumstances.

It's the mini lovechild of Steve Jobs and Stanley Tucci. That's kinda creepy in itself I guess.

That's a really good question. I certainly haven't read all the background, but from the wikipedia summary I can see two possible distinctions: 1) that Cablevision had the right to publicly show the content to their subscribers (at some point), and 2) that the stored copies and transmission to the viewer were done entirely on Cablevision equipment.

Zediva has never claimed to have a public broadcast right to the content. While that's a significant difference I don't really see that as the issue here. If Zediva laid a dedicated cable to each subscriber's house would that change the ruling? I think so. In that case the problem isn't who they are showing it to but rather how they are delivering it. I think the significant difference lies in the use of a public transmission medium (the internet) between Zediva and their clients. Even if the content is encrypted the data must be there in some reconstructable form, ie, it's a copy. Because it's a copy, on display in a public forum, copyright law is at issue and the original owner has the right the control the creation of that copy.

I'd consider the internet 'a place open to the public' and, encrypted or not, the data is passing through (and is therefore on 'display') that public place. I'd say, by a strict reading of (1) it's a public display. I'm not sure I properly understand clause (2) at this time of night but I don't even think you need to get into time or space shifting (I think that's what (2) is about).

*Bump*Bump*Screech*

Never mind then.

The rules specifically apply to checkpoint information that is NOT published by law enforcement agencies.

Out of curiosity, at what point does the existence of the checkpoint itself count as "published by law enforcement?" At the very least it would be at the point where the first ticket was written, since the ticket is a public record and it contains the address closest to the infraction. Right?

What bothers me about this is that Apple has, essentially, banned an app for publishing a certain class of facts. Is there any way that this sounds OK once it's been framed that way? I get the motivation but I'm just not willing to advocate for censoring facts unless you prove to me that there's no viable alternative.

I'd make a significant distinction between refusing to exercise a right and surrendering a right. I have the right to remain silent. If I choose to say something it doesn't imply I've surrendered by right to stop speaking later. You can always choose to not exercise a right because you feel it is in your best interest (waiving your right to a trial for instance). Depending on the type of right choosing to surrender it may imply a future obligation. An example would be testifying in your own defense at court. Choosing to testify on your own behalf may open you to answering questions that you might otherwise have been able to remain silent.

Which leads us directly to the question of natural (inalienable, or, in other words non-surrender-able) rights versus legal rights. With this judgement our Supreme Court seems to have clarified that the right to seek justice is a legal rather than an inalienable right, and can, therefore, be surrendered. I fundamentally disagree. One of the roles of government is to foster justice, not establish it. Unfortunately the constitution disagrees:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice..."

or at least appears to. I *think* they (the framers) mean to establish what justice *is* rather than establish the right to seek justice. In that case there can be no arbiter above the government for the defining of just practice. I could then choose to waive my right to trial but never surrender it. Clearly the Supreme Court disagrees with me.

We (Citizens of the USA) don't live in a democracy. If we did our particular mechanism of repression wouldn't work. We live in a republic, and the representatives have discovered that we will vote based on our emotions about their views on a small subset of policy choices (abortion, taxation, welfare, social security, etc). Whenever we express concern over some non-emotive issue (abstract things like "justice", "equality", "fairness", etc) we can be distracted (and therefore controlled) by attacking our emotive issues.

Our representatives no longer represent our best interests, they represent our biggest interests. If we lived in a democracy corporations couldn't buy up all the representatives and "encourage" them to vote specific ways on given non-emotive issues.

The more I think about it the more I come to believe that the reasons Blu-Ray has received any negative reception can be tied to (i.e. blamed on) the presence of DRM. Think of all the actively negative things about it:

* Ridiculous disc load times: key lookup, verification, and revocation in action. Plus the decryption overhead (particularly on imperfect discs).
* Poor device compatibility with displays: HDCP is the bane of my existence, and I'm not alone
* Regular disc incompatibilities requiring updated firmware: gotta patch those DRM holes, and bump the required Blu-Ray version
* Buggy playback devices: Development and testing time wasted verifying DRM rather than *basic system operations*

Eliminate all of that crap, and you are left with a moderately improved viewing experience, a somewhat higher price, and some interesting, but supplemental features (3D, streaming, downloadable content, etc). The difference is that all those positives are just not sufficiently good to motivate a purchase. The DRM negatives *are* motivating buyers...to avoid Blu-Ray.

Just about everyone who has ever purchased a Blu-Ray player has had to fight the DRM, either with a display/TV that wouldn't work (or flickers for a few minutes on startup, like mine used to), or a disc that wouldn't play. Almost no one notices the DRM on DVDs (I'm betting the *awareness* of it is less than 5%). To borrow some Apple marketing phrases: DVD just works, and Blu-Ray is a big bag of hurt.