I think the bigger question is: does anybody care? Judging from the Farmville, Mafia Wars, etc. posts, you'd think that 150 users would have pushed facebook over the edge two years ago.

Both are still plenty vulnerable (google less so, but still) to an upstart with marketing money and a decent business plan.

Regardless, people who spend all day on either site aren't the people that make them money. Well except for offshore ones who are getting paid a dollar an hour to click on ads.

You do realize that process is already in place, don't you? (here in the U.S.)

It's years behind, with very little staff, no oversight, and a pretty bad track record.

I'm not a big fan of these sounds, but I like the idea.

Merge Sort - traffic sound
Bubble Sort - blowing bubble sound from bubble bobble
Insert Sort - coin slot
Select sort - crain game sounds
Gnome Sort - 7 dwarfs singing Hi-Ho, Hi-Ho

At least that way you can associate sounds with different algorithm types and remember what they are.

I'm being purely hypothetical, but let's work out a word problem.

So let's assume that there's some DNA in question, and that dna according to all 10 other calculations (assumed accurate) has a unique match number of 1 in 100,000.

Nobody ever asked if the defendant has a twin. (Again, assuming that an identical twin would have matching DNA which I don't actually know for certain).

Let's assume for simple math that in the real world twins occur 1/100 times.

Is the statistical uniqueness now 1/1000, 1/2, 1/50,000, or 1/100,000 or some other number.

This whole conversation is stupid.

"I would have done it diffferently" does not mean that the format is bad. None of these "flaws" render the format unusable. Maybe it doesn't perform as well as another format, maybe it isn't designed the way you would like, but it's implemented, it's available, and it's in use.

Actually, Apple stole the tech from Xerox, then licensed the tech to HP and Microsoft.

Xerox sued, but this was way back when. I don't think there was even a concept of a software patent when the Star system was developed. They originally tried to sue for copyright infringement, but the timing of the suit caused problems. They then tried to sue for unfair business practices. IIRC, they eventually settled out of court.

Actually - he states $.70 per song, and the only evidence there is of the pricing is in Starr v. Sony BMG and that was referenced in the brief.

The policy exists because multiple people actually have to lift the luggage on it's way to and from the airplane. They lift literally hundreds of bags each day, and lifting extraordinarily heavy bags without notice could cause an injury. The fee isn't to generate revenue, it's a deterrent in the best interest of the baggage handlers, and to offset the cost of handling a small number of bags in a different way than most other luggage. Every U.S. airline has a similar policy, usually at 50 pounds.

So - in a trial limited to "the issue of the appropriate amount of statutory damages", what really is discussed during the trial?

The RIAA has consistently been working the angle of statutory damages and avoiding the question of actual damages.

Are they going to have to argue actual damages moving forward?

It sounds like the trial would be a trial of the RIAA this time around, and not so much on Jammie Thomas.

It would seem that they would be limited too, in the discussion of the damages by the tracks she was determined to have infringed on copyrights, and in the damages suffered by the plaintiff's individually, not on the industry as a whole.

It would be a welcome discussion to hear:
1) How many copies of these particular recordings were found to have existed?
2) How many downloads of these particular recordings were estimated to have occurred?
3) How much money did each of these tracks earn in the year prior to the copyright infringement?
4) How much money did each of these tracks earn the year's during and after the copyright infringement?

The problem with that logic is that they already have in front of them one of the worst offenders they are likely to sue. As part of this trial, they insisted that she pirated thousands of songs, that she lied on the stand, and that she destroyed evidence.

The judge as part of his ruling, went with the ~$2500 number, in part, because she lied. Someone who does not lie, should therefore have a lesser fine.

When you start looking at bringing similar suits to trial, if your target collection # is $20K, you are much less intimidating than if your target collection number is $2M. Ms. Thomas really is in a position to say "I'll settle - give me $50K and I'll sign a non-disclosure." The only other real option for the RIAA is to take it to trial again. Granted, they are 2 for 2 with big verdicts, but the circumstances have changed and it's still a gamble.

I recently went to cancel DirecTV service - which I've had for more than a decade, only to find out they tacked on a $400 early termination fee. This had nothing to do with an agreement that I signed or ever verbally agreed to. It's just a tactic that they used to try to prevent me from leaving. The problem is that they can add on these fees and demand payment and in absence of payment, they'll affect your credit. My only solution is to go to small claims, which will cost me $75 + time and energy. Most people wouldn't go through all that and either stay or pay the fee and forget about it.

Who in their right mind would actually buy a 3D tv that required you to wear glasses while viewing. That's absurd.

You're missing the point. This isn't about leaking a secret, it's about intimidation and suppression of freedom.

Welcome to the police state. Pretty soon, we'll have "pre-screened" passengers wearing armbands and we all know where it goes from there