That's exactly what I came to say. If they are going to factor in the total cost of producing the electricity that runs the vehicle, then they need to compare that with a gas vehicle where they also include the environmental cost to extract the oil, transport the oil to a refinery, refine the oil into gasoline, transport the gas to a distributor, and then worry about the emissions of the actual vehicle consuming the fuel. Likewise, if they want to factor in the cost to manufacture the batteries and motors, then they also need to factor in the cost to manufacture the engines. It's not a meaningful comparison otherwise.

I don't see how it's possible for the situation described by the person I was replying to to happen. A website TOS saying that I am not allowed to run my own Javascript code or a modified version of their Javascript code is about the same as saying that I'm not allowed to play Solitaire or drink a beer while I'm using their site. It doesn't affect them at all, and they are in no position to try and enforce something like that. If I want to write some Javascript, and execute it on my browser while it has their site loaded, then there's no reason I shouldn't be allowed to do that.

And speaking of NYCL, I haven't seen that guy around here in years. We used to get occasional stories from him. It looks like he still updates his blog though.

I'm not a lawyer, I just admire NYCL's work. I'm not sure how binding the various EULAs are considered to be, but I've never heard of anyone brought up on charges for running their own Javascript code in their own browser. With Opera, for example, you can configure it to run your own Javascript (or CSS) files on any or all sites. That's not even a plugin or third-party add-on, it's been an option for as long as I can remember. A EULA might generally be considered a binding agreement, but I don't think they are allowed to remove rights that you have. A EULA that basically says that you waive your first amendment rights I don't think would hold up. I have the right (or privilege) to run whatever code I want to run on my browser, a website EULA should not be able to say that I am not allowed to run whatever arbitrary Javascript code I want to in my browser while I'm looking at their site, even if that code is a modified version of their code.

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a while, well done. Find a single case where someone has been brought up on any charge because they asked for code that is publicly available for distribution, they received the code, they changed some of the code, and ran it on their own machine. When you're changing Javascript code you aren't "hacking" shit except for your own computer. You're not even interacting with the server in any way. The DMCA doesn't have shit to say about the issue either.

What does that have to do with anything? Case law is what matters, not whatever language someone writes which they pretend that everyone agrees with.

You'd hope that they start out ethical. Judge Wright in California said that their porn trolling cases were basically allowed because they found the nexus of outdated copyright laws, a paralyzing social stigma for the defendant, and potentially expensive litigation that people want to avoid. It just seems like the lawyer's version of a get-rich-quick scheme. They can interject into class action suits and extract a payment that way with minimal effort, they can monitor bittorrent and send settlement letters to downloaders for a few thousand with minimal effort, etc.

I'm not an attorney, but Judge Otis Wright in the California case was looking at rule 11 sanctions against Prenda Law. The basis for that was because he was under the impression that the shell companies that the lawyers were representing were in fact owned by the lawyers themselves, but they did not notify the court of that. They would have been allowed to proceed if they had notified the court that they had a monetary interest (their claims and discovery requests simply would have been given more scrutiny in that case), but Judge Wright alleged that they committed fraud on the court by trying to hide that relationship. So it's fine if a lawyer has a monetary stake in the case (as far as I know, again, not a lawyer), but they need to be up front about that from the start. I doubt Hansmeier was trying to hide his relationship with his wife, the goal was simply to extract $20k or $30k from the defendant (Groupon) so that they would withdraw their objection and let the case settle. They file their objection just before the deadline for filing in the hope that the defendant wants a quick settlement. Most of this is just my speculation though, which comes from following Ken's great coverage on Popehat, as well as the coverage on fightcopyrighttrolls.com and dietrolldie.com.

If you've been following the coverage on Popehat or FightCopyrightTrolls, you'll know that the Groupon class-action case is another one of Hansmeier's schemes to make money. He has a few cases where someone in his family files as an objector in a class-action case at the 11th hour (meaning that they are going to hold the case up and not let it settle, unless they get a nice payout of course), and then Hansmeier himself acts as the attorney for the objector. There are theories that he simply files the objections himself under a family member's name, and then proceeds to represent them. The objector in the Groupon case is Padraigin Browne, Hansmeier's wife (and a patent attorney). He's also represented his father, another attorney, in other class-action cases. I like how the judge ordered Hansmeier to provide proof to the court that he notified his client (wife) that he wasn't eligible to represent her.

I don't think anyone argues that the GOP is the root of all evil so much as they are a successful implementation of the evil specification.

By "spewing volcano", do you mean the volcano which last erupted in 1984 and which is home to many permanent science installations?

That's sort of a weird criticism. They aren't saying that their instruments are measuring 400. They aren't out there measuring integers. The measurement is 400 parts of CO2 per million parts of air. That's what the reading is, that's the chemical significance. The significant fact of that measurement is that it's the highest one they've ever recorded. There's plenty to discuss about this without resorting to some sort of weird misdirection tactic that 400 is just an integer.

Why? What exactly do you think this system is designed to protect against, an attack from a sophisticated air force? There's a reason they say that they are testing the system on Qassam style rockets. A Qassam rocket isn't supersonic. But you can bet that if they get a few years of good experience with this thing deployed in the field, they'll eventually end up with a bigger version.

I would bet that someone with poor business sense and a high degree of greed got hold of a successful product with 87% market share, and started thinking about how they could make as much money as possible with it.

http://www.rrauction.com/preview_itemdetail.cfm?IN=405

Fine, you own the data. You can have access to it whenever you want, I'm sure. But you don't own this, the actual paper sheet and the plaque that they mounted it on. It was given to a private individual, who sold it. Now you can buy it. Or perhaps instead you would like a sword, or Buzz's underwear, or this fine handle.

The size of a single phone conversation isn't the limiting factor. The problem is volume, the number of phone calls that take place every single day has to be staggering. Maybe a single 1-minute call is only 100kb, but if you have 1 billion conversations every day then that's going to be a storage problem eventually.