The ONLY time I fear for my safety is when I'm going through the security line:

• The make you stand next to a barrel full of suspected explosives
• Your xrayed bags are out of your sight and could easily be stolen
• You are asked to remove your shoes and walk across a dirty floor
• If you don't want to walk through their radiation machine, they will stick their hand down your pants
• It is one of the largest concentrations of people in the airport, a dandy target for a terrorist

So yes, I fear for my safety going through the checkpoint. And for what? For no obvious reason. It doesn't make me safer on the other side of the checkpoint. It doesn't keep me safer on the plane. It only makes me feel like a criminal and wastes my time and money.

I'm not sure what his point is. He claims people pay a premium for sports and lush serial dramas, because people wouldn't pay for them if the cable companies didn't provide them... duh. I get cable mainly because I want to watch sports. If they didn't offer sports, I wouldn't be paying for the service.
He claims he gets on demand access to Game of Thrones. Where does he do that legally? They only place I see where you legally get Game of Thrones is the DVDs, not on demand and not cheap.
He also mentions the money goes straight to the studios and networks. And then talks about how the cable companies charge high fees for some stuff so they can bundle other stuff. So not all of the money goes straight to the studios.

So what is the problem? Wikipedia is supposed to contain information that can be verified. The information exists in "questionable newspapers," but it can still be verified in those newspapers. If this is a problem then Wikipedia needs to change its policy on what can be used for verification.

What exactly is the problem? That someone maintains a wikipedia page? That someone PAYS someone to maintain the page?

Noooo! Not a Formula Translator!

Its been how long since the files were released? What national security was damaged? Shouldn't we have evidence by now that some damage actually occurred?

Perhaps that is the first problem. Perhaps they should do a better job of estimating how many people will actually use it. There are only 100,000,000 households in America. Roughly half can't use the website, as their state has their own site. And then how many of these people also have insurance through their work? Throw in the fact that the users will use it over several months, and will most likely only use it a few times, and then never again... $6 per user is pretty excessive.

Probably not as dangerous as having all the dinner trays (still used on international flights) flying around... or anything else for that matter.

What was it the report told you, and what did you KNOW or suspect? The report appears to say that the people who pirate spend more than those who don't pirate. But what does that tell us? Not a whole lot really. Perhaps those who don't pirate don't consume very much. Based on the article we don't really know anything more than we did before.

That's like saying everyone who watches the World Series of Poker on ESPN is cheating. The Casino isn't really playing, so its ok for them to know what your cards are... doesn't mean they are cheating.

I'm struggling to understand what BSA and their trademark has to do with copyright law?

How are Tesla's claims misleading? It lists "EFFECTIVE MONTHLY COST" and "ESTIMATED PAYMENT" The effective monthly cost is calculated based on data and numbers you provide... What is misleading?

Why? Is something only non obvious if only ONE person in the world can figure it out? History is rife with two or three people racing to an invention. that doesn't mean the invention is obvious. I would think it would take more than two or three geniuses figuring something out to claim it as obvious.

If I own a hamburger patent, and you own a carwash that does not serve food. Can I threaten you with a lawsuit? Can I threaten you with charging you for a crime if you don't settle the lawsuit? Can I then file a fake lawsuit and make you spend time and money to get it thrown out?
Just because you own a patent, doesn't mean you can threaten people with lawsuits, and when they don't cave in, doesn't mean you can file a lawsuit incorrectly.

I'm not sure what you consider a completely legal activity. Is it legal for me to threaten you with a lawsuit, and then file what is shown to be an illegal lawsuit? Is it legal for me to claim that I will have you charged with what sounds like a legitimate crime, if you don't comply? What the troll is doing might be legal, but if it is it sure skirts the boundaries of legalities. Makes the RICO claim much more likely.