Sounds like he got an A+. He even aced the extra credit.

I'd rather see someone in charge of making these decision demoted or fired and sued in civil court, rather than see the taxpayers pay a bunch of ambulance chasers.

I'm not saying it's Aliens... But....

It's Aliens.

Mac products a few years ago.

I would work less if I didn't have to work for my income. Am I the only one?

If you do write it off your taxes, you didn't really donate it anyway. Uncle Sam (or the equivalent) did.

Nothing wrong with that really. Just don't confuse it with a real donation where you don't get anything back in return.

Hmm, no market for used cars since everyone is just giving them up. No market for new cars either, except the self driving ones that few individuals will own.

I don't see automakers adopting this business model any time soon. Same for the finance industry that exists to loan people money for cars.

I'd be careful to avoid what he is smoking, you don't want your mind altered that much.

Prove and probably aren't two words I like to see used together. I guess to a statistician or others who divine the future from tea leaves or entrails it is acceptable.

So you are saying there's a chance?

Trademarks are a restriction on pretending to be someone else. If I have a business that becomes known by a certain name and I apply for protection for that name, it's protecting both my business and the public from someone trying to capitalize on the good (or bad) reputation I have established.

Yes, I don't deny that they are, however ownership is not absolute. It's why companies like Xerox have to fight to keep the term from becoming generic. Google Genericide. I wonder how long before Google becomes genericided.

Also, you can't sit on a Trademark the way you can sit on a domain name. You must use it in trade and protect it, or it can be considered abandoned in a little as three years (US). Too bad we don't have s similar limit for copyright.

They determined that license plates were government speech and that the government could restrict it. It's not like they outlawed offensive bumper stickers.

Besides, trademarks exist to benefit the public to prevent confusion in the marketplace. In theory. They should not be considered property, not even "intellectual property" in my opinion. They should exist only to prevent a 3rd party from taking advantage of the good (or bad) relationship between a mark holder and the public.

I'd much rather focus on their practices. People will frequently disagree about beliefs, and should be allowed too.

If you are a real journalist doing a real story, you will already have other sources that support whatever story you are writing. Getting the FOIA data may be the "smoking gun" you need to publish your story. Paying for that is the coast of doing business, and in many cases, you are just paying for actual costs of photocopies.

Having the public information "leak" early should have minimal impact on your ability to recover the investment you have put into researching the story and interviewing people for quotes. If anything you will be in a stronger position to explain what the data means and increase audience for story.

If you can't compete with that much of a head start, then maybe you need to try harder next time.

I did read it. And I stand by what I said. They only reason not to publish every public document held by the government is because there are some documents for a variety of reasons need to be held private, at least for a period of time. And yes, it take effort to sort out which is which. However, once that effort has been made, by someone paying to sort it out. The reason for holding it back disappears.

I think that it is more likely, is that with greater access to these pre-vetted documents, more issues of public interest could pursued and exposed. Something missed by a few eyes could be seen by many more.