If I remember correctly it's to avoid confusion, as "M" can stand for mille; i.e. thousand.

What differentiates this case from Feist v. Rural Telephone?

The only website I have this problem with is Slashdot, which wants to cover the top 3rd of my web browser with an ad.

Right, which is why 17 U.S.C.S 512(c) (Safe Harbor Provision) exists, specifically absolving service providers of liability for copyright infringement under certain circumstances. If I understand correctly, IANAL, etc.

They're claiming that despite Apple not using all the features of the radio, Qualcomm iPhones still outperform Intel iPhones by 30-75%.

Because despite the terrible summary, the claim isn't about Apple hindering the performance of its chips. It's about Apple claiming there's no discernible difference between Intel & Qualcomm iPhones. The section about hindering performance is a couple of paragraphs of background in a multi-hundred page document, but for some reason the press has latched onto it.

It looks like what makes this case different from typical moderation is "Oh No they Didn't" would review every submission before posting them, whereas typically submissions are automatically posted but can be taken down by moderators. So as I understand it the typical default approve moderation is fine, it's just this require approval before posting moderation which may be suspect.

Similarly I imagine sites like reddit where the moderators are also users is also fine, regardless of the method, since the company itself is (usually) not involved.

In C or C++ you can type ?? to get curly brackets.

It's like baseball: if you understand it, it can be super interesting. If you don't understand it, it's a bunch of guys (mostly) standing around.

As far as I can tell there's opposition to any pipelines, regardless of where they're going. There's also opposition to twinning the pipeline to Vancouver, as well as opposition to a proposed pipeline to Kitimat. I don't think it's opposition to oil going to the US, it's opposition to oil going anywhere.

Vancouver?

Like reading and writing?

I know sarcasm is often harder to pick up on in text, but I thought my comment was ridiculous enough that the sarcasm would be obvious. Oh, well.

Which is why the average person now is less educated and less well-paid than the middle ages.

In this case the courts found there wasn't even a judicial redress, because Congress hadn't specifically created one, and this case didn't fall into a number of traditional categories. Which strikes me as very backward -- one of the main purposes of the constitution should be to act as a brake on the power of Congress, yet here the court has decided it's only effective if Congress on certain classes of laws if Congress decides it is.

But really the government will only stop this kind of stuff when the average voter decides Congress is more of a threat than Terrorists, and starts voting for civil rights.

Exactly this. It seems to me to be an unbelievably bad idea to decide that it doesn't matter if someone's rights were violated because there's nothing the courts can do about it, but that's (as far as I could tell, IANAL, etc.) what the court decided.