In case anybody gets any ideas that they can't be replaced.

If we don't mind keeping the quantity of megawatts constant, I have devised a very economical way of doubling the number of installations

I can accept that "rights" are basically a consensual matter. What I can't accept is that these rights are so utterly ill-defined as to be meaningless. And that's ultimately, I think, what's going to torpedo what could have ultimately be an interesting concept.

Indeed, this is one key reason why Section 230 was written in the first place. It was done in response to a ruling in the Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy lawsuit, in which Prodigy, in an effort to provide a "family friendly" environment, did some moderation of its message boards. The judge in that case rules that since Prodigy did moderate the boards, that meant it would be liable for anything it left up.

If that ruling had stood and been adopted by others, it would, by itself, be a massive disincentive to moderation. Because the court was saying that moderation itself creates liability.

And this disincentive to moderation is PRECISELY what 230 repeal advocates want.

>Indeed, this is one key reason why Section 230 was written in the first place. It was done in response to a ruling in the Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy lawsuit, in which Prodigy, in an effort to provide a "family friendly" environment, did some moderation of its message boards. The judge in that case rules that since Prodigy did moderate the boards, that meant it would be liable for anything it left up. >If that ruling had stood and been adopted by others, it would, by itself, be a massive disincentive to moderation. Because the court was saying that moderation itself creates liability. And this disincentive to moderation is PRECISELY what 230 repeal advocates want.

Why is our economic system fragile to the voluntary wreckless actions of consenting private actors to begin with? Our modern system is a disgusting house of cards.

Bitcoin and other trustless cryptocurrencies will remain unaffected by this lawsuit. The SEC is correct to regard what Ripple is doing as the sale of securities, as XRP is not, fundamentally, a trustless environment (technical & implementation details notwithstanding. That being said, how do the supposed victims of this "crime" benefit from these actions? The government is simply shutting it down and confiscating the wealth. That isn't right either.

But I really, really hate Activision Blizzard

What is preferred is making it clear contextually whether "computer" is meant in the common sense or the formal sense of the term. Both usages have their place.

The Onion: Is The Government Spying On Schizophrenics Enough

One of the original purposes of the Library of Congress was to hold an authoritative copy of every work copyrighted in the U.S.

I hope they have to pay his legal fees too.

>No, because that's what's required by the DMCA. False. A platform retains the option to waive their safe harbor rights.