Bomber's got an optional package for most of their light rail stuff that uses Maxwell super caps for regen. 25% improvement in efficiency. This is particularly useful on light rail because it means they have enough energy onboard to pull themselves through an intersection if there's a power failure.
No one buys them. Up-front cost. So next time you complain that people don't buy hybrid cars...
> throwing it all into a deep nasty hole and leaving us as slow as the noob
The irony of this, of course, is that MS pushed ribbons because their research showed that it sped up the learning curve for noobs.
In 2008? Is there a big pile of the planet that hasn't already used Office 2003? One so worth impressing that you're willing to piss off the rest of the planet to get their money?
> It leaves less room for viewing my email, or my document, or my spreadsheet
I known everyone will start yelling "fanboy", but that's fine - it's precisely this issue that made Lion completely change the way I use my computer. In the past I found the whole "Spaces" thing too much trouble to use, and had a bunch of windows open on the screen. Since it's a laptop things would get messy, so I'd close windows to clean up. Invariably that's the window I wanted.
Under Lion, Spaces are super-easy to get around in because of the swiping. I put everything I can into full screen mode and can fly between them - faster than looking for the window in a single screen. Better yet, when you're in full screen, all the extraneous stuff is hidden - the menu bar, content within the windows, scroll bars, etc. It's not much on a desktop, but seriously, on my laptop the difference is huge.
That MS is missing this, and introducing a feature that's really just a marketing tool, says everything you need to know about the now irrelevant company. Normally it's not that their stuff is bad, just meh. But now they can't even get that right.
I recall when supersymmetry was all the rage, to the point where axial jets in Fermilab were considered evidence that the only way forward was susy. The beauty of its solution to the hierarchy problem demanded attention, and lacking any other contenders there was a significant level of "well, this has to be it!". Then by the late 80's, the lack of any evidence for susy partners right in the middle of the rich bands made it sort of fade into the background. By then superstrings were all the rage.
So here we are another 20 years later and superstrings (sorry, "m-theory") is apparently in the same process of dying a slow death. And then along comes LHC. Now no one really knows what it's going to find, if anything, except for the desperate hope it will find the Higgs so they can hand out some more Nobel's. But with m-theory silent (or more accurately, screaming too loudly), and huge holes in the energy levels between the top and LHC, suddenly supersymmetry re-appears. Not because there's any reason to believe it mind you, it's just that there's nothing else in the energy hole that LHC can hit that we could actually test.
> Now the GSM, CDMA, 3G, 4G, etc. implementations do have patents associated with them, > but those would rightly be paid by the phone manufacturers
Exactly. Motorola is licensing their phone patents to phone makers.
> just like any PC, only smaller
Except for the fact that Apple developed many of the technologies used in Android. For instance, I recall "data detectors" being discussed at WWDC in the mid 1990s. Given the state of development at the time, I would guestimate that they spent millions developing it. When finally introduced in the iPhone they represented a tremendous advance in usability terms.
Google simply copied this UI for Android. I don't blame them, as Apple set a bar they had to meet. But as Apple already had a patent and was using it in a shipping product, they must have known they were in violation.
I believe that if someone spent money developing an idea, they should get to say what people do with it. If they want to give it away for free, like the thousands of articles I've written on the Wikipedia, so be it. But if they choose to license it for money, that's their prerogative too.
"The key to the system developed by inventor Charles Stevens, CEO and chairman of Connecticut-based Laser Power Systems, is that when silvery metal thorium is heated by an external source, it becomes so dense its molecules give off considerable heat."
Right, I heat something and it gets *more* dense eh? And that makes it give off heat? Sure.
"Small blocks of thorium generate heat surges that are configured as a thorium-based laser"
What?
"A 250 MW unit weighing about 500 lbs. (227 kg) would be small and light enough to drop under the hood of a car, he says."
I hope so, because 250 MW is a little under 350,000 hp.
Uggg, I hope you don't do UI design in your job. Google+'s UI is horrid.
It took me three tries before I figured out how to post my profile picture. One would naturally go to Profile... Photos... but that's actually not the way you do it. Even after figuring it out, it still tells me I have no photos of myself. I now have the same photo three times in three different "books" and still can't figure out how three were created.
I still have no idea how to post on someone else's wall.
And when I post on my own, I have to choose circles to share it with. Fine. But once it's posted, it doesn't tell me which ones. So if I think I did something wrong and change the sharing, a second post appears.
... all I can said is that FB has nothing to worry about. The interface is utterly boring, the circles are way too hard to set up, you can't tell who you shared your posts with, and I still can't figure out how to post on someone's wall. Oh, and posting a photo, uggg. Maybe it's fixable, but this is not an encouraging start.
I would love to love the NYT app on my iPhone, but it's always been bad. The common lockups, CPU eating and random failures to update took way too long to fix. And now that it's pay, I love the way it downloads the headlines for articles I can't read before the ones I can.
> NASA, Washington, and the United States forgot what space exploration > is all about when they got hung up on a shuttle program.
No, only NASA. As "The Space Shuttle Decision" illustrates in tedious but deep detail, NASA's internal bureaucracy created the monster of the Shuttle by relentlessly eating up every other good idea that came along. Inputs included:
1) the astronaut corp's demand-on-the-verge-of-striking that the craft absolutely not be able to fly without a human onboard
2) in-fighting between the old and new design bureaux, notably between Faget and the mainline shuttle teams at MFC and the groups at Huntsville and Langley.
3) the AF's demands for landing-once-around (which demanded 650 mile cross-range) and the launch capacity for a hypothetical 40,000 lb spy sat (Onyx?)
4) the Mathematica report that said an AF-type shuttle would only work at high launch rates
5) the OMB's demands that year-to-year development costs be held low
So basically, given these inputs, it was impossible the Shuttle would ever be useful. If you want to understand why, go google up "Chrysler SERV", which met and exceeded all of the requirements but had only 150 miles cross-range, or the North American DC-3, which was completely reusable but had a "stalled spin" re-entry mode that the AF refused to consider. It's all very sad.
You likely mean through the "Computers" menu. This is a serious step backwards. In the past the system folded local content with the contents of a linked machine, producing a single menu containing the content from both. Now I have to navigate two more menu levels to get to the same place.
> As many people like to point out here on/., Android phones have more of a market share than iPhone
In the US. In any market where the iPhone was available on all carriers at the same time that Android arrived, Android remains far behind the iPhone.
For instance, in Canada Rogers was using the iPhone to beat its competitors into the ground - 1/4 of a million subscribers left Bell and Telus every month to get an iPhone on Rogers. This hurts when you consider the population of Canada is just over 30 million. So, Bell and Telus signed an agreement to rapidly deploy GSM towers across the nation (which is much more expensive per user in Canada than the US) and freely share roaming.
They did this just in time for the 3GS to launch, which was at about the same time that the first usable Android handsets arrived. There was no contest. The iPhone has three times the market share of Android, and the gap is growing. RIM still has 42%, but that number is dropping rapidly and those users are moving to Apple.
Frankly, I think Apple utterly blew it in the US. Had they come out with a CDMA 3GS I think they would dominate there as they do here in Canuckistan. There is certainly a hard core of Apple haters who will never buy their product, but according to statistics here it seems tha number is about 15 to 20% of the market.
Sony and Microsoft have both done just this. They have their own content stores, set top boxes, and in the case of Sony, TV's that talk to both.
The real reason that Apple should not do a TV is that they suck at it. The ATV2 is a serious step backward from my ATV1 in almost every measure other than physical size. It has extremely poor connectivity and doesn't even link to a Mac any more. It's a reasonable $99 Netflix box, but so are many TV's.
> Because nuclear power is the cleanest, most dependable, most regulated, > and lowest impacting power source on the planet right now
That would be hydro, not nuclear. Much cheaper too. People who believe nuclear is the way to go generally live in areas that are tapped out on the hydro side and the local power companies stop talking about it.
A good example is right here in Toronto. They're still trying to build another set of four reactors east of the city, but there's 9 reactors worth in norther Quebec already installed and underused, another 11 unbuilt, another 10 in Newfoundland and Manitoba, and at least 25 in northern Alberta and Saskatchewan. There's more untapped hydro in Canada than tapped, and more hydro in total than all the other forms of power put together. If we did a full build-out, we would supply all of our electricity, power all our cars, and still export more power to the US than we do now.
1) re-entry and recovery systems should be part of a dedicated return stage, rather than part of the crew cabin.
2) the lifting body has extremely limited cross-range capabilities, so any orbit significantly outside that of a due-east launch from Kennedy presents a *serious* recovery infrastructure problem
3) the utility module is on the base on the vehicle stack, and it includes the de-orbit system. That means if you want to change the mission requirements (length of stay, etc) you have to build a different one. While that is *easier* in this case, given the history of NASA it is extremely unlikely the budget for this will ever appear (Aft Cargo Carrier, Shuttle-C, Advanced SRB, etc.)
4) For an extended duration single-launch mission, the system (AFAIK) does not have the ability to have a mission module docked on the front. That means that the design has to be used with a rear-mounted module and manoeuvre to it, or use multiple launches.
The Soviet-style launcher is the best solution in terms of throw weight. By isolating each mission into a separate "container" you have improved flexibility. They did not make much use of that (keeping the operating area when launching to Salyut for instance) but the idea remains sound. It is what they used on Apollo, for instance, except for the single module.
The arguments presented in this "article" are specious. It is clear that they author does not even understand what the case is about. He freely mixes the ISP's with the john does, suggesting he doesn't understand who is even being sued - which in fact is "nobody".
Quick review... the case in question is against ISPs as part of a discovery process. The ISP is not charged with anything. They are being asked to provide information about a 3rd party as part of a suit that does not otherwise include them. Under normal circumstances this would be an illegal release of private information. So in order to get the information, the plaintiff (VPN in this case) has to show cause - that they have a case against a 3rd party and the ISP has data that is important to the process.
But in addition, this case rests on the difference between "discovery" and "expedited discovery". There already is a legal process for getting this information as a part of case, it's discovery. During discovery, everyone is supposed to cough up every bit of data cogent to the case, and do so within a reasonable time frame. If someone involved thinks evidence is being withheld, then they can go back to the court and ask for expedited discovery, which compels the party to either present the evidence or argue why they can't.
So I'm sitting at a red light and you rear-end my car. I can see that your passenger was filming the entire event. When I sue, my lawyers will ask for the video to be presented into evidence as part of the discovery process. But let's say your friend (or your lawyers more likely) say they can't get the video, that it's taking them time to figure it out or something. I then return to the court and try to get the discovery expedited, and if you don't turn it over then, or have a *really* good argumen for not doing it, you're in serious trouble.
Ok, so...
>>"As VPR points out, ex parte motions for expedited discovery have been granted in similar >> cases in other districts; among the thousands of Does in those cases, relatively few motions >> to quash have been filed."
When someone does file for *expedited* discovery, it's *supposed* to mean the party in question (often a legal team) is deliberately dragging their feet. One excellent way to drag their feet even more is to file a motion to quash.
So the judge is asking why it is that the expedited discovery is being used, if the defendant never quashes? If they don't file to quash, it would seem they were never dragging their feet in the first place.
> The innocent John Does' only defense against abuse of the discovery process
Uggg, here's a prime example of the author not understanding the case. The innocent John Does' are not part of the case at hand!
> is to quash the subpoenas (basically, file a motion saying "I'm not guilty, so the > plaintiff can't have my identity")
Nooo, the ISP would be the one quashing. Why might they do that? Well how about "this guy has sent us 100 of these a week with zero evidence to back up their claims. he's just using the courts to force us to do something that would normally be illegal"
> Perhaps a lot of the John Doe defendants thus named are, in fact, guilty!
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the case.
> Uh, OK. Plaintiff started with a list of 100 defendants, and then expanded it to 1,000. > What does this have to do with the legitimacy, generally, of suing John Doe defendants > and subpoenaing their identities?
I file to get the IP of one person, then in the middle of the proceedings I add 100 more.
Now if I had all of these 100 IP's, which I should have if I did *my* discovery, then why would I have to add them in the middle of the case? Why didn't I have them at the start? And if I didn't have them at the start and I'm still finding them now, why am I asking for it to be expedited?
The judge is saying "stop wasting our time, go and do your homework first".
Slashdot Mirror
> If you're only doing highways, a hybrid won't do much, except use more gas for the added battery weight...
Unless you reduce the size of the engine, which you can because you don't need low end torque.
My 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid gets 4.3 l/100 km (54.2 m/gal US, 65.2 Imperial) - photos available if need be.
The non-hybrid version gets about 20 mph less on the hiway. So, you're wrong.
Bomber's got an optional package for most of their light rail stuff that uses Maxwell super caps for regen. 25% improvement in efficiency. This is particularly useful on light rail because it means they have enough energy onboard to pull themselves through an intersection if there's a power failure.
No one buys them. Up-front cost. So next time you complain that people don't buy hybrid cars...
Does anyone even look at the certs? I consider them worthless, and ignore them 100% of the time.
> throwing it all into a deep nasty hole and leaving us as slow as the noob
The irony of this, of course, is that MS pushed ribbons because their research showed that it sped up the learning curve for noobs.
In 2008? Is there a big pile of the planet that hasn't already used Office 2003? One so worth impressing that you're willing to piss off the rest of the planet to get their money?
> It leaves less room for viewing my email, or my document, or my spreadsheet
I known everyone will start yelling "fanboy", but that's fine - it's precisely this issue that made Lion completely change the way I use my computer. In the past I found the whole "Spaces" thing too much trouble to use, and had a bunch of windows open on the screen. Since it's a laptop things would get messy, so I'd close windows to clean up. Invariably that's the window I wanted.
Under Lion, Spaces are super-easy to get around in because of the swiping. I put everything I can into full screen mode and can fly between them - faster than looking for the window in a single screen. Better yet, when you're in full screen, all the extraneous stuff is hidden - the menu bar, content within the windows, scroll bars, etc. It's not much on a desktop, but seriously, on my laptop the difference is huge.
That MS is missing this, and introducing a feature that's really just a marketing tool, says everything you need to know about the now irrelevant company. Normally it's not that their stuff is bad, just meh. But now they can't even get that right.
I recall when supersymmetry was all the rage, to the point where axial jets in Fermilab were considered evidence that the only way forward was susy. The beauty of its solution to the hierarchy problem demanded attention, and lacking any other contenders there was a significant level of "well, this has to be it!". Then by the late 80's, the lack of any evidence for susy partners right in the middle of the rich bands made it sort of fade into the background. By then superstrings were all the rage.
So here we are another 20 years later and superstrings (sorry, "m-theory") is apparently in the same process of dying a slow death. And then along comes LHC. Now no one really knows what it's going to find, if anything, except for the desperate hope it will find the Higgs so they can hand out some more Nobel's. But with m-theory silent (or more accurately, screaming too loudly), and huge holes in the energy levels between the top and LHC, suddenly supersymmetry re-appears. Not because there's any reason to believe it mind you, it's just that there's nothing else in the energy hole that LHC can hit that we could actually test.
> Now the GSM, CDMA, 3G, 4G, etc. implementations do have patents associated with them,
> but those would rightly be paid by the phone manufacturers
Exactly. Motorola is licensing their phone patents to phone makers.
> just like any PC, only smaller
Except for the fact that Apple developed many of the technologies used in Android. For instance, I recall "data detectors" being discussed at WWDC in the mid 1990s. Given the state of development at the time, I would guestimate that they spent millions developing it. When finally introduced in the iPhone they represented a tremendous advance in usability terms.
Google simply copied this UI for Android. I don't blame them, as Apple set a bar they had to meet. But as Apple already had a patent and was using it in a shipping product, they must have known they were in violation.
I believe that if someone spent money developing an idea, they should get to say what people do with it. If they want to give it away for free, like the thousands of articles I've written on the Wikipedia, so be it. But if they choose to license it for money, that's their prerogative too.
Maury
"The key to the system developed by inventor Charles Stevens, CEO and chairman of Connecticut-based Laser Power Systems, is that when silvery metal thorium is heated by an external source, it becomes so dense its molecules give off considerable heat."
Right, I heat something and it gets *more* dense eh? And that makes it give off heat? Sure.
"Small blocks of thorium generate heat surges that are configured as a thorium-based laser"
What?
"A 250 MW unit weighing about 500 lbs. (227 kg) would be small and light enough to drop under the hood of a car, he says."
I hope so, because 250 MW is a little under 350,000 hp.
"vehicle to supply electricity to power a house during a power outage or shortage"
How often do those happen where you live? In Toronto, it's about once every decade, or less.
Given that this occurs less often than I would replace the car, the effect on lifetime would be effectively zero.
So then I would be perfectly happy to draw on my batteries when there's a blackout.
"the best interface in the world "
Uggg, I hope you don't do UI design in your job. Google+'s UI is horrid.
It took me three tries before I figured out how to post my profile picture. One would naturally go to Profile... Photos... but that's actually not the way you do it. Even after figuring it out, it still tells me I have no photos of myself. I now have the same photo three times in three different "books" and still can't figure out how three were created.
I still have no idea how to post on someone else's wall.
And when I post on my own, I have to choose circles to share it with. Fine. But once it's posted, it doesn't tell me which ones. So if I think I did something wrong and change the sharing, a second post appears.
That's the first three of dozens of problems.
It's terrible.
... all I can said is that FB has nothing to worry about. The interface is utterly boring, the circles are way too hard to set up, you can't tell who you shared your posts with, and I still can't figure out how to post on someone's wall. Oh, and posting a photo, uggg. Maybe it's fixable, but this is not an encouraging start.
I would love to love the NYT app on my iPhone, but it's always been bad. The common lockups, CPU eating and random failures to update took way too long to fix. And now that it's pay, I love the way it downloads the headlines for articles I can't read before the ones I can.
> NASA, Washington, and the United States forgot what space exploration
> is all about when they got hung up on a shuttle program.
No, only NASA. As "The Space Shuttle Decision" illustrates in tedious but deep detail, NASA's internal bureaucracy created the monster of the Shuttle by relentlessly eating up every other good idea that came along. Inputs included:
1) the astronaut corp's demand-on-the-verge-of-striking that the craft absolutely not be able to fly without a human onboard
2) in-fighting between the old and new design bureaux, notably between Faget and the mainline shuttle teams at MFC and the groups at Huntsville and Langley.
3) the AF's demands for landing-once-around (which demanded 650 mile cross-range) and the launch capacity for a hypothetical 40,000 lb spy sat (Onyx?)
4) the Mathematica report that said an AF-type shuttle would only work at high launch rates
5) the OMB's demands that year-to-year development costs be held low
So basically, given these inputs, it was impossible the Shuttle would ever be useful. If you want to understand why, go google up "Chrysler SERV", which met and exceeded all of the requirements but had only 150 miles cross-range, or the North American DC-3, which was completely reusable but had a "stalled spin" re-entry mode that the AF refused to consider. It's all very sad.
I'm a grumpy old man with 26,000+ edits and something like 5,000 to 7,000 new articles.
I'll remain grumpy and old after the button is implemented.
You can buy off-the-shelf solar windows from several companies. We normally deal with Scheuten or Schott.
> And my ATV2 is connected to my Mac via iTunes.
You likely mean through the "Computers" menu. This is a serious step backwards. In the past the system folded local content with the contents of a linked machine, producing a single menu containing the content from both. Now I have to navigate two more menu levels to get to the same place.
> As many people like to point out here on /., Android phones have more of a market share than iPhone
In the US. In any market where the iPhone was available on all carriers at the same time that Android arrived, Android remains far behind the iPhone.
For instance, in Canada Rogers was using the iPhone to beat its competitors into the ground - 1/4 of a million subscribers left Bell and Telus every month to get an iPhone on Rogers. This hurts when you consider the population of Canada is just over 30 million. So, Bell and Telus signed an agreement to rapidly deploy GSM towers across the nation (which is much more expensive per user in Canada than the US) and freely share roaming.
They did this just in time for the 3GS to launch, which was at about the same time that the first usable Android handsets arrived. There was no contest. The iPhone has three times the market share of Android, and the gap is growing. RIM still has 42%, but that number is dropping rapidly and those users are moving to Apple.
Frankly, I think Apple utterly blew it in the US. Had they come out with a CDMA 3GS I think they would dominate there as they do here in Canuckistan. There is certainly a hard core of Apple haters who will never buy their product, but according to statistics here it seems tha number is about 15 to 20% of the market.
Sony and Microsoft have both done just this. They have their own content stores, set top boxes, and in the case of Sony, TV's that talk to both.
The real reason that Apple should not do a TV is that they suck at it. The ATV2 is a serious step backward from my ATV1 in almost every measure other than physical size. It has extremely poor connectivity and doesn't even link to a Mac any more. It's a reasonable $99 Netflix box, but so are many TV's.
When I open /. now many, maybe 25%, of the stories are collapsed down to just the headline. I can't find switches for this anywhere in my Options.
And where am I really supposed to post questions like this?
> Because nuclear power is the cleanest, most dependable, most regulated,
> and lowest impacting power source on the planet right now
That would be hydro, not nuclear. Much cheaper too. People who believe nuclear is the way to go generally live in areas that are tapped out on the hydro side and the local power companies stop talking about it.
A good example is right here in Toronto. They're still trying to build another set of four reactors east of the city, but there's 9 reactors worth in norther Quebec already installed and underused, another 11 unbuilt, another 10 in Newfoundland and Manitoba, and at least 25 in northern Alberta and Saskatchewan. There's more untapped hydro in Canada than tapped, and more hydro in total than all the other forms of power put together. If we did a full build-out, we would supply all of our electricity, power all our cars, and still export more power to the US than we do now.
So no, I don't support building new reactors.
Yeah, can't fault the NTSC's way of doing this... refuse comment until you're sure you have something to report.
“So, we think that until impact they did not realize the situation, which for the family is what they want to hear — they did not suffer.”
A three minute decent at 10,000 ft/min over the middle of the ocean?
I'm pretty sure everyone onboard knew exactly how that was going to end about half way in.
Oh geez, where to start? In no particular order:
1) re-entry and recovery systems should be part of a dedicated return stage, rather than part of the crew cabin.
2) the lifting body has extremely limited cross-range capabilities, so any orbit significantly outside that of a due-east launch from Kennedy presents a *serious* recovery infrastructure problem
3) the utility module is on the base on the vehicle stack, and it includes the de-orbit system. That means if you want to change the mission requirements (length of stay, etc) you have to build a different one. While that is *easier* in this case, given the history of NASA it is extremely unlikely the budget for this will ever appear (Aft Cargo Carrier, Shuttle-C, Advanced SRB, etc.)
4) For an extended duration single-launch mission, the system (AFAIK) does not have the ability to have a mission module docked on the front. That means that the design has to be used with a rear-mounted module and manoeuvre to it, or use multiple launches.
The Soviet-style launcher is the best solution in terms of throw weight. By isolating each mission into a separate "container" you have improved flexibility. They did not make much use of that (keeping the operating area when launching to Salyut for instance) but the idea remains sound. It is what they used on Apollo, for instance, except for the single module.
The arguments presented in this "article" are specious. It is clear that they author does not even understand what the case is about. He freely mixes the ISP's with the john does, suggesting he doesn't understand who is even being sued - which in fact is "nobody".
Quick review... the case in question is against ISPs as part of a discovery process. The ISP is not charged with anything. They are being asked to provide information about a 3rd party as part of a suit that does not otherwise include them. Under normal circumstances this would be an illegal release of private information. So in order to get the information, the plaintiff (VPN in this case) has to show cause - that they have a case against a 3rd party and the ISP has data that is important to the process.
But in addition, this case rests on the difference between "discovery" and "expedited discovery". There already is a legal process for getting this information as a part of case, it's discovery. During discovery, everyone is supposed to cough up every bit of data cogent to the case, and do so within a reasonable time frame. If someone involved thinks evidence is being withheld, then they can go back to the court and ask for expedited discovery, which compels the party to either present the evidence or argue why they can't.
So I'm sitting at a red light and you rear-end my car. I can see that your passenger was filming the entire event. When I sue, my lawyers will ask for the video to be presented into evidence as part of the discovery process. But let's say your friend (or your lawyers more likely) say they can't get the video, that it's taking them time to figure it out or something. I then return to the court and try to get the discovery expedited, and if you don't turn it over then, or have a *really* good argumen for not doing it, you're in serious trouble.
Ok, so...
>>"As VPR points out, ex parte motions for expedited discovery have been granted in similar
>> cases in other districts; among the thousands of Does in those cases, relatively few motions
>> to quash have been filed."
When someone does file for *expedited* discovery, it's *supposed* to mean the party in question (often a legal team) is deliberately dragging their feet. One excellent way to drag their feet even more is to file a motion to quash.
So the judge is asking why it is that the expedited discovery is being used, if the defendant never quashes? If they don't file to quash, it would seem they were never dragging their feet in the first place.
> The innocent John Does' only defense against abuse of the discovery process
Uggg, here's a prime example of the author not understanding the case. The innocent John Does' are not part of the case at hand!
> is to quash the subpoenas (basically, file a motion saying "I'm not guilty, so the
> plaintiff can't have my identity")
Nooo, the ISP would be the one quashing. Why might they do that? Well how about "this guy has sent us 100 of these a week with zero evidence to back up their claims. he's just using the courts to force us to do something that would normally be illegal"
> Perhaps a lot of the John Doe defendants thus named are, in fact, guilty!
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the case.
> Uh, OK. Plaintiff started with a list of 100 defendants, and then expanded it to 1,000.
> What does this have to do with the legitimacy, generally, of suing John Doe defendants
> and subpoenaing their identities?
I file to get the IP of one person, then in the middle of the proceedings I add 100 more.
Now if I had all of these 100 IP's, which I should have if I did *my* discovery, then why would I have to add them in the middle of the case? Why didn't I have them at the start? And if I didn't have them at the start and I'm still finding them now, why am I asking for it to be expedited?
The judge is saying "stop wasting our time, go and do your homework first".
> How does the fact that s
Google Chat allows me to phone landlines. Will this version allow that? If so, that's very very interesting.