Says on her LinkedIn she's an "assistant legal analyst."  Sounds like a fancy name for scutwork.  I forget what I called it when I did it.  Something I made up.

This is Tom Coburn we're talking about.  I doubt even he knows what he meant to say.

People might wait until it was worth the cost of electricity, but you might see a lot of previously "obsolete" mining equipment go back online.

Unfortunately that dumbass is a Senator and dumbasses like that make laws that fuck the rest of us over.

That dumbass is on the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.  Also Ranking Member of Homeland Security (since he is a Republican that means he is likely to be the Chair of that Committee come January) and on the Governmental Affairs Committee. 

So any banking issues relating to Bitcoin are going to go straight through this dumbass on the way to becoming law.

That's not necessarily the case.  Nothing is even on legal letterhead yet.  Noticing a Facebook post has all the hallmarks of some intern or other schlub doing busywork hunting down shit on social media and then notifying it with little to no more effort to it than that.  A lot of paralegals or new lawyers do just this.  A DMCA notifier need have no particular qualifications.

(Confession:  I've done this myself though I hope I did a better job.)

I wouldn't take a mere takedown notification as meaning much if anything without more.

This.  Consider contacting the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which even if they might not necessarily give you free legal advice, has been known to hook people up with free/cheap legal counsel, usually experienced people.  Just having any response you make to their posturing come on legal letterhead can make even corporate bullies think twice.

Truthful comparative advertising even using a competitor's trademark is entirely valid if done correctly.

(This one presents a few issues that are not necessarily fatal, but it should not present the WU logo more prominently than the Bitcoin logo or otherwise look as if it might be suggesting the competing product is actually endorsed by the competitor.)

ETA:  Actually they're the same size but the whitespace on the right side for Bitcoin is a) unsightly but b) more importantly, makes it look less prominent.  Should probably be surrounded by some color itself.  Also, it doesn't note that the Western Union trademark belongs to (duh) Western Union.

Comparison advertising has a long history and is completely legitimate.

Depends how basic.  I've had it work on an ancient crappy Compaq CQ60-615DX running Mint Linux.  This is a real cheap-ass thing that has Intel Celeron 900 / 2.2 GHz, 2 GB of RAM, Intel 4 Express Chipset horrible display adapter. 

It works, though it's a bit choppy.  The game client is a bit of a hog.

There's another word for that.  It's called "extortion."  It's a RICO predicate, incidentally.

Confirmed for being down, with this opaque message.

I seriously doubt New York State has jurisdiction to regulate something intimately connected to interstate commerce in any way that impedes it over local commerce.  New York has been known in the past to trample the dormant Commerce Clause, which generally prohibits states from stepping into the federal domain of interstate commerce, which is the domain of Commerce.

I'm finding it hard to imagine what they could do to prohibit it that wouldn't be flagrantly unconstitutional.

I could have written something longer, but my argument is pretty much similar to this argument by a company called Bitquant, so I won't reinvent the wheel.

In short, the basic points are that state regulation of interstate commerce is unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause unless explicitly (or in some cases clearly but implicitly) authorized by Congress.

Congress has explicitly authorized such regulation of money transmitters by prohibiting their operation without a state license.

However, not everyone who does business in Bitcoin is a money transmitter.

Therefore, regulation of Bitcoin itself is not authorized by Congress and is, therefore, unconstitutional by default.

I think New York's actions are on very weak legal ground.

(Note:  this has not stopped them from getting too big for their britches in the past, though.)

Usually, Seals not only refunds buyins (in reasonable circumstances) but also throws in a freeroll or even several freerolls, or replacement freerolls for ones you missed during the downtime.

You can say you have an unlimited fund, but actually paying out on it in the instance of a worst-case catastrophe may not always be possible.

A bit of silly buggers there, actually.  Generally almost anything is fair game in a deposition.  If the plaintiffs felt like it, they could probably get a motion to compel testimony (and the other side gets slapped with the attorney fees for such a motion if you win it).  I guess they didn't feel like the hassle, but there's some reason they didn't want that question answered.

Default judgments are fairly routinely overturned when they result from a mere mistake or inadvertence.  The doctrine is called excusable neglect and generally applies with trivial missed deadlines and actually having a valid defense.  BFL may be SOL on the latter part, though courts usually would prefer to decide cases on the merits as opposed to procedural defaults.

(Now, when a default is due to willful bad conduct, it's a different matter.  Not sure if that applies here.)

And I'm in complete agreement on that general concept.

DefaultTrust is a horrible idea, and the instant case is simply the most recent example of how horrible an idea it is.  Everyone should turn it off, and the "brain trust" in charge of this site should get rid of it entirely.

Has anyone else noticed this moron is claiming his testicles are radioactive and have a half-life of .89 milliseconds?

At least he won't reproduce.

What's it like to be retarded?

This. 

There should be no such thing.

It benefits only scammers.