For now. Those used cars are rusting and otherwise wearing out.

The third parties would win sueing car makers for requiring the radio for diagnostics. anti-monopoly and warranty laws protect moding you car.

In the us laws from the 1970’s protect third party radios.

If it doesn’t affect emissions those mod chips will not violate your warrantee - magnuson-moss was writen decades ago to protect replacing your factory radio. There are a number of other laws around third party access to car diagnostics.

The other option is a scroll. historicaly I’m told a book was always a scroll and the factor we now call a book was a codex. (I don’t know how to verify this)

even if their country has a port that doesn’t mean they keep their yacht there. better to fly to a Carribian island where the weather is nice than keep it near home and spend all that time sailing to where you want to be - boats are typically so slow that they would need to leave before they get there. If you want the yacht is some port you have the crew move it there and then you fly to it.

Those are the easy way. You have to hide the excess hoses since you can’t cut to fit. They cost a lot more though to if you don’t mind the work you can save money getting the other kind (which requires an EPA certification - easy to get I’m told)

I would love to make a dashboard with something other than html. My house dashboard is slow, and I’m hoping that things can be better. Only time will tell.

Wire and rust embedded in your skin is not good. In the eye is worse - I know of people who were wearing both a face shield and full safety glasses who got grinding dust in their eyes.

I don’t have a good answer to the problem, nobody else likes any of their answers either from what I can tell.

He also set precedence. A few more cases like this can the cost of going to court becomes cheaper for everyone.

That is part of what a phd can argue about…

I would argue that the registration cost is just a tax and you own it. But remember I’m arguing as a philosopher and not someone who can’t see both sides or even thinks there needs to be one correct side.

You can/should write your congressman (or equivalent in your country). Just the threat that if OSS can’t use HDMI congress will open up the laws will get action. In a democracy voters have more power than big money when they care and vote like it.

The city of LA should not get a .com name. They might have a case that la.com should not have a .com either (they look like a tourist .org though if they are not acting like a .org they are scammers) - but this would be a very hard sell in court. The city of LA should have a .gov (which won’t allow them) or .us (which is not organized well - something they should be mad about and pressure to get fixed) name.

Why not? You can’t hold it, but why should that be a limit?

Note, phd’s can easially be written on this subject defending either side. Some of those will say things like domains are not generally property, but for some situations we should treat them like property and in other situations not. I’m not expecting a response. I’m expecting everyone to think about the question.

He only adopted the moniker after failing to get Lamborghini to pay the very high price he wanted for the domain. If he wanted the domain to adopt the moniker he wouldn’t have tried to sell the domain in the first place.

I will defend anyone when they are in the right, even if I otherwise hate them. I require proper due process for murders and other criminals who have done worse things that large corporations (most large corporations have committed murder - or at least not done it in a way that I can prove beyond any shadow of doubt)

if we are going to capitalism

Nobody is for capitalism, except as a derivative of classical liberalism. Capitalism might be useful as a tool in economics, but so is the “spherical cow” useful in physics - you can learn a lot but need to be careful as it doesn’t apply to the real world.

Since nobody is going full capitalist we can ask what liberalism things - and that is a branch of philosophy much more complex than just pure economics. In this case Lamborghini is entitled to their property, which we know is their property because the Lambo guy was acting like it was - in many other domain cases there is at least some doubt.

Details matter. In this case the guy shouldn’t have kept the name. On the one you mention the guy should have.

Of course in both cases I am lacking full information. It may be biased sources are giving me incomplete information and if I had all the information I’d change my position.

I don’t care how much I hate someone, or otherwise how evil they are: when they are right I will support and cheer them. I can still oppose them in other ways, here they are in the right.

They are owned by the trademark when the person owning/using the name is acting like the trademark. Trademark law is generally based around would someone be confused if they say the other one. I could start a house construction business can call it Lamborghini without a problem so long as I was very clear in all advertising that I’m only building houses and not in any way related to the cars - but if I start putting Lamborghini cars in my advertising I could get into trouble for creating confusion even though my competitor Joe’s houses has cars in his ads. (this is obviously a made up situation)

From the article “didn’t develop the site, had attacked the company on more than one occasion, and tried to profit from its established reputation.”

If he had developed that site in what looked like good faith he would have kept it. However all indications were he didn’t care about Lambo as anything other than a get rich quick scheme and that will fail to trademark since the name is only valuable if it is confused with the trademark. A parody site (obvious parody) would have been fine. Obvious star wars fan sites as welll (though this could infringe on other trademarks so care is needed). Even adopting Lambo as his nickname could have worked - but if that was his intent he wouldn’t have tried to sell.