Well, that's optimistic.

Consider: Stahl has absconded and is presently wandering across the dust bowl with a group of mysterious carnies.

No worries! Have a great weekend.

I just did a test, gave it two seconds before trying to edit, and all I got was a delete.

A magnetic hammer is good in theory, but only as far as good as the strength of its magnet. One hefty flick, and those spare nails are headed straight for your eyeballs.

This is a spoof, right?

Haven't gotten the edit rollout yet. I just tested my randomness theory by trying to edit within two seconds of posting and I was only offered a choice to delete the post. Who knows.

Take a page from Yelp's business model. [www.wired.com]

Yeah, but it seemed to only work sometimes and in certain circumstances. I never figured out what the parameters were.

I've noticed that FB has allowed edits, albeit rarely and randomly, for the past, maybe, six months.

Part 3

Part 2

Part 1

Buy Me That

The people most likely to reply to advanced fee scams are also the people least likely to pursue legal recourse if and when they realize they've been duped.

HIGH FIVE

This also helps: [www-personal.umich.edu].

That helps. We're on the same page. Typeface (design) cannot be copyrighted, font (software) can. So, if a coder develops his own software to produce the same typeface as another program, he's done so without violating copyright law, yes?

ETA: The other two cases you cite, Font Bureau v NBC Universal and Bitstream, Adobe, et al v SWFTE, were dismissed or settled out of court, which means no points of law were settled in court so as to be used as precedent for later cases.

Thanks. For the record, this is all just good conversation, no malice. In the interest of diligence: