I'll leave the broadband penetration argument to the census geeks, but I did want to comment at how utterly silly this article as a whole is.

I expect alarmist titles like "The Most Anti-Tech Organizations in America" from the likes of the always editorially-rigorous Slashdot, but I'm rather surprised to see it come from PCW, which I consider a less overtly biased source.

Regardless of one's opinion on the issue (and I freely admit that there are many, and reasonable minds have, and do disagree), to call telcos, ISPs, and big pharma "anti-tech" is equivalent to calling a Democratic candidate "Unamerican."

Each of these industries contributes heavily towards the development of new technologies and innovations (look at their patent portfolios if you don't agree with me). Moreover, just because a company or an industry represents corporate interests, it does not mean that the group is espousing an "anti-tech" or Luddite platform.

Plenty of pro-technology folks out there support reasoned IP and tech policy reforms, without necessarily jumping on the respective Creative Commons-4-Evah, or all patents = evil bandwagons. That Mr. Sullivan doesn't seem to get it, proves only that he needs a bit more clue in his diet.

To all those getting up in arms...

No, simple trespass does not give someone right to the land, and your friend won't gain possession of your couch merely by using it as crash space for a few weeks.

Seriously guys. You need to actually, y'know, be on the land, openly and exclusively using it, intentionally and well, being obvious about it. So, the Stevens/McLeans were being rather open and obvious dicks for a period of 18 years (Colorado's adverse possession statute is on the long side).

Yes, this sucks for the Kirlins, but they had 18 years to correct this. Had they made a stink at some earlier point (say, by actually checking on their property once in awhile), Stevens/Mclean would probably have been SOL.

As someone far smarter than I mentioned, the point of the law was to keep inefficent owners of land from hoarding it and leaving it unused, especially when someone could make practical use of that same parcel. Its not an inducement to steal, more an inducement to use your land. That's why state statutes usually carry long(ish) use requirements.

Holy crap... After sitting through what seemed like hours of Property in L-school, I was convinced that adverse possession, like fee-tail male had become a real property anachronism. Now I'll have an actual reason to remember OCEAN (Open, Continuous, Exclusive, Adverse and Notorious).

Forgot to add... Sec. 301 means that there is no longer a common law, or state copyright. Meh. Need more coffee.

These people need a hard and vigorous slapping. Seriously.

According to the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 301.

"Preemption with respect to other laws

(a) On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished, are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State."

While there's an exception for state landmarks and historical sites protected under Sec. 102, I seriously doubt that the condo association has any right in the building.

On a side note, that building is awesome. I love passing by it everytime I go to Chicago.