Why do I feel like Oxide played a role in this? Anyone able or willing to enlighten us?

Use a virtual machine to contain Windows 10. Install an operating system and virtual machine software you trust. Disable any wireless interface for that operating system. Put the files in a Windows 10 virtual machine. Do not give the virtual machine access to any wireless interfaces.

I'm trying to remember what the other outage was recently where the web service failed because they forgot to implement exponential backoff. Anyone remember?

I tried to explain this once during a job interview, why you might use a suboptimal in terms of O() if the problem size was small enough. The interviewer never did seem to get it.

What material do you want included as prior art that is not already included? Prior art today already includes everything ever published before the application was filed, everything that was publicly used in the US before the application was filed, and generally all patent applications filed before the application.

Sorry, ZFS combined with a NAS could infringe a patent that ZFS by itself doesn't. It all depends on whether the NAS was included in the claims. One of the patents cited in this discussion appears to do just that. However, without fully analyzing the patent, it's hard to know the exact extent of the claims.

Anybody have the patent numbers in question?

That's not what the patent attorneys say. Most patent attorneys complain that the USPTO won't issue even completely new inventions. The statistics confirm that the USPTO is far from just a rubber stamp. >90% of all patent applications get rejected after their initial submission. It's typical that a patent only gets issued after a few rounds of prosecution.

It probably wouldn't speed up the process. First, just because some company implemented 1-click, does not force Amazon to sue. Unlike trademarks, where the mark has to be enforced to prevent delusion, patent infringement can be ignored. RedHat has even gone so far as to publicly state they won't enforce their patents in certain situations. Second, even if it was brought to court, the judge could decide to stay the case pending the decision from the USPTO. This sometimes happens because the judge doesn't want to waste their time or effort when the USPTO is already looking at the case.

Just because you can't use that much bandwidth doesn't mean the rest of us can't. I've managed to hit 50 Mbs downloading when I had a real broadband connection.

Anybody care to explain what it means to have both an application-independent reduce module and an application-specific reduce operation? It would seem that these would generally be mutually exclusive.

Get the US Congress to change the laws.

This merely postpones the decision for up to one year. If you do go this route, you should probably publish it too, to prevent someone else from patenting the same thing in the meantime.

The SCOTUS could have taken the case to affirm the decision. Nobody was really happy with the Bilski decision. It just left too many gray areas when it comes to the machine prong of the test.

It is nice that the industry wants to build more plants. However, where are they going to get there steel containment vessels from? The last I heard only Japan Steel could manufacture them, and they already had a decade long backlog.