to all those saying this is meaningless, don't trust them, they could revoke this so don't rely on it. why not just request a license for $0 under these exact terms if you wish to use any of these patents in your project? then there will be no question of this being legally binding and u can use the contents of these patents freely.

i can draw a picture of you having sex with a goat. it wouldn't mean you had sex with a goat.
a drawing may be recognizable, but it is essentially meaningless in this context.

when you buy a subsidized phone on a plan you are still buying the phone. the only difference is you are buying it as part of a package.

Kind of like if how I bought two suits in a 2 for 1 sale, i should be able to take both of them to the alterations shop.

so unmute them.

i've done my part. it's now got top two results leading to slashdot.

no one is saying he went bankrupt, had a gambling problem, or is a bad doctor. all that is said is that if you're searching for his name, it's likely that you are searching about his bankruptcy issues. which is probably true, that's how google's auto-complete algorithm is meant to work, and i've personally found it to be quite accurate. the context is his name,
bankruptcy is within that context.

he's not being punished. punishment is a negative reaction to something one does not like. honestly i really doubt most people at google even know who this guy is, let alone crafted this auto-complete to appear when his name was typed in, they don't have some ventedda against people that have gone bankrupt.

making such a decision would mean that someone has specifically decided it is relevant. leaving it up to machine is fairer, tweaking the algorithm as such cases come up if required.

maybe next time i contact them and state whenever anyone types in the letter 'T' auto-completer should show 'The awesomeness of psiclops' you will complain when they ignore me? sometimes requests don't warrant an answer. if they got one such request a year, sure they should respond, thousands a day, considering his requests is invalid - probably not.

True. being that this isn''t something google is trying to express.

difficult question. in short my beliefs are that no they shouldnt be able to and at the same time, noone should be able to stop them from doing so. i realise these are contradictory, that's what happens when you you try and put everything into black and white.

maliciouse intent.

Option A)
Bookmark IMDB for future use.
when i want to IMDB a movie: i use that bookmark. -> click in IMDB search box on the site -> type in the movie i want -> click on result.

Option B)
don't bother with the bookmark.
when i want to IMDB a movie: click on the URL/search bar in my browser -> type in the name of the movie -> click on the link to that movies page within IMDB from the search results.

it's just easier for me to google it than go to IMDB and search from there.

finding your way back to a website that looks interesting but you don't feel like/have time for reading right now.
sites that i commonly visit i already know the URL of, i can type the first letter or three in the URL bar and my browser knows what i'm after. e.g. if i click in my URL bar then press 's' followed by 'enter' i will be taken to the front page of slashdot, 'm' will take me to my email account

noone insinuated they were an American company or that others would think they were.
There was a statement that they wouldn't have been treated as harshly if they were an American company - which was replied with a statement that all the majors are multinationals and not American so there would be little difference had they originated elsewhere.

You mean the show that confirmed it as possible.

advanced tactics like due process you know evidence, trial, judgement - you know that sort of thing, yeah they would be warranted.

that's the equivalent of saying that your right to a peaceful life interferes with my right to murder you. you have it backwards.

yes they do, don't leave your house and don't invite any non-whites in and your dillema is solved.Unless you believe that not to be sufficient and wish not only to avoid associating with non-whites but also wish for them to be completely removed from anywhere which you may wish to travel to.

while i would not consider myself an idiot the answer is actually rather simple - consider this scenario:

Point 1: 'Person A' is a white person who wishes to only associate with whites and have no non-whites be allowed in any areas he frequents
Point 2: 'Person B' is a white person who wishes to only associate with whites and have no non-blacks be allowed in any areas he frequents
Point 3: Both 'Person A' and 'Person B' like to frequent 'Area Z'

There are only two solutions to solve this dillemma to keep the rights of both 'Person A' and 'Person B'
Solution 1: Neither 'Person A' not 'Person B' are allowed to enter 'Area Z'
Solution 2: Both 'Person A' and 'Person B' are allowed to enter 'Area Z'

Solution 1 forces the ruling that ones 'right' to never associate with people of other races trumphs the 'right' to enter 'Area Z'
Solution 2 gives both 'Person A' and 'Person B' the choice as to whether they feel the right to enter 'Area Z' is more important than their 'right' to not associate with people of other races.

please respond.

that's the thing about context. once it's been established you don't need to repeat everything.

No

or maybe it was because one was about operating systems and the other was about smartphones.

oh wait, just maybe it could be the similarities and not the differences that causes the connection in ones mind.

D3 is not a single player game. while some people may choose to not interact with others is is not possible* to create a character that is unable to interact with the online world of D3. they will always have access to the auction house, join other games, & get achievements.

the fact that you think the game should have a single player mode, doesn't mean it does.

*if it were, playing any such character would not require a battle.net account.