Which is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to a US Court requiring them to turn over the data if they have it. It used to be, in the age of paper, that stuff could be kept off-shore making it essentially unreachable; especially since no one might even now it existed unless someone told the authorities. Now, a US corporations data is essentially one big collection of stuff to be made available on demand; and refusal to turn it over could result in fines and contempt charges. In the end, he with the biggest stick wins.

Very true. Submarines are very complex craft that operate in a very hostile environment, and driving one takes skill, practice and teamwork. Flying along the ocean floor may sound fun and straightforward, and it is until you accidentally hit something and Davy Jones starts letting his water into your people tank.

Link:http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AK...">

Of course it is. How else could they sell this:P>

Be sure to read the reviews to understand why this cable is superior to others...

And I can imagine the judge's response: "Guilty. Next."

Say no more....

With all the focus on Title IX, and no doubt uncertainty around just what the law might require, or how it would be interpreted, relative to online classes MIT may have chosen the safest possible path to avoid problems. In the end, while the ma weigh the impact of removing the material on learning, they will act to protect the institution.

My guess is insurance companies only worry about it after an accident; they simply can say "Sorry, not covered..." and walk away so their is no need to try to ferret out drivers in advance.

This is a classic case of someone assuming something has value, that can be extracted from a user, simply because it is available or used. Google probably aggregates a lot more news then ever gets read; to assume that is a signal that their is value in the content being used. In reality, it is used because it is free, much like the free papers you see in many cities. People will read them if they are free but if they have to pay then they pass. As a result, papers give out free editions to reach an audience and subsidize it with ads. Google is essentially doing part of that by providing access to the news, and by taking that away the publishers will lose the eyeballs for their ads.

The real question is will they go back and demand that lawmakers "fix" this by forcing Google to aggregate and pay or realize their basic assumption is wrong and abolish the law? I'd bet on some variant of the former.

Correct. Choosing a software license is not a moral decision.

Software is simply a tool, there is no moral choice involved in its creation; that comes when someone decides to use it. As such, FOSS simply allows creation of software via a community model. Other less free ones exist as well but to say model X is a more more moral choice because it confirms to your view of how software should be developed is not a valid argument for it being more moral.

Hardly. A tools creator is not responsible for how it is used unless they participate in its use. If they create it for an immoral purpose then they share the responsibility; however if they create it for other reasons then they bear no blame for its immoral use.

The cost of a tool has no bearing on whether it is used of good or bad. TFA argument is the free riders are bad; a position which is in total opposition to the concept of FOSS. Th writer seems to believe that because someone uses FOSS they incur an obligation to provide financial support for its further development; a position that is neither supported by the gPL nor the philosophy of FOSS. A user's obligation when using GPL's software is pretty clear and the solution to the writer's concern is not to use the GPL if you want renumeration from people using the software yo create. There is no moral decision involved, it is strictly a business one.

Most personal car policy exclude commercial use, so no the owner's policy would not provide coverage; according to some news accounts insurers cancel policy if they find out your driving for Uber or Lyft or some other service. That's not surprising since they would not want to be held liable by a court despite their exclusion. While Uber advertises it has insurance for its drivers it's not clear policy exclusions are included. For example, it appears if the Uber driver fails to activate the ride there is no coverage. What happens if the driver lets a friend use his or her car to do the ride? What happens if there is more losses than the $1 million in coverage? Uber would no doubt say they are not liable, so who is? Is the driver your agent, making you responsible for the loss?

Uber et. al. have a good idea but I disagree with their claim they are not a taxi / limo service. All they have done is take the old model of "call 555-TAXI" and replace the landline and dispatcher with an app; as such they should conform to the laws regulating such services. If they can't make a go of it while doing that then it wasn't a very good idea after all.

If they redistribute the code without complying with the license then they could be compelled by court to comply if somme wanted to force the issue. No model is going to ensure everyone plays by the rules without being forced to; that they behave that way doesn't make the software any less free.

Now you're sounding like a troll. None of those have anything to do with free software as you are not forced to speak (i.e. contribute to the development) nor prevented from speaking (using the code). As for privacy, how does free software impact your right to privacy? It's simply there for you to use if you want to and you can determine if it meets your "privacy" standard.

All of those things would exist without free software as well. Your assumption that somehow things that exist today would not if there was no free software is flawed; as evidenced by the number of proprietary, non-free alternatives to most free software. You may not like that people can make money off of free software but that has been a feature of it from the beginning.

Why?

How so? You have all the freedom in the world to use the code as you see fit no matter what someone else does with it. If anything, the GPL prevents someone from limiting your freedom since they cannot stop you from doing whatever you want with the code, all they can do is use the code how they want to.

The GPL in no way limits freedom in real life. Anyone is free to use the code in any way they see fit without paying a penny. That is the most free model available. TFA's author main point is upset that companies don't support free software nd seem stop believe that FOSS is more worthy of development than other project companies work on and thus they freeload on FOSS; except that they are not really freeloading since the GPL specifically allows such behavior as part of the license.