My understanding of "troll" is "someone who posts content specifically to entice a response", be that response anger, confusion, etc. Likewise, a "troll" post is that content.

A "flamebait", another moderation option, is a post written specificaly to entice a flame response. In my understanding, this is merely a subset of a "troll", albeit usually one focused on known sensitive topics like race, gender, or religion.

Meanwhile, there's no moderation for actual "flame" posts - i.e. those posts written by people angry and pissed at everything for real, not just pretending to be to elicit responses. So these usually get moderated as trolls or flamebait or just overrated, whatever feels right at the time. I wish they would replace "flamebait" with "flame" and let moderators adjust accordingly.

Anyway, that's why I think mods use "troll" for angry and pissed-off posts; slashdot fails to provide a correct mod for that scenario, moderators often feel that "1" or "2" is overrated for those posts, yet "overrated" is too bland for general use beyond correction of inaccurate moderation (i.e. something moderated "informative" that is factually incorrect).

I was thinking they had found Majipoor.

Like many things in law, it probably comes down to intent. Refusing to carry a book critical of their CEO is likely protected in most cases, since they aren't a "common carrier" required to deliver any content a customer requests. Refusing to carry or demoting the books of a given publisher unless they get paid more is trickier, if they are found to be abusing their effective monopoly to force those concessions.

Of course, if they are found to be abusing a monopoly, the resulting settlement could include requirements that they carry all books from certain publishers, which could then lead to them carrying books like the one critical of Bezos against their will.

100% of the losses are "the total losses"
25% of the total losses are in the PCU
20% of the total losses are in the semiconductors. The summary repeats the word "total" to clarify this, but you misread the summary as 20% of PCU losses are semiconductor (or 5% of total) which is not correct.

If 20% of the total losses are in the semiconductors, and the new ones have half as much loss, then the net result is the elimination of 10% of the existing total losses.

On the other hand, you can get diesel for SUVs or trucks, so if you need one of those diesel is often your most fuel-efficient option.

You can put it in your hybrid and all-electric cars and boost your fleet fuel economy, which is what these automakers are graded on. The summary left out the important word "fleet".

Well, the products do have to sell, and as you point out they have tried.

Given that rear-view cameras are soon mandatory, some automakers have asked to replace side mirrors with cameras, too. Maybe the public won't reject this and it will greatly help with aerodynamics.

Some of them were thinking that the bill was so watered down that it actually authorizes spying, and weren't fooled into approving it.

And you were suckered into thinking that they were the bad guys. The establishment wins again.

I'm sorry it's a stupid movie example, but the fact that a few from luck and/or skill get to move up doesn't make the rest of the system okay. It's like saying there's no oppression in The Hunger Games because game winners become rich celebrities.

And that's why it was done behind closed doors.

I think there were other reasons to vote against it, if only because Lloyd Doggett is one of the most liberal members of the house.

Indeed, daily kos calls the watered-down bill "an authorization of domestic spying in violation of the 4th amendment" and is congratulating the 121 members who had the backbone to vote against it.

So I think your attack on (at least part of) the 121 is unfounded; they are a mix of those who refused to authorize spying with those who thought existing law was great. Likewise, the 303 who approved are probably a mix of those who thought this "reining in" was better than nothing, along with the truly evil who did the closed-door rewrite to make it mostly ineffective.

It's perfectly fair. Those good people working at Bethesda Softworks should take this opportunity now to leave and form their own company, before they have yet another idea that will instantly be owned by Zenimax. Then Zenimax can keep what it wants most - all the IP for the games it bought - just lose all the people that came with it.

No, derivative works have always been covered as well. However, there have traditionally been exceptions, such as derivative works that are parodies of the original.

It's a relatively recent example, but see The Wind Done Gone .

You mean all in the same currency? I think you didn't even read my post.

The purpose of the fork is to strip off useless crap, including the stuff forced upon Mozilla by Google. Paying them money to keep up the good work is the opposite of retarded.

Also, ellipses shouldn't be used to join either independent or dependent clauses. Using them in that fashion makes your posts look foolish.