Gamespy's Facebook page is particularly amusing, as someone keep parroting the line back to angry gamers that, despite Gamespy's logos being plastered all over the game, they aren't responsible for continuing to provide the online service, and gamers should 'reach out' the the game publishers... and then there's the not-so-subtle pot shot at publishers for being stingey and 'choosing not to support' the games.

It's hilarious - while it may be techically accurate - 95% won't understand, or care to understand, the difference, and will continue to blame Gamespy. The publishers, of course, will be only to happy to let Gamespy take the fall.

Having shredded Gamespy's goodwill, I have only one thing to ask: Would you say that was $2.8m well spent, Glu?

Hi!
I really like the ribbon, it's a fantastic, (largely) intuitive interface. When I have to use Office 2003 on our Citrix farm, it makes me want to scream in frustration and how badly laid out it all is.

But then I started using it after a number of years away from Office, so didn't have a built-up attachment to the old way of doing things.

The government already steps in by providing courts with the power to enforce their judgements.

You punish companies by introducing loser-pays, or loser-pays-up-to-the-value-of-their-own-costs. Settling a class-action over 1,000,000 people swizzed out of $10 will be nothing compared to settling 10,000 cases with individuals, each with its own costs bill.

Worse even than that, you're not allowed to know that this information is being kept about you, or shared with potential employers. If you have an enhanced CRB check done, your reference copy may not include some information sent to the requestor of the check, and they're not allowed to tell you what their copy says.

Scary stuff.

technically, it doesn't. vis. It's more usual, especially as the police can now make an arrest over any criminal offence (which they couldn't until less than 10 years ago), but someone can be prosecuted without an arrest being made.

The primary cause of the word 'duty' getting used is that the person proposing the idea knows that they haven't got a reason that will stand up to scrutiny.

you wonder what they're supposed to do if everyone has scarpered by the time they arrive...

Do they cuff each other?

So what law do you think creates an open-ended right for the owner of the property to create their own bye-laws which can then themselves be enforced through the ordinary criminal law process?

Yes, we tried to organise a small anarchist community a few years ago... but people wouldn't follow the rules.

(Thank you, I'll be here all week)

or, company B sues Government D because its seizure of the assets of Company A in a manner which has turned out not to be according to law has resulted in Company A being unable to fulfil its obligations to Company B, causing company B financial loss.

Note, I wasn't saying allowing discrimination for arbitrary reasons was a good idea. I was attempting to make eyegone face up to the reality of what he was proposing. I think all discrimination for arbitrary reasons is bad (especially if you're supposed to be a professional physician, or similar) and don't like this watered-down 'protected classes' list idea which effectively authorises arbitrary dicrimination against everyone else.

I disagree. Why should there be a "barring discrimination on prohibited grounds, of course" get-out? Either a doctor should be free to refuse to treat anyone, and be an asshat about it if [s]he wants, or they shouldn't.

did you actually read the article you linked all the way through? No-one is saying 'it would break the internet for the patent to be valid, therefore it isn't'. They're saying 'it would break the internet for the plantiffs to win this case, so they shouldn't'. [in the past tense, obviously, since the case has now been concluded]

Further, the very last section of that article:

supports the view that a legal ruling which would have ridiculous consequences ought not to be made simply because the consequences would be ridiculous.

It's like a sick joke - for it to be a broadly known and utilised fact that courts are clearly inconsistent as to how they handle cases from place to place, and nothing being done about it.

I mean, can't they implement some sort of moderation (and meta-moderation) system for judges and start tossing out the ones who fail?

unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any further jurisidictional test than asking the requesting country "do you claim jurisdiction?"