Backroyalties (license fees for past infringement) -- or the equivalent in case of a lawsuit, damages for past infringement -- certainly add to the problem, but the biggest leverage a patent troll can have is the ability to force an "infringer" to discontinue shipping a key product (or several key products at the same time). That's when a company's ability to stay in business becomes seriously endangered and that's the perfect basis for a hold-up.

Well...I wouldn't quite say that. It's different - that's for sure. But, I have seen puke on a screen (my roommate, freshman year, came back and got sick in front of his computer) and the Google redesign doesn't look like that.

So...that means you must care quite frequently as most websites/software/etc don't give you that much of an option on how THEIR interface looks. And, to be fair, you do have an option - go to a different search engine. Or, don't even use the main Google interface. There are many ways to get the results you are looking for that doesn't actually involve hitting the home Google page.

I can understand not liking the new layout. Definitely entitled to your own opinion. I haven't particularly warmed up to the new Google look yet. However, you then go to say (and this is why I'm responding at all)...

"Universally disliked" is a very strong set of words. Do you have proof of this? You mean there is NOBODY who actually likes the changes?

Now that's just not being fair. Google has to make decisions at times about how THEIR product looks. If you read the blog posts (by Google, as well as by others), Google did quite a bit of acceptance testing and research to determine how to best layout their new site to provide better information, more information, and make it easier to read. You may not like what's up there now, but you should have seen the ones they rejected. Either way, Google is not being evil here...they are running a business and trying to make the views to their search results viable and on the cutting edge. They may even make mistakes while doing that (as I said - I'm not sure what I think about the new design yet), but they are most definitely not being evil here. And I never once heard them say, "screw you." Not once.

I just don't understand why they would take up the left side of the screen with something I'll never use. I guess it looks like every other web site now, but I always appreciated Google's cleanness and simplicity.

To paraphrase a great quote:
You are so wrong that even in a universe where you were somehow right you would still be wrong.

When you start treating common tools as weapons you turn vast swaths of the population into criminals, which is only a good thing if you consider a police state where everyone is a criminal a good thing.

The (not so) funny part is that's where eternal copyright+DMCA leads us, too.

Have you done anything illegal this week?

If you think the answer is "no", how sure are you of that really?

Then:

*unplug phone*

"Daaaadddddeeeeee I was talking to my booooyyyyyyfrieeeennnnnndddd!"

Now:

*unplug wireless*

"Daaaadddddeeeeee I was IM'ing my booooyyyyyyfrieeeennnnnndddd!"

Yeah dads can hear their daughters all right.

There, fixed that for you in typical SlashDot style.

Every aircraft we have, every cruise missile, launched at once, loaded with conventional bunker busters, would not make a dent in the north's 10,000 artillery tubes which are heavily fortified into the hills.

Artillery is surprisingly ineffective when it remains behind heavy fortifications. The gun tubes have to exit the bunker somewhere.

You don't have to destroy the gun, only it's ability to fire.

I would not be interested since vendor lockin is not my bag. If you like that sort of thing go for it.

Except for the fact that it's wildly hallucinogenic. That's why it took a few months for them to report it. What didn't officially come out was this:

  "We were all tripping so hard, somehow we ended up naked, running around in the lab apparently for like two days. No one remembers a thing, but the technicians that found us said we were laughing our asses off and talking to non-existent creatures in the room."

    It's always embarrassing when something like that comes out.

Who are you to say who we're fighting?

He's not. Make a list of who we're trading violence with. You'll find the enemies mentioned.

Sadly this may only be one of the last steps in the hydrogen bomb era, not a first step...

Most "ultimate" weapons have a shelf life.

Take the history of the battleship for example, between WW-I and WW-II was the era of the the Naval limitation treaties which concentrated on battleships. Of course the war that finally erupted WW-II in the pacific, the nations took great advantage of the aircraft carriers, and in the atlantic, it was submarines. The battleships used during WW-II primarily came from upgraded WW-I battleships.

These types of arms limitation treaties have not be shown to prevent any historical conflicts as they just tend to lock-in the status quo (although poorly crafted treaties may cause big problems like WW-I and WW-II). You only need to start with the Hauge Convention of 1899 declaration II and how it didn't seem to affect chemical weapon usage in WW-I very much.

We may see this a sign that nations are recognizing on emminent transition to a new munitions era. We may see nations start developing a whole new class of armaments after this. MOP or MOAB style bombs or even anti-matter bombs. These new non-nuclear bombs seem to promise to be more useful in the next battle (or war on terror).

Maybe, fortunatly, we get the opportunity bypass the urge to use this generation's strategic weapons that cause massive collateral damage and concentrate on more tactical (and containable) munitions. Strategic weapons are historically only useful to prevent a country from sustaing a war effort (if you want a more "street-fight" analogy, basically a kick in the nuts). For many countries that have nuclear weapons, demoralization by "media" has replaced the need for strategic weapons. Of course there are some other countries (e.g., like North Korea, Sudan), where media influence is insufficient other strategic mechanisms may still be needed, but probably in lower amounts.

Although this might be a glimmer of hope that we may be make to the end of the hydrogen bomb era, who knows what the next era will bring us.