So, by your own logic, when you mention to your friend to "take care" around that drug den down the road, you should be put in jail for aiding and abetting the drug trade. We see links to goatse here all the time. The image itself is morally wrong, but the links are not. *IF* Real Alternative is in fact breaking the law then Real Alternative should be held accountable - Not some poor schmuck who simply says "look at this" via a link.

What you are advocating is akin to thought crime. If you don't conform and think the way "we" tell you too, you should be punished. The problem is just who gets to decide what is "right". In every single instance or situation. What happens when this so called "right" does not align with your own personal views? Do you bend over and let them spank you until you see the light? Sorry, but I'm sure glad I don't live in your world and can make up my own mind what links I'll visit, what software I'll install, or even what I'll have for lunch today.

to a galaxy, far far away... ???

Florian Mueller is quoted in the article. I normally stop reading when I see his name. And I do see a fair bit of articles mentioning him posted to SlashDot. Hmm, and the article was submitted by an anonymous reader... coincidence??

Or that people who do know about computers *have* to use to support their customers/friends/family.

I've seen a number of grand statements like this from Florian Mueller. I do believe that every single one (that I've read about at least) turned out to be putting the best possible spin on something for whoever has the most to gain by such spin. I've also seen Florian's reports dissected and rejected soundly (Google Florian, SCO, and Groklaw). I don't bother reading anything he writes anymore, as it is almost always fear mongering, FUD, and spin. I believe the term that applies here is "paid shill". Of course, all that is just my own opinion - read his writings with a grain of doubt and form your own opinion.

Sorry for this post being unrelated to the article. But I've been seeing a drastic increase in the amount of trolling under the guise of anonymous coward. Being anonymous doesn't not automatically grant anyone the right to become a stupid dick. Stuff like "Google = fags" is just idiotic to post. Free speech grants one the right to say things like this, but standard respect and decency do not. Doing so only degrades the very place you obviously enjoy. If enough of this crap goes on the site and comments become meaningless. And Troll's so obviously want that, but most of us do not. Btw, posting as "anonymous coward" does not automagically make you anonymous. Server logs can be great tools in the right hands.

Posted OFF topic so as not to feed the troll.

As for Google's choice in the article, I think they made the right choice. Allowing a government the ability to shut down dissenting sites/services THAT easily is not a good thing. And we all know that putting the servers in country would lead to exactly that type of problem.

It would seem to me that Sony has had plenty of time to rebuild the servers. It would seem the problem is not with the hardware or the configuration of the servers (though I'm sure that plays a very important role!), but with the software they built. If that software is THAT buggy, the right solution should be to rebuild that software with modern security practices in mind (as opposed to NO security implementations at all).

This up then immediately cracked fiasco they are dealing with shows that they continue to use the same passwords and the same failed security routines. Maybe if they put their hand in the fire just one more time they won't get burned anymore. Seems to be a flaw in the thinking, but I just can't put my finger on it.

Stop buying Sony products? Even if every geek who is aware of the issues did that, Sony would only loose a small percentage of their income. The consumer sheeple out there don't know any different or don't care. Extend that beyond the PS3's to other Sony products - phones, laptops, etc. and the geek boycott becomes a minor ripple.

And I'll challenge you to actually stop buying Sony products. It is harder than you think. That new game you've been eyeing that doesn't say "Sony" on it anywhere? probably made/distributed by Sony - watch the opening credits. That new electronic device you want probably has some Sony product in there.

While I don't agree with what amounts to vandalism (ddos'ing servers), sometimes a more drastic method is needed. All the people who can't access PSN today may actually find out WHY, and start learning about the greater issues. Sony actually takes a bigger financial AND social hit this way. In one single day, more damage has been done to their reputation than a week of geeks trying to boycott Sony would ever cause.

A couple years ago, I needed to decide on the framework/approach for a large scale web based app. PHP/Postgres support were required (due to the use of another tool that used these and we would need to integrate with). I looked at most of the frameworks listed in the summary. There were two that stood out (for my specific needs) - Zend Framework, and Drupal. Not Drupal as a CMS, but Drupal as a framework. We ended up opting for ZF because the others were a little too rigid in their approaches.

So, to hear years later that Drupal is *not* a framework is surprising. Especially considering how much it has advanced/stabilized/improved since my evaluation.

and who decides what names are "protected"? And when they become protected? If the name is added to the protected list AFTER documents have been published, is anyone really breaking the law? Closing the barn door after the critters escape is not doing any good.

Pulled from the market, but nothing saying it can't be installed manually... Or am I wrong?

To steal a line the authorities like to throw at us... "if they have nothing to hide..."

That would be trademark infringement, not copyright infringement.

We are arguing the same point, I think. I never claimed the patents were valid or that software patents served any purpose. Just that if invalidating them were a way for MS to avoid paying damages, they would have taken that alternative. Whether the patents are good ones or not, is irrelevant in this case. IMI got told to bend over and take it because MS is bigger. They resisted getting raped like that with the only weapon available to them - a broken patent system. The damages in the case were so high because the courts found that MS did in fact knowingly screw over IMI. "We know they have a patent, but F'em. We'll use the tech anyway and put them out of business". Is anyone suggesting that IMI should shut up and let themselves get raped like this? If so, let's go for beer and discuss your latest software ideas - I need a new product.

And how many times has it been said here that a Patent abstract is not the definition of the patent. You need to look at the actual claims of the patent to find if there is anything real about the claim. If the patent were obvious or had prior art, don't you think MS would have brought that up in the original court case and tried to invalidate the patent? They didn't, so it might be safe to assume this patent actually is the real thing. Afterall, it has survived a not just one court appearance, but an appeal as well.