The Obama Administration pressured ISPs into adopting this scheme. Now we get private enforcement of copyrights without the usual defenses against such. No government involvement, so no due process. People should be more worried about this than they really are, especially considering the government's involvement.

It is obvious that you don't know what obvious means. It does not mean that someone working independently could possibly come up with the same solution. It means that no work is required to come up with the solution at all.

It doesn't mean either of those things. If a person having ordinary skill in the art can come up with a solution by drawing upon existing knowledge to arrive at whatever logically follows from whatever is known by such a person, then it's obvious enough. As for independent invention, while it certainly isn't proof of obviousness, I'll bet it's more often than not the result of it.

If you have to think about a solution to a problem at all then the solution is not obvious.

Nonsense. Even the most obvious solutions to problems require some thought: you need to think about the problem and draw upon what you already know in order to arrive at whatever logically follows.

Such a move would only serve to legitimize software patents. Let's instead get rid of software patents altogether.

No need to pull around consoles everywhere you go, just plug your laptop in and play.

Or you could just, you know, get the PC version of the game and install it on your laptop?

Why would I want a cloud game streaming service?

Precisely. We have such powerful GPUs inside our consoles and computers, but they want us to have things rendered remotely along with the added latency? I'm sure it's great for developers who don't want customers illegally uploading copies of their games, but how exactly does it benefit consumers?

What a pointless waste of good bandwidth.

What you want is to CHANGE the rules, and crashing the system is the last thing you want to do to accomplish that goal. If you "crash the system" then you are, in the legal and legislative system, part of the problem that the system must be reinforced to protect against.

Sometimes you're part of the problem whether you "crash the system" or not. It's not the "crash" they worry about, but the change itself. Change is what the system is reinforced to protect against, for change, unlike single events, is all that can turn the system from something that regularly benefits one group to something that benefits another.

Not so, according to the cited article. The second amendment was not intended to let you battle the government, but let you fight with a militia to supprt the government.

Why would you need a constitutional amendment to prevent the government from banning weapons intended for use in its defense? It doesn't make sense.

Except that the iPad has had Bluetooth keyboard support from the moment it was released, and there were Bluetooth cases with built-in keyboards shortly thereafter. Most opt never to buy one.

Those who opt never to buy a Bluetooth keyboard aren't using their tablets the way PC advocates use their laptops and desktops. They don't need a keyboard on their tablets because they already have a computer for those things, or else they don't need personal computers at all.

For people who mostly browse the web, read e-books, do some occasional typing, and don't need to run anything other than what's available available through their device's app store, tablets are an excellent PC substitute.

Who gives billions in aid to the world? Capitalist countries.

And which countries, do you think, make many times that much by exploiting the inequalities of cheap foreign labor?

Poe's law will cause you problems here...

I didn't miss the irony in AC's post, if that's what you're thinking.

Because their design patents are standards essential for making a mobile phone.

Right on! Apple's competitors could give their phones sharp corners, or use a polkadot pentagonal shape instead of a black rectangular one.

I informed him that I make available the source code [only] to my users whom I've distributed a binary to and that the GPL specifically allows for this.

That's only the case if you include the source code along with the binaries. Otherwise you must accompany the binaries with a written offer for the source code, of which anybody (including those who aren't your customers) is then free to take advantage.

THE DISTRIBUTOR IS REQUIRES TO DISTRIBUTE THE SOURCE CODE

So if you get the binary from an AppStore, you are entitled for the source code. IF you then get it from a 3rd party, then that 3rd party is required to give you the source code, NOT the original distributor through the AppStore.

Not true. If the developer in question chose to include a written offer for the source code instead of the source code itself, that developer is then required to provide the sources to anybody who chooses to take advantage of the written offer, regardless of whether or not they obtained the binaries directly from the developer.

... morons not understand what GPL even is.

No, I suppose they don't.

However that binary you paid for is under the seller's copyright, and you need his permission and must comply with his terms if you want to redistribute it.

Wrong. The GPL requires derivative works to be distributed under the same terms as the original work. This means anybody who gets a GPL'd binary from you is free to redistribute that binary and is entitled to a copy of the source code.