The platform is safe. No ifs, ands, buts or blaming the users for their stupidity.

If the platform is so safe, why does Apple have to review and sign every app before it's allowed to run? There's no need to do that if your platform is free of exploits.

Except they said they discontinued it because of user confusion rather than abuse. Besides, what's stopping users from distributing "50GB of [their] best porn" as part of a GIT branch?

How were people abusing Github downloads? How are people abusing Google Code? What makes Google think people won't similarly abuse Google Drive?

Just use a mirror (and turn the flash off) :)

And for God's sake put on some clothes!

In other words, when groups competed for resources, the ones with a larger or more effective central governments always won out. Always.

That's because a central government is also a monopoly on resources, labor, and defense. Just as it's difficult for smaller companies to compete against established monopolies, so it is difficult for smaller, locally managed groups of people to compete against those who would claim the whole world as their kingdom if they had the armies to maintain it.

Furthermore, the largest and most successful nations/organizations in history were marked by highly effective, pervasive and very large central governments.

As were some of history's greatest failures. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

You're saying we should stick to non-renewable sources of energy for the sake of the poor? Did UNICEF just merge with the CATO Institute?

So, if only the government were involved, we wouldn't have to worry, but because the government is involved, we have to worry?

Government is not involved in enforcement actions under the copyright alert system, but it was very much involved in its establishment. Sorry if I misspoke.

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.