you must consult with Imagination before you change it.

Yes. And what happens then?

I haven't in general met many professors (or EEs) who understand much about intellectual property.

OK. Can we see your agreements, please? Because that did sound very much like trolling for additional intellectual property to add to your portfolio.

People who read this article have pointed out three open CPU designs in addition to the one that I remembered.

While your product might be "production ready", please keep in mind that open projects are very often written to a higher standard than commercial ones, and the researchers involved are no less professional than your own developers. And their projects come with fewer intellectual property issues than yours.

No they aren't. Among men only, only Obama, Napoleon, G.W. Bush, FDR, Reagan, Shakespeare, Hitler, Washington, Churchill, Lincoln, Aristotle, Columbus, Clinton, Theodore Roosevelt, and Einstein are more popular than Jesus. Bob Dylan (21) would be the most popular musician, beating out both Michael Jackson (27) and Elvis (29). None of the Beatles are individually in the top 100 for men.

It's only "free" for academia.

Not even them. This is a lure for universities to create tech that they are not allowed to produce in hardware, but the company that provided the original tech can monetize.

The patent terms are whatever they want them to be. In general "reasonable" and "patent" don't happen together much. And "tiny", well I really doubt it.

Having a company provide funds for a research grant and then reap the patent royalties isn't in general a good thing for society. The student researchers get paid like slave labor (if they get paid at all) and put what may be the best idea of their lives in some company's pockets.

I never said it was an argument I agreed with. It is just the argument I often hear from sin tax proponents.

I didn't say it was *my* argument. Read carefully. I was just pointing out the argument that is often used.

It's very common these days for companies to allow universities to use their technology at the cost of tying the company into the university's patent revenue. And of course this is often publicly-funded research, so not only is the taxpayer paying for the development of patents used to sue that same taxpayer, the patents go directly to a company from academia.

The net effect is to feed intellectual property centered companies at the expense of the technology sector in general and small technology companies in particular.

Soda has around 100 calories per 8 fluid ounces (varies slightly with type of soda). So you get a 32 ounce drink, that's 400 calories. That's a fair bit, even by fast food standards. Most fast food burgers are in the 800-1200 calorie range (a double quarter pounder with cheese is 740 calories for reference). So you are adding 33-50% more calories to a meal with a 32oz soda.

Well the thing is, the calories in that soda won't do much if anything to fill you up. Drink as much as you like, you still feel hungry. Not so with a hamburger. While it isn't high quality nutrition, it is still plenty of protein, fat, and carbs and your body is going to be satisfied by the consumption of it.

Thus cutting out the soda really can help. You reduce a non-trivial amount of calories and it isn't likely to make you feel less full. Ya, you are still eating fast food and it is not high quality nutrition, and it is high calorie for what you get, but it is better than just drinking sugar water which is more or less what soda is.

Weight loss and eating healthy isn't an all or nothing proposition. There is better and worse, and cutting out soda is doing better than leaving it in.

The argument is along the lines of the fact that smoking, obesity, etc. have a direct cost to society. From lost productivity to higher healthcare costs, unhealthy lifestyle choices do have a real cost to others who share the planet.

Well, what would you do with a photo of yourself? Where's the difference?

I heard there are even whole familys having their likenesses captured in awkward situations and sent it out to friends and family. especially around Christmas time. 2D, 3D where's the difference?

*Whoosh*

Opportunist is referring to the fact that bad guys will pay many times more than that for a 0 day remote execution bug.

Uh, no. But if I got 30 washes, and the car was cleaned 29 times, and one time it had mud on it, I would still pay for the other 29 washes.

They definitely could have played it differently. The fact that the disclosure post was removed quickly may indicate wrongdoing, that he realized he messed up. So, fine, remove the disclosed vulnerabilities from the bounty, but still pay the bounty for the others. If he had submitted each issue separately they would have paid the others that he didn't disclose.