More over, I firmly believe that the next 30 years will see the advancement of some form of fusion power.

I remember first reading that fusion was "only 20 years away" back in the 70s. By the time I graduated high school in 1984 I knew it was kind of stalled but I was certain that we'd have it within 30 years. *sigh* Those were the days. The future was much brighter back then.

Lockheed Martin has even been willing to claim, publicly, that it will have a fusion reactor ready for market in 10.

And I really hope they're right. I'm just not going to bet on it until someone demonstrates a sustained net-positive output. Once that happens I figure it'll be 10 years until a commercial-scale plant can be designed, get regulatory approval, and actually brought online. (And I'm probably way optimistic on the regulatory approval part!)

You're right, "persistent" would have been a better word. By "permanent" I simply wanted to be clear that I was talking about a change that lasted beyond the current session, not necessarily something irreversible. A change that survives a power cycle or reboot and requires specific intervention to reverse like the VID/PID change does.

Your more generic example is the situation I was describing when I said "accidental". The action has a purpose on the intended platform and inadvertently causes damage to the clone. This is as opposed to a malicious change which is specifically designed to cause the damage. It's the intent to cause harm that differentiates between accident and potentially criminal act.

If you use FTDI's VID/PID, you're trying to pass yourself off as an FTDI chip, and it is YOUR FAULT ALONE if an operation that does not cause issues on genuine FTDI hardware does bad things to your own.

Similarly, I note that all major web browsers masquerade as Mozilla by starting their User-Agent strings with "Mozilla/5.0". I suppose it'd be okay for Mozilla to publish some JavaScript on their site that has no effect on Firefox but causes Chrome, IE, and Safari to permanently delete their User-Agent strings? After all, if you use Mozilla's User-Agent, you're trying to pass yourself off as a Mozilla browser, and it is YOUR FAULT ALONE if an operation that does not cause issues on a genuine Mozilla browser does bad things to your own.

These chips may or may not contain stolen IP. They may simply be engineered to mimic the interface of the FTDI chips to be used as replacements. That's perfectly legal. Chip manufacturers often make work-alikes of other manufacturer's designs, from individual transistors up to full CPUs. Think of the non-Intel x86 CPUs, made to work with the x86 interface and instruction set but containing no stolen x86 IP. Or hell, think of the whole automotive after-market industry. If auto companies could legally prevent third parties from making replacement parts, you bet your life they would.

Nope. It's fine (but dickish) to detect the other guy's product and refuse to work with it. It's a regrettable accident if a legitimate operation on your own device permanently alters a third-party replacement, but I'd consider that to be the fault of a crappy replacement part. It's not at all acceptable to go looking for such an exploit with the intent of rendering the competitor's device unusable. Intent matters, and FTDI performed an obviously malicious action which has no use other than to deliberately break a competitor's product. Whether the competitor stole the design or manufactured a clean-room work-alike makes no difference. You can take them to court but you can't play vigilante.

The distortion is strong in that one. And now he must excuse his earlier brief glimses of reality.

This. Just the case of a fan trying to justify a questionable decision. UI has become a fashion show. Helvetica is this year's hem length. Flat, primary colors are in, and they're simply FABulous! None of the changes have anything to do with usability. It's all change for the sake of change, nothing more. It's the same reason dresses and cars change their outward appearance from year to year, regardless of any substantive changes. It's done to make you think, wow, this is new, I MUST HAVE.

(Full disclaimer: I'm a sucker for upgrades. I always need to have the latest version of any software, regardless of whether or not it's actually better. Call it an OCD-ish mental disorder. I installed Yosemite yesterday, but unlike the author of the post I don't feel the need to justify Apple's fashion sense.)