The future is full of wonders. Imagine your kid playing around with his guitar in front of a few friends. His mandatory house anti-terrorist (kinect like) system recognizes patented chord sequence.

        TV: *BEEP BOOP BAP* RIAAfia has determined that there are sufficient humans to constitute a public performance of patent 539fe34 "Chord sequence C A". Please cease and decist or the appropriate fees will be applied to your SSN credit line.
        Kids: Ahh man...

Fixed.

I don't feel like we are communicating well. What are you trying to tell me? I am talking about years after he published his Thesis. I'm talking about 2004 or so, when it became the fad to start calling things RESTful. At that time if you did a google for "REST" you would get a webpage from Fielding. That's what I found at the time and went with until I researched it more. And, no, I don't put effort into correcting people on this topic. You seem to think it warrants correcting people, I don't. Words change, that's what happens to language. Amazon, Google, Twitter, et al use it to mean the calling style and statelessness (as per their API docs). If enough people care to correct their colleagues (I don't) then it'll change, but don't hold your breath.

I understand what they mean. Multiple business partners use the term. This isn't just "the people that work next to me". This is my observation among web developers across the board. I'm talking about all the big players, they use the term wrong. While I can applaud people for having concise definitions, I'm not about to tell all the third party APIs I use daily that their REST api's aren't REST. It's too much work. If you campaign to get everyone to use the term correctly, more power to you.

(PS - I didn't read his thesis at the time. He came out with some web pages that described REST. They didn't mention linking as a part of REST, but that it was useful. As in MAY/RECOMMENDED, not even SHOULD or MUST. I'm not excusing people, I'm just letting you know how the current usage came about)

I remember reading Fielding's blogs and work when REST was becoming a popular term. The idea of hypertext links was not as prevelent. It was there with some mention to atom rss and the likes, but it wasn't the main point of REST.
There are some that think any stateless json/http webservice means rest. There are some that think anything with resources and actions on those resources is restful (ie: an sql select statement or your webservice example). And then there are those that follow R. Fieldings work and know what he means by REST.

When I hear a colleague say REST it usually means what you have in your example. So much so, that it would take to much time and effort to correct everyone. That's the thing with language. Once a term is generally accepted among a group to mean something, it's easier to pick up their term than try to change everyone in the group. In rare cases do I run into people that think your example isn't RESTful.

TL;DR: What the author meant it to mean, and what it means to most programmers isn't the same.

Fair enough. I thought you were being a pedant and wanting literal meaning like many lawyers do. I'm completely with you on avoiding words that have connotations that aren't desired.
Have you ever head the college student petition to ban the chemical compound Dihydrogen Monoxide? He got enormous support, even from people that knew that H20 is fine. Why? Context. People don't listen to each word and their meaning, they listen to a sentence and tones and connotations. They hear "chemical" and stop right there.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax

http://www.popvssoda.com/ says it all.

Yet we call bandages "Band-Aids". We use a lift to go down. In the south they order a "Coke" when they're actually ordering Pepsi. It's common use has made it mean crash, even if it was on purpose. Hell, even the government accepts the terminology now: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf

Stop being such a pedant. If you know what someone means, and they communicate it in a generally accepted manner, there is no need to get uptight. It's the meaning of the words, not the actual words. If you always take things literally then I'm sorry you have to deal with people.

This article is about how you can get free advertisement. Move along.

I'm going to withhold judgement on this, as I think it looks nice. As long as the parts are all standard and easily replaceable, the shape of the case doesn't make much difference.

The new IOS 7 UI looks an awful lot like another mobile UI I've seen without the 3d effect. We better check to see if flat images are patented or part of brand distinction.

I'm not sure what a "terrible" correlation is in your book, but to me it's all about the numbers. Correlations of this nature tell you nothing about an individual, but about a population. That's why women have lower car insurance than men, even though a specific woman might be much riskier than a specific man. It is only at after looking at past data can we tell which individuals are more costly.

Even if the correlation was 95% there are still outliers. You still DON'T want to use it to judge a person's IQ. it just becomes an even better metric for populations. But again, it should not be used on an individual level.

A google would have told you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_Korean_missile_tests 6 in the last 20 years. Their range is "likely" able to hit hawaii, but not mainland US if we go by their missile launch records. Whether they have nukes small enough to fit into a missile warhead is another question we don't know.

Except that it never approaches zero. I imagine it approaches a non-zero amount. Unless you think that usage will always be higher than production. I imagine that when extraction costs rise due to resource scarcity that the earth will be creating oil at the same rate or above the rate at which we extract and use it.

Look here for the timeline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars
This list just shows who started what:
Nokia sues apple, apple counters, and nokia counters, etc.
Apple sues HTC, counters, etc
(HTC gives royalties to microsoft... WTF?)
S3 sues Apple
Oracle sues google, oracle fails!
Microsoft sues Motorolla, countered etc.
Motorolla sues Apple, countered etc.
Microsoft sues Barnes and Nobles
Apple sues Samsung, countered
Microsoft grabs more royalties from those without patent arsenal (le sigh)

And that is a little rundown of where we are at.