The idea that the government should "keep people in jail until they change what they believe" is terrifying.

No, we should NOT be judging people based on some arbitrary judges imagining whether they are likely to commit a crime in the future. Rehabilitation is a disgusting concept.

The idea that "whether or not a concept is being marketed should affect whether a patent is enforced or not" is wrong if anyone would bother to put even a small amount of thought into it. Counter example: What if you are selling it for a price that no one is willing to pay? Counter point: a NOVEL concept wouldn't be marketed anyway if the patent didn't exist. A little thought goes a long way.

The term "Patent Troll" is just a label that gets used to avoid dealing with the actual problems of patents. The problem is that things are being patented which shouldn't be. If only those things which deserve a patent were being patented, then no one would have a problem with a 3rd party defending patent rights. If divulging a concept is enough to warrant market exclusion, then it doesn't matter whether a first or third party is defending the compensation for the divulging, or whether or not that party is actually offering the concept for trade.

The ONLY purpose of the patent "reform" legislation is to make it impossible to challenge incumbent businesses. The only reform that would actually improve anything is a drastic (about 5 or 6 orders of magnitude) reduction of the number of patents being awarded.

The only thing that keeps the entire internet collapsing into a zombie frenzy of bots is private IP addresses. The inability to connect to the majority of hidden computers, and the fact that they can't operate (independently) as a server limiting their usefulness prevents almost all of the attacks that would otherwise occur and occur successfully. The state of the art of software development is not ready for ma and pa to have public computers, no matter how up to date your software is or how you try to virus protect it (haha virus protection what a joke). The fact that everyone is scared to death of installing any program made by anyone other than well-known-giant-corporation accounts for most of the of the catastrophe that is modern software.

So to answer to the forum topic, use a router and don't install software if you didn't look the developer in the eyes when you bought it.

Having an insecure computer can make it safer to have something like illegal-exceptions-to-the-first-amendment stored on your computer. If your computer is completely secured, you can't deny that you put it there.

More importantly, the personal information of the general public is not private. The reason you have a four digit pin number is because it's less trouble for the bank than you having an actual password: it's less trouble for them to refund your money than it is for them to constantly support "I forgot my password" calls. Your credit card number is even more insecure. There are actually types of accounts for people who feel like paying for security, and if you aren't paying for one, then you don't have one. If you can be persuaded otherwise, then naevite' is indeed what we should be discussing.

My parents computers don't have missile launch codes on them, they don't need to be secure. They need to be recoverable.

1) Any photos, bookmarks, etc that you want to keep: have a copy of it on a backup DVD
2) Be able to format and reinstall

Anything else is just extra.

It drives me nuts that everyone always says things like this. Who cares whose name is on the check? If you got paid an extra $260 and had to cover the cost yourself, would you still say that your employer is paying for it? You are paying for this with your employment and with your lack of choices (due to the employer being tied in).

The problem is that they are working together, and they get to write the laws, which is why better options can't make themselves known.

Depends on if you are making a universally quantified or an existentially quantified claim. Unless you are stating that another person's anecdotal evidence is not evidence for you, which is understandable.

Yes, thats a good way to put it. I wonder what his other 4 coworkers think.

I don't know all the details, but this reads like you aren't correctly identifying who is IT.

When your printer breaks, or you need a new computer installed, you call IT.

When you work at a manufacturing plant and you need software for the machines, that's not IT. That's development. It sounds to me like you have an IT department of one person (you) and that your development team is helping out with IT. "Projects with deadlines" is not usually a phrase you hear from IT unless it's a project like upgrading everyone's software. It sounds to me like you are letting management downplay your contribution with incorrect job titles.

Vote for 100% fewer patents and you can have any of these options that you want.

Even the incumbent makers of hammers would be happier living in a world where it isn't illegal to make a better hammer. They might moan and cry about it, and pretend like their case is special, but everyone is worse off when policy becomes "hinder technological progress to protect the economy of old technology".

Presumably the poster is trying to say that making the software open source is promoting the technology available to everyone, and since it is progress in technology, there is no need to protect the makers of the old costly technology.

Consider this, what if you had a magic button that you could push, and if you did then free versions of software would be created that provide the same functionality as every piece of proprietary software ever written? Would you push the button?

This is what happens when you spend money that you didn't have to earn.

If you are depending on cops to protect you being being "hit", then if someone decides to "hit" you, then you will be in for a big surprise. Police aren't bodyguards. They aren't magical leprechauns that jump out of fire hydrants and save you. You might be able to defend yourself, you might have hired help to defend you, but the cops aren't going to do anything besides ask you questions.

Any decent writing curriculum would have taught you that titles should not summarize stories. What was that collection of books called, "a bunch of misfits deliver a ring south", or was it called "The Lord of the Rings" ? Go find a collection of titles, and see if any of them summarize the story they identify. (B) is the worst answer for a title to a story. (C) is actually the most likely title to be chosen for a story. But that still doesn't make any of them right. OP is correct, it is a very bad question.

Really? Do you have access to some original form of the test that the rest of us do not? Otherwise, the question is not asking for extensions at all. The most correct answer is probably (A). He didn't change his socks when they got wet, he changed them when he got home. If he hadn't arrived home, he wouldn't have changed his socks. "Why" questions never have only 1 answer.

Well then I have something for you to celebrate too! Here's the good news. There is a common mistake people make. Two people encounter a description. The first sees and ambiguity, and the second does not. The second thinks he's smarter than the first because he is unaware of the ambiguity. The first is actually smarter because he can see the problem.

Guess which one you are, and guess which one the OP's child is? Fortunately, with the sort of parenting that child is getting, I think he'll be fine. On the other hand, you still have celebrating to do.