Well, clearly. If they actually cared about preventing speeding, they'd advertise speed traps so that you were paranoid about driving fast through that area. They don't want to deter crime, they want to punish it through lucrative fines.

Why is 8GB overkill? I put at least 16 in anything I have control over.

You seem to be unclear on the meaning of 'analogy'. Either that, or you read the GP's post without also reading the GGP's.

"Calling theories"... Hypothesis was used in the quote. In fact "theory" doesn't appear at all. So you're arguing against some other statement.

"... the simple fact is that much of the modern world would simply not work if the words "hypothesis" and "guess" were equivalent." Incorrect. Reality doesn't give a crap how words are used. You apparently do and are taking umbrage. Fine, just don't act like what you're writing is fact. It isn't.

"... rather than mysticism and magical thinking." Or hypothesis.

(And for wont of mod points... The group in question just simply isn't contemplating what you talk to, promissory estoppel, and all sorts of other problems opening up that particular can of worms would be for someone stupid enough to TRY it.)

Considering that RMS didn't dream these licenses up, but rather Eben Moglen, you might want to contemplate who knows more about this... The law professor that actually teaches on this subject or someone claiming that there is a right of revocation in there that's effectively free of Promissory Estoppel and the like on the subject. Just because there's a law on one side doesn't mean other laws don't cause OTHER, equally bad problems on the subject and effectively preclude the hypothesized notion out of box.

No, if you're doing your legal documents right, it does place it into the Public Domain as intended. How? Promissory Estoppel prevents such an act from even being ran up the flagpole on an infringement suit. If you actually DID this, just because you can revoke assignments, etc. doesn't give you carte-blanche to actually DO it the way they're describing there.

Without covenants in place as part of the agreement, yeah. There's a problem. With them, this is really nothing more than the nattering of someone trying to make a vastly bigger deal of things than is really there.

Bingo!

You can't make promises or covenants of this nature with the intent of even remotely considering to revoke them. Your successors are also bound to them. Typically someone will bring up Promissory Estoppel and then raise Bad Faith- and then move to dismiss the case you brought against them...and most typically get it.

Says someone who isn't getting any.

Got nothin' to do with bein' an old timer. My gaming mouse has a clickable scroll wheel and a set of twelve side buttons. It's simply a can't adapt thing.

I can't speak to Android, but Apple still supports and issues updates to the three year old iPhone 4S. Microsoft sometimes just walks away from stuff.

Bad phrasing on your part. There is no incremental cost of enabling IoT on a device. There is replacing said device. I'm past 60. I still have my grandmother's waffle iron and it works fine, cotton wrapped cord and all. Many, many things have lifespans that will make the IoT very difficult to integrate into a current someone's life without great expense and waste and so they simply won't. The "ubiquitous" IoT will be late this century at best.

"Why wouldn't they?" Most are non-OCD.

The enlightened self interest angle is that I don't want corporations treating H-1Bs like crap, because it enables the companies to get them for cheap, which depresses salaries in my career path. I want companies to have to treat H-1B visa holders well because 1) it's the right thing to do, and 2) so that I'm not competing against guys who'll work for 2/3 my salary for fear of being deported.

Precisely what I was thinking about your woefully inaccurate claim.

Correct, which is why I choose to believe the facts instead of naive misintrepetations off the Internet.