So let me get this straight rich gits with chauffeurs get priority over everyone else because why, why the fuck, why? So do you or do you not count a professional driver in the car with one, just one fucking person actually travelling to a destination. That other person is just a labour saving device and not a person going to a destination, yet the rich git in the back gets priority over the nobodies who can not afford a limousine with an associated driver. Should a taxi with one passenger be in the HOV lane or not, reality is no but in order to favour limousine passenger, oh yeah.

So car safety should take into account in the other half of "Its how you drive the car more than what you drive that get's you into trouble", assuming a two car collision and one making a mistake whilst the other is just an innocent victim of that mistake. "So is is what you drive and how others drive, that gets people into trouble".

So the whole system should be revised because statistics prove it is extremely dangerous and causing a huge amount of pain and suffering. Just barely reasonable for the past and most certainly not good enough for the future.

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.

ppppfffft!

Back in the old neighborhood, some of the bedrooms were SMALLER than that...

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.

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.

"Annoying documents" don't negate the concepts of libel and slander. Such documents also usually include ideas like "privacy".

Before everyone gets upset about data collection: This Supreme Court case is not about Spokeo's data collection. It is about who has the right to sue and under what circumstances. Even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of this individual, all it means is that the individual can continue their suit. It is not a ruling for or against Spokeo's data.

> There's about to be not nearly enough comments about shutting up and voting with your dollars.

Why should you expect the two to be mutually exclusive?

You're just a jerk and a corporate toadie.

A standard McDonalds hamburger does not come with lettuce and tomato. Catsup, mustard, pickle, minced onions. Has 240 calories.

A Big Mac has 530 calories. Not sure what a double Big Mac is since it isn't a standard part of McDonald's menu. By itself a Big Mac is fine now and then but people rarely eat just a Big Mac. Usually they have some fries and a sugar loaded soft drink too. This easily can get the meal over 1000 calories as you mention which is about half the daily caloric intake for an adult male.

No burger sold by McDonalds has "a lot of lettuce". It has at most a small piece (possibly shredded) the size of the bun. That is not a lot of lettuce using any reasonable definition of the word "lot". Furthermore to get enough fiber to actually affect blood sugar levels you would have to eat several cups of the stuff, far more than is in any McDonalds burger.

Depends on your taste buds. Once you drink diet for a while the regular stuff tastes a bit weird. I have trouble finishing a regular can of coke.

Plus the amount of sugar in the normal stuff is ridiculous. I think they should start selling a free insulin shot with every case. Basically you are literally picking your poison.

That's a bit of a stretch even for Google. I'm not saying you are wrong but it doesn't really explain their investment in the technology. That's just too far off to make a connection to a revenue stream at this time.

Honestly the real revenue stream for that sort of technology will probably be in licensing. Making what amounts to a navigation system for a car could be a very real standalone business if they get far enough ahead of the curve. I could see Google spinning it off or licensing the technology somewhere down the road. Google gets the opportunity to direct the technology in ways beneficial to them (maybe) but they aren't the only ones working on this so any ties to their current business model are hugely premature given that not a single vehicle sold has any of this technology embedded in it yet.