That completely ruins the one case which is commonly cited as the reason for patents... to protect the individual inventor. An inventor typically sells their patent to an entity that can actually do something with it (rather than having to build a business around it all on their own, which is probably not their skill). If a patent holder cannot licence or transfer their property then there won't be any point in getting one (or doing the work in the first place) and only companies will get patents.

Actually the laws here are biased towards the consumer. If the price is reasonable believed to be not a mistake (which this clearly wasn't) then the offer has to be honoured by the shop because otherwise you'd have a million bait-and-switch false adverts by shops. The consumer does still get 7 days to cancel.

Far as I know this isn't an enforcable condition, consumer protection laws in the UK are strong and the price on the website is considered a shopfront, and therefore an offer and something they have to honour.

*Unless* it's obviously a mistake, which this clearly is, and then they don't.

The GP is slightly wrong misleading in that the price on Amazon *is* considered an offer (nomatter what they put in their T&C) and that your acceptance of it does make it binding, *unless* it's obviously a mistake. This was obviously a mistake therefore they don't have to honour it.

You cannot use 'slippery slope' argument and then complain about other people making 'either/or' arguments! They are *the same* concept! You saying that this is a slippery slope is exactly an either/or proposition: That we should not do this thing because it *will* lead to this other thing.

Yeah, if you think it's that easy then you're a fool...

Raspberry Pi A+?

Luxury! You trust a compiler? When I were a lad we inputted the hex codes directly.
/
Well of course we had it tough... tape and a magnetised pin was all we needed.
/
You kids don't know you were born... we used to program using a cigarette end to burn holes in the punch cards.
/
etc...

You guys are reminding me of my manager that thinks 2 things can both be 'number one' priority. He's asking *which* to concentrate on, and for someone new to the field I think it's reasonable to only start with only one language.

Just because you know someone's going to bring it up again for no apparent reason with armchair justification. Thought I'd get it out of the way...

I'm never quite convinced by this argument. Just because you can do something does not mean you must, and these companies are run be actual people, who can make decisions that aren't only following the dollar. Ultimately if you just want to make money then be a bank, everyone else has a certain amount of duty to provide their service, aswell as to being commercial.

Crap, I missed that...

Yes yes very sarcastic of you... You're comparing a specialised Linux niche with what is available on all Android devices that exist. I'm looking at default Android against default Linux.

I don't really understand how this is 'true'. Linux security doesn't isolate process disk data from each other, anybody can read any part of the disk under the same user, which in practice is all apps a user use because they all run under the user's account. Android has a far *better* security model in this respect because it puts different applications in different users, so they can't get at each other. Also, permissions for system information is far more granular in Android than plain Linux, in Linux you just look at /proc whereas Android has to actually get types of permissions for sensitive data.

Patently not true. If an app needs new permissions in an update it must be explicily accepted by the user.