A well argued rebuttal

In order to cut traditional publishers out of the loop, they need to have a critical mass of Kindle users.

What do you think is going to happen when Amazon announces that they'd be happy to give any author 25% of all sales if they publish direct through Amazon as opposed to the 5% their publishing house gives them? All the traditional publishers will immediately pull their properties off of Amazon to try to kill their new rival (or at least, try not to keep feeding the hand that is strangling them). So Amazon's Kindle readership has to be big enough that the readership stays with them when a huge amount of back-catalogue suddenly stops being available for purchase, big enough that authors will leave behind editors they have developed working relationships with over decades to have access to.

Amazon isn't there yet.

Apparently Damon Lindelof (Lost co-creator, Star Trek Producer) has been pimping links to the review and is quite taken with it.

You have got to be kidding. Have you taken a look at the shape of the education and employment markets today? Employers are demanding college educations for jobs that didn't require degrees back when you graduated; pretty much anything more than washing dishes these days requires at least a Bachelors. And the cost of those degrees has skyrocketed; the average college student here graduates with about $20,000 in loans that come due in 6 months at near-usurious interest rates.

Those darn "millennials" on your lawn need to worry about the money, because the experience of fetching coffee for Bob the 20 veteran incompetent VB coder doesn't pay for shelter, food, and loan payments every month.

Kids these days don't have the luxuries of a dirt cheap education and not worrying about the pay when they graduate.

So my employer is only entitled to any code I ever happen to churn out, my time or theirs? It's ok because they don't want my photography project?

What a dumbshit opinion from an otherwise reasonable personality.

You cannot argue with idiocy, but that doesn't mean its anything other than idiocy.

Coding two routines by coincidence is not more productive than coding one routine properly.

Those knaves! How dare they?!

I for one demand that they immediately cease making money off this, and instead dedicate themselves to the greater good of giving my child a top-quality education for free, and preferably while having to eat out of garbage cans!

That ought to teach those commie teachers unions that in America we don't go in for this socialist profit stuff.

Because Wine needs access to the bottom 64k of memory in order to run 16-bit DOS programs

Yes, but Apple is making their argument in a court of Law, not a court of Nebulously Undefined Rights and Wrongs.

The current law is the current law, and Apple is legally correct. If you believe that the current law is not optimal, that's a matter to take up with the legislature. Arguing that the lawyers and courts are wrong for following the law is downright silly.

The Supreme Court indicated in Eldred v. Ashcroft that it was comfortable with the view that Copyright governs even private copying like moving a programs bits from a CD to hard disk or from hard disk to RAM. This is a legally settled matter, and Psystar is quite wrong.

Did you read the ruling?

ISPs don't get to throttle at a whim. They can throttle, but if they do, they have to demonstrate to the CRTC that the throttling is as narrow as possible to solve the problem and, importantly, economic measures like tiers, or building capacity would not solve the problem. They're also not allowed to throttle any protocol so hard as to effectively block it, or throttle things like VOIP without advanced, explicit permission for the CRTC.

That's a big improvement over the status quo at the moment, which has allowed the ISPs to throttle for years with no oversight for any reason they felt like.

Except that the DDL isn't in a bunch of scripts that are building the schema, the schema exists in a bunch of strings that are concatenated together in stored procedures with some arguments to the procs munged in, and passed to Exec statements when the stored procedures are run.

That's not normal table building, that's an unabashedly self-modifying database.

I agree, the summary and quoted code don't shed any light on the issue, but the big, and possibly illegal, problem is that the databases are heavily self-modifying. Random example:

/* Table : CONTEST                                              */
/* Description: Election specific contest. There could be multiple
            contests per office differentiated by party, Precinct,
            and Gender.  There are also contests uhat are not for an
            office such as System Contest (e.g Straight Party) and
            Proposals. */
begin
    Exec("
    create table CONTEST
        -- identifer of contest
        CONTEST_ID           T_GLOBAL_ID          identity
        -- identifer of political subdivision
    ,    PSD_ID               T_GLOBAL_ID          null
        --     0 = all, 1=exclude, 2=include
        --    1 = Some voters can vote ONLY for this office
        --    2 =Some voters in the psd cannot vote for the office
    ,    ELIGIBILITY         !numeric(1)           null default 0
        -- if office is precinct level, identifier of contest's precinct
    ,    PRECINCT_ID          T_GLOBAL_ID          null
        -- identifier of proposal in contest
    ,    PROPOSAL_ID          T_GLOBAL_ID          null
        -- Combined from office/proposal name and modifier such as
        --  precinct name or gender
    ,    NAME                 T_STANDARD_NAME      null
        -- If contest is NOT a proposal: reference to the office at
        -- the source of this contest

etc. The Program seems to have created and destroyed tables, columns, views, etc, on the fly, an incredibly odd practice for data that is meant to be audited.