I think it's more like "I created a tool that used part of Minecraft illegally, violating its license, but released under GPL. Now that you, owner of Minecraft, are releasing this tool, you can't be violating your own license, you must be violating the GPL by having a closed source blob, *that you have the source for*, as part of the codebase. Mojang should release the source code for that blob, and nothing else, to comply.

Stop being an asshole. They aren't even using the name yet, so it's not surprise that people aren't familiar with it yet. Once Godi is released and people are using it, you can try to gauge how memorable the name is.

You can only lose on a procedural technicality if you are the Plaintiff, as that would result in the case being dismissed. Also, you don't appear to understand shell companies, or how they work, or what they can and can't protect you from.

That logic fails to account for the VAST majority who don't set their savings aside, or those who are on bare-bones plans they don't understand. Beyond that, what if you get hurt/sick before you've had time to save up? I'm not arguing for "Cadillac" plans, just plans with coverage to prevent you from being a ward of the state, no matter when a bad event happens. People with inadequate insurance who can afford adequate insurance are NOT being responsible people.

Tattoos have been around for a long, long time. I doubt they are just going to "disappear."

"It's not because of racism, it's because black people sag their pants, get tattoos*, are disrespectful, and lazy."

Oh, okay.

*Side note, I work in a non-technical white collar job, and a surprising number of my colleagues have tattoos.

No. But it certainly makes it less sinister.

I've always been baffled at why people believe this. If this were the case, nobody would have insurance, and people would be burning down their own businesses, because tadaa! write-off! It just makes no sense, but people take it as gospel.

I absolutely hate how much I laughed at that.

Heh, as someone who just tried beta, kinda find this thread funny. I lasted about 15 seconds on beta before going back to classic.

On topic though, just strip out the parts of jQuery you need, rename them, and use them as-is. Think about it like static-linking a library.

You are absolutely correct in that you are missing my point. A loss leader always cuts into profits. That's part of the definition of a loss leader. The loss is likely expanding due to inflation and increase in services (Keep in mind, the streaming portion, which is now a major driver of Prime subscriptions, was added without increasing the price). That being said, adjusted for straight inflation, the price would have been about $99 ($97.43, based on CPI to 12-31-13) anyway. In reality, the spending power surrendered to get Prime access has fallen.

Considering Amazon Prime is likely a loss-leader, the fact that it is now costing more due to an increase in the profit-making side of things is irrelevant.

I would imagine the 0.75 is all inclusive. I doubt Google allows bundling of Play Store with no other Google apps.

$0.75? How about you leave that out and I'll take it for $2.00 less? How does that logic work? Besides, you can easily remove the Play Store from most devices. If not, this site might not be for you.