That theory only works if there were deliberate poisonings of copycats. The distribution was too narrow, and the incidents too spread out to account for all of the poisonings with a single industrial accident. Unless Tylenol committed murder as part of a cover-up.

I'd agree if 99% of exploits weren't one of a basic set of vulnerabilities. "I never though someone would get a Privilege escalation though a buffer overflow from an improperly sanitized input." The threats aren't "bugs" A "bug" is bad code that allows a threat a vector of attack.

Computer security is saying that you secure doors and windows on a house only after each of them has been broken in, and only in the minimum way to prevent the previous attack from working. "Oh, they got in with a credit-card jimmy of the lock? We'll fix that on this window, but the other windows are safe because nobody has tried them yet."

There are lots of places the trouble lies, and whether an author or bad-actor finds bad code first isn't top of the list.

Didn't matter. Well, not a lot. I was tracked to a specific computer in a specific lab more than once (all in good fun). There were so fewcomputers on the Internet then that it wasn't hard to find out who owned that IP, and they were almost all statically assigned, so you could then track it down to a lab, if you talked to the right person with the right questions.

Anonymity on the Internet was fake, then real, now is fake again. I've always used my real name and such, and it's never been a problem. Though I have gotten a few death threats from Slashdotters, it's not like they are actually willing to leave Momma's basement, so I feel safe.

But that's hidden and confusing. Like the subisdy for coal miners health. It's not a direct payment to the mine owners, so it's not like the cash payments around renewables. And the 8B is mostly a lie. If you count Alaska, the oil pumped out of the ground is a "gift" from Alaska to the oil companies, and treated like a subsidy by oil haters. But then taxed by Alaska, and treated like a non-subsidy payment to the government by the oil-lovers.

So every number you see on the situation is a lie. The truth is better or much worse than whoever you are talking to says.

There is no solution because there is no problem: the world is not a terrible place full of head-severing barbarians.

Well not all of it, at least not yet.

That, and the numbers are all lies.

To make the bottom line look good, the State of Alaska "sells" oil to the oil companies at $0 per barrel removed from the ground. Then the state taxes the "free" oil. BP counts it as a "tax" on their books, which has better benefits to their books than calling it an expense. And the people that bash stupid government moves call the "free" oil a subsidy to the industry. The real subsidy is there, but lost in the accounting. The treatment of the exchange allows BP to claim tax credits, and that's a federal tax credit that's not counted by anyone as it's too complex to describe to the average American.

Hilarious. The SS-hating conservatives tell us daily that SS is a tax for the general federal budget, not a trust fund. But when hating on the poor, the SS taxes are ignored.

If Social Security taxes are taxes, then the poor are taxed. It's a shame that they can't get rebated on the SS tax through income tax.

So requiring all buildings be built to basic safety standards is a tax as well.

I admit I haven't actually read TFA, but were these "CS professors" who left for Uber, or were they "researchers" as the summary says? Yes, tenured professors do indeed get good pay and extremely good job security, but "researchers" at universities usually are not tenured professors, they're postdocs, or maybe untenured professors. Postdocs aren't paid shit, by most accounts, and it's extremely hard to get one of these coveted tenured CS professor jobs. So if these people were a bunch of PhD students, it doesn't sound like they necessarily made a bad choice.

It's simple:
He's married.

I read the question in the title, and answered that. The question is that if you make work A, someone makes a new copyrightable work B as a derivative of A, then you make a derivative work C from B, can you be "infringing" based on your original work?

The answer is "yes". Nobody said A loses copyright on B because it was derivative. But, similarly, B doesn't lose copyright on C.

Though, the details in TFA indicate that C is unrelated to B, so B has no claim on C at all, but the similarities caused people to ask what would have happened.

You, use too many commas. It, is not necessary to put one, after every noun, or pronoun.

In most cases, copyrights aren't "issued" and even if they are, that's meaningless to such claims, other than to establish who published first, should that be in dispute.

I never said you could. I just said that it was different enough to allow copyright to be claimed on the derivative work. I discussed solely B to C relationship, and you took some offense to how you think I'd look at the A to B relationship.

I made no such claim, and hold no such views. Work C is copyrighted by both A and B creators. That C's creator is the same as A's has no bearing to B's claim to copyright.

Do you have any suggestions? That's the whole problem with all this anti-capitalism talk: no one ever has any kind of suggestions.