If you go to McDonalds and buy a big mac, and go home to eat it, but aren't actually that hungry and decide to share it with a family member, McDonalds should be able to sue you for unauthorized distribution of their property.

But when you share your big mac, you lose the opportunity to enjoy the part you gave away. So this sharing is different from music sharing, it's more like cut and distribute.

Suppose you bought a big mac and your family has 5 members including you. You placed the big mac in a food cloning machine and it generated 4 more big macs for the remaining family members. As you'd expect, McDonalds is going to sue you for paying for 1 big mac while consuming 5 big macs.

This analogy above is similar to a music sharing you know about -- buying one copy of a song and sharing free clones with dozens of friends and strangers.

IOW, your analogy is flawed.

Each new meal requires new material,

Sure, but the menu price for the dish is 10 or 20 times the cost of these materials (negligible duplication cost) -- you're paying for the recipe, restaurant location and ambiance. The profit margin is not all that different from copyrighted music (i.e. you're not paying for the duplication cost, rather you are paying a price how much it benefits you).

Do you think only restaurants have a right to make a profit, not copyright holders?

This news site is hypocritical. One the one hand they encourage pirating IP of other companies, and on the other hand they charge advertising fees for their own IP (news articles). Pirate activists give activists a bad name.

Maybe because they collaborate on several missions?

To prevent the stream being taken down, you shouldn't use copyrighted content, or license the copyrighted content. If stream creators are being paid for their "work," why shouldn't the music copyright holders get paid as well?

MS has decades of experience in system software. Something like Oculus has to perform very efficiently with the OS and graphics drivers if they expect it satisfy users (eg: not cause nausea). So the partnership should result in positive changes in Oculus and Windows to achieve that goal.

"Proof of correctness" of code is a bit of nonsense.

Really? Something that mathematically proves the code is correct is nonsense? I don't think so. It may be incredibly tough and difficult, incredibly expensive, but it's not nonsense. Expect the aviation software to be 10x-100x more expensive if proofs were used. With code reuse, (i.e. reusing code that has already been proved valid), the cost of "proof of correctness" code will decrease over long periods.

Practically it comes down to "rite the code in two languages and prove they're equivalent", which does nothing for bad design assumptions.

What if both implementations have the same buggy response to an input or what if both implementations have a hole and don't implement the feature (eg: both implementations don't check for data files before starting propellers)? You've reduced the bugs by multiple implementations, but not eliminated them.

Uber effectively pays this much:
$5 - 2.80 = $2.20.
So driver and accomplice make $2.20/2 = $1.40 each.

It's probably down to the way opcodes exploit common functionality

Yes, but even ARM chips have an ADD instruction whose byte encodings differ from x86 and not licensed from Intel, obviously. We're not talking about copyrighting core functionality (integer addition), but rather all the little copyrighted details like assembly language syntax, byte encoding of the instructions, functional description of instruction. There must be dozens of ways to do integer addition, but AMD follows Intel's x86 way for compatibility and has to obtain a copyright license to do so, unlike Google and the Java standard library.

1. rent/play whatever you want (like spotify
2. purchase whatever you want (like old school iTunes)

Isn't (2) a waste of money if you already pay for (1)? It's like paying twice for the same song unless you plan to discontinue using Apple Music in the near future.

From the link:

If AMD has to obtain a copyright license to the x86 instruction set from Intel and instruction sets in the CPU world are similar to APIs in the programming language world, why shouldn't Google also be required to obtain a copyright license from Oracle for the Java Standard APIs?

Pandora = internet radio
Apple music = spotify = you rent and play whatever songs you want.

Don't forget royalties to copyright holders/labels (although not necessarily artists) -- that's the biggest chunk of expenditure.

Does open source Swift mean we finally don't have to buy a mac machine just to run XCode to develop iOS apps? Does Apple have plans to release an open source iOS simulator, so we can simulate iOS apps on Windows/Linux etc?

So how many of the people complaining about this actually pay Mozilla anything?

But why should the complainers pay anything? The open source deal implies, the developer gets paid little to nothing for his work and the users get free software. Isn't that why these products become popular in the first place ($0 price tag)? The developers can't pull a bait-and-switch afterwards saying they're tired of providing free software and want to add changes to the software that make them money but are harmful to the users.