Their FAQ reads:

The White House plans to respond to each petition that crosses the signature threshold, which you can view on the Terms of Participation page. In a few rare cases (such as specific procurement, law enforcement, or adjudicatory matters), the White House response might not address the facts of a particular matter to avoid exercising improper influence. In addition, the White House will not respond to petitions that violate We the People’s Terms of Participation. In some cases, a single response may be used for similar petitions.

If they do not plan to respond to petitions, they should drop the claim that they plan to. This says nothing about a timeframe, though, so it is possible that they do plan to respond to the petitions, but not until we're in the year 2525.

From the summary:

Unless Xiaomi intends to develop a replacement for the Linux kernel, they need to make their modifications public.

From the article:

unless Xioami wants to develop a replacement for the Linux side of Android, they need to make their kernel modifications public.

The article is correct. Xioami only needs to make their kernel modifications public. The fact that there happens to be a GPL program in Android (the kernel) doesn't mean all of Android is tainted by it. Showing whatever else they've modified is nice, but not required.

Er... No. That's one thing that he gets right. How widespread use of SSL is should be irrelevant. If a patent is crap, and there are less than ten people worldwide claimed to violate the patent, the fact that the patent is crap should still get them off the hook.

No, they weren't ordered to make that statement. They were ordered to make a statement that a UK court had ruled that Samsung had not copied the iPad. It is perfectly clear from their legal judgement page that the UK court had done so. It was a dick move, and I'm not sorry they're called on it, but I don't see how it fails to comply with the court order.

14pt is a fixed size, independent of resolution. 1pt is 1/72 inch (12 points per pica, 6 picas per inch).

What definition of troll do you use? I would consider being abusive as one particular, not necessarily very effective, form of trolling. Just like the messages we both agree on as trolls, being abusive also can be done in order to get you to ignore a rational discussion and just flame me as a response. If that's the goal of the message, why isn't it a troll?

There are several things wrong with that.

• The "binding" in binding arbitration means even if someone doesn't like the result, they still can't take the other party to court.
• If this will cost Youtube money, what incentive do they have to do this?
• If Youtube makes one incorrect determination, would not they themselves become guilty of copyright infringement?

Remember, Youtube doesn't have any special legal status. Any rules that you apply to Youtube apply to everyone. If you run a blog, someone sends you a DMCA takedown notice for a comment posted on your blog, and the commenter sends a counternotice, what do you want to have to do? Leave the comment deleted? That's so wide open to abuse it's not even funny. Make a random guess whether the comment should be restored? Ditto. Pay a lawyer to look at the comment and determine whether it's likely within the bounds of the law? Why should you spend hundreds of dollars on a matter that has so very little to do with you? What other options are there but to restore the comment and leave the matter for someone else to handle?

What difference does that make? There are cases when it's okay to upload material containing copyrighted works for which you are not the copyright holder. Again, a judge can determine whether the material is appropriately licensed / ineligible for copyright protection / covered by fair use. That's not Youtube's job.

Either you're telling the truth, or they're telling the truth. I don't want to judge that, Youtube doesn't want to judge that, a judge should be the judge of that. And until a judge has looked at it, what reason is there to take down the video again?

IMO, the effort to make sites, even intranet sites, work on other browsers, or at least other IE versions, would have been worthwhile as soon as IE7 was released. But that's opinion, and others, including some of the people who make the calls, disagree.

It saves it's EXE in the Windows profile. I thought Program Files existed for a reason....

The second result of a Google search for "chrome program files" points to this download page. I can't verify this exact page still works (I'm on Linux right now, so Google doesn't give me a Windows download), but I do have Chrome installed in Program Files on my Windows system.

Time is money. Time spent upgrading browsers is time that could have been spent earning money. When IE is required for intraweb sites, there's also the time spent making sure the site works in IE8: they can be very browser-dependent and not support any other browser or any other version of the one required browser. But even then, millions seems like a big stretch.

If I find the URL to the songs, I am allowed to make private copies of them even if I don't "own" them (so far that has remained legal under Dutch law), and you can be sued for distributing them to me. If I then make the URL public to others, according to this ruling, I may also be sued, but that does not get you off the hook.

"We will not accept content that is freely available on the web unless you are the copyright owner of that content." and "We do accept public domain content" are contradictory unless the latter is intended as an exception to the former (which is not what the text you quoted actually says), or only public domain content that isn't freely available on the web is accepted (which is clearly not how Amazon themselves interpret it). So the policies aren't as clear for the general case as you say they are; there are some real books where reasonable people will come to different conclusions about what the policy actually says. Linked, by the way. But they are indeed very clear for the specific book that this story is concerned with.