Spot on regarding ease of changing permissions. There is also the "small" matter of knowing what is actually going on/loading while booting, that is missed when booting Windows.

Then there is the whole other issue of going from white box to productive box in under 1 hour with no reboot.

This is plenty different from cable tv. The media types are different as well as original method of content delivery, expectations by the consumers of the media, and lastly, the infringement on the flow of cognition within the reader, as originally planned by the (original) author/s and copyright holders.

Or were you being sarcastic?

Good point on Android. We don't see the rate of development on it as we thought. Can they say why?

And double karma for the points about the kernel and Gnome & Kde

Somethings to consider prior to being implemented (without reading the several articles on the Georgia Tech page:

1. Will there be a "backdoor" that can be used without physically handling the robot, in case of "rampaging robot syndrome?" I am well aware that a carefully placed missile could render this moot, but in case there may be some value in understanding what went wrong....

2. The term "hacking into the enemy's robot" may take special meaning once this goes into production. What will be in place so that in case of physical capture, such a robot cannot be easily "turned"?

3. Who has not thought of Skynet?

So they are saying basically that since it is a "computational service" that they have the rights to the question that I used in order for them to do that particular computation? How does that work exactly?

Isn't that a little like saying that since you are a chef and I give you the ingredients for chicken pot-pie and tell you to make it since I don't know how, and you do so, you have the rights to the pie you made?

As far as attribution, I don't have a problem saying that they helped me, once they can also state their attributions.

Depends what kind of team setting you are talking about. If you are talking about team sports, IMHO a lessening of creativity will make a team less likely to succeed. Communication of ideas tend to be burst/spontaneous and situation oriented especially when presented with a shifting/changing situation (opposing team changing defense or offense) and being more focused will not necessarily help that: the focus may only be on the route to be run and its expected variations, and therefore may not be aware of the opponent just ever so slightly tipping their hand at a novel approach.

Then again...it might help the superior performer go through various permutations of the situation quicker. Imagine a more "focused" Michael Jordan in his hey-day (yipes! Cavs fans) or Ronaldo (from Manchester united, if u don't know who he is, replace with Tom Brady).

Could be something to it...and then there will be one more thing to ban.

I was struck by the comment at the end of the article by a trademark attorney that no-one had opposed it when it was initially published. I think that points to a fundamental flaw in the process: who knows of or sees these things in order to oppose them?

Perhaps that is the clouded thinking that permeates the USPTO and the tech entities that use them to further their cause.