If stories of Microsoft's competence (heh heh) are to be believed (heh heh heh) then they already have a full test harness in place, and engineers tasked full-time with adding new cases to the system. Given what slips through, though, one doubts both their competence and also that they have a meaningfully representative set of PCs to test on. I'll grant you that would be difficult in the best case due to wide variation in the market, but the point stands.

Either you were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or your cells didn't do the thing because of the genetic lottery. Now we can write everything off as luck, and never take responsibility for anything!

So bitcoin is bad because the metal presses that stamp out coins and the printing presses and cutters that make bills all run on magical unicorn farts instead of electricity?

Poe's Law.

These are all actually equally crazy ideas, but there's a lot of nutcases going around clamoring for the first one. "Copyright should be limited to the original creator's natural life." Simple question: why?

Second question: why do we have to wait for the government to fix this? I suppose there's a pretty good reason to have a maximum copyright duration so Disney doesn't immediately realize their dreams of indefinite copyright, but there shouldn't be anything wrong with licensing a work so that it reverts to the public domain in a more reasonable time frame. Creative Commons and other permissive licenses have been making slow progress towards an open culture, shouldn't this be the next step?

Try three, and yes not only do I think it is fair, but clearly you too think it is fair by your actions (or you're just admitting to being a parasite criminal stealing my work... either way you look pretty bad)

To claim you don't think it is fair, you need to send me my first payment, and continue sending me payments every month for the rest of your life.
Until those checks clear, you're just being a lying hypocrite.

In fact, you seem to be arguing that even ONE payment is too much, let alone multiple ones.
So I thank you for your permission to take anything you make for free - or I would if you actually made anything.

Sure it does. If you stay home, you don't drive to church, or to the waffle house.

Yes, by giving his wealth to those who need it, thus becoming not-rich of money, but rich of spirit. But he still won't be rich when he dies — once his wallet shrinks, perhaps the camel will fit

Sorry, but it sounds like Pope Francis has published a list of all the child molesters they know they've relocated. Can you drop a link, please?

Sadly, it doesn't include treating women like humans. He still believes they're inferior. I don't take him seriously on the subject of the poor, either; the vatican is still sitting on too much wealth. But seeing the pope agree with current science is a refreshing breath of fresh air. The vatican must surely have investments in companies whose management are not glad to hear this lot from the pope.

As a joe computer user, about all you can do with them that's meaningful is run XBMC or build a NAS. But you could buy something to do that for the same kind of money once you add a case and power supply.

If you want to get a bit hackish, these computers can control stuff if you add some relays or whatnot. That's who they're for.

Nonsense. That's only true if your lawyers don't have deep pockets, but Sony's do.

How long will it take you to visit Wikipedia or the IMDB before you buy tickets for a given film, to make sure it's not published by Sony?

Yeah, guess what? The kid's Xbox would integrate with Windows 7 or even XP just fine. But it still wouldn't play MKVs without PS3MediaServer or similar.

Well no. Sometimes you can find the bug, but you're not allowed to use the source. Common with closed-source products. They'll give you enough information to help them, but they won't legally let you help yourself. Because money.

Nonsense. You can see whether the light is on or not. We don't even know if god ever existed, let alone whether he is alive or not.

There's more to it than that, I don't know if a god can exist or not. That's why I'm not an atheist, but an agnostic. I don't claim to have knowledge that no one on earth possesses. Atheism is just as arrogant as theism.

That is irrelevant. The question, as asked, does not reveal whether one is not a theist, only if they are. You could just ask if I'm a theist. But I already answered that question, so you're just being redundant.