Honestly, how much trust do you put in what Microsoft publicly says?

It's not binding, they repeatedly change their mind, and they're a huge multinational who doesn't give crap what their consumers want.

However the license agreement will be legally binding and unless it mentions a expiration date for the license, a subscription fee, or the like, will pretty much settle the matter as of July 29th.

So you'll pardon us for having ZERO faith in the fact that Microsoft has said anything. Because it doesn't mean a damned thing.

They will do whatever maximizes profits, and what their lawyers say they can get away with.

Your blindly saying you believe them makes you either naive, or clueless.

Here's the thing: Announcing that Windows Seven and 8/8.1 may be upgraded to Windows 10 (for perpetuity) during the first year of release and then changing that policy upon launch day would create a tidal wave of bad publicity. You can count on large corporations doing all they can to avoid bad publicity -- if only because it significantly affects profits.

So forgive us for thinking that a corporation which has made this announcement and had months to consider how it was being interpreted, without correcting that interpretation as launch draws ever closer, is going to change their position so close to launch.

It's not going to happen. And in three weeks and two days, I just might hound you with a few I-told-you-so-s.

You know that content gets voted by the community and only appears on the front page if enough people care, right?

And everyone votes. And everyone takes their day-off July 3rd holiday to go to reddit. And everyone... Show me a votes to daily-visits ratio before you declare what is a minority and what is not.

I am hearing that several subreddits that went private were forcibly reopened by the admins, and the mods were unable to do anything about it after. I don't have sources, but if it's discovered that it true, that would be the final nail in the coffin for me.

I hear you. It sucks when someone decides to take their ball and go home only to be reminded that it's not their ball. It sucks even more when you support that someone only to be reminded that it's not your ball or your home, and that both of you are very replaceable.

The users don't care about this. You're a tiny minority that wants to see a catfight because you've decided someone is irreplaceable without any actual knowledge as to why they were let go.

...but if you do so maliciously and mendaciously...

That has nothing to do with the case IF what is said is true...

Mendaciously means falsely, e.g., "lying, untruthful, dishonest, deceitful, false, dissembling, insincere, disingenuous, hypocritical, fraudulent, double-dealing, two-faced, Janus-faced, two-timing, duplicitous, perjured;"

He already had lack of truth as a condition, therefore it has everything to do with the case.

Yes, an object with zero acceleration could technically be moving anywhere between not and the speed of light, but that's pedantic.

Simply, no. It's not pedantic. Because you ignore that your accelerometers are not perfect, that your constant is a variable due to accumulated error in your accelerometers, that you need not glide around on an ice rink in order for your generally-increasing (magnitude) accumulated error to make that constant an unknown variable, and that GPS solves that problem quite nicely.

All you need to monitor is translational vibration (evidence of non-rotational movement) which will be present regardless if you are walking or driving.

Thus proving that you're being pedantic and an idiot, as anyone who has ever worked with inertial guidance systems versus GPS guidance systems will repeat to you. Over... and over... and over. But since you're quite willing to dish out criticism without accepting any, I doubt that you'll bother to ask anyone working in the real world with real equipment how it all actually performs.

Do the authors not know what accelerometers are? That makes me question their expertise for writing about this subject.

Do you not know the laws of motion and calculus? Because those make me question your expertise as a critic.

Even assuming that your accelerometers are perfect (which they most assuredly are not), tracking accelleration over time gives you an assumed speed plus an unknown constant, which you are assuming is zero.

But you know the old saying about assumptions...

I'm capable of covering all but the most unlikely of situations

And when a not-quite most unlikely situation occurs, you'll be sure to to make good down to your last cent, rather than party like it's 1999 or take a sudden vacation to Central America.

Hint: in the states around me, you are free to self-insure provided that you deposit a rather large sum (mid-five-figures) in cash or bonds with the government. Because sudden parties and vacations tend to happen when one's life savings are about to be handed over to another. Are you fine with that?

And if they happen, I throw up my hands and declare bankruptcy and re-roll the dice. I'm fine with that.

EXACTLY. You're fine with that. The person you creamed doesn't get to discharge their injuries in bankruptcy, and doesn't get to re-roll the dice, but we really don't care about them. It's about you.

One could argue HFCS is worse than transfat and it is used everywhere. Come on, get on a roll, FDA!

One could, if they could prove that HFCS should no longer be generally recognized as safe, as was done with trans-fats.

Your minor problem is going to be that natural foods do not contain substantial quantities of trans-fats. It's a quirk of the abiotic hydrogenation process that is used to modify naturally occurring unsaturated oils. Thus the substance is essentially artificial.

That's not the case with HFCS. The process that produces HFCS is artificial, but the very same sugars are in corn, sugarcane, fruits, berries, and various vegetables. You don't object to what the substance is -- you merely object to the form it is being provided in and how much is used.

A little thought experiment: would you have the FDA ban honey as well? It has virtually the same glucose to fructose ratio as HFCS 55 (glucose and fructose are the major sugars present at about 32 and 38% respectively), about 17% water, about 10% other sugars (especially maltose, which is a dimer of glucose), and about 3% other.

If not, then tell me the key difference between the two substances that makes one ban worthy and the other not.

Banning HFCS is simply a poor proxy for regulating that amount of sugars that are incorporated into foods. Yet we don't (currently) permit the FDA to regulate on that basis. If you want to have the argument, make the argument. Don't construct a make believe boogeyman and expect a community of nerds to buy into the myth without question.

Weird that he was there???

Yes, weird that he was there. Weird that a man in a Stormtrooper costume was in front of an elementary school with no apparent reason to be associated with the school.

As I indicated in the GP post, the loitering charge is the really odd one. I'm not going to invest the time necessary to investigate where he lives, where the school is, where he was going (assuming it to be true), where he was actually located, the time of the 911 response, etc., etc. simply in order to to qualify the weirdness. A guy in a Stormtrooper is automatically weird. Your decision to read weirdness as meaning creepy or nefarious instead of simply unusual and out-of-the-box is your own deal.

Sounds like charges that they can bring anyone in on. And that's probably the point.

They can bring anyone in on anything they want. The question is whether the prosecutor has enough to believe that they can bring a successful case.

Disturbing a school:
You need to prove that he intentionally sought to disturb the school. Maybe he did... maybe he didn't. It sounds weird that he was there, but then again "bad judgment" is not the same thing as having an intent to disturb the school.

Loitering:
You need to prove that someone in authority asked him to leave. In most of the US it's not loitering simply because you don't have a good reason to be there. The story doesn't say that he refused any instruction to go, so this is actually the more curious charge of the two to me.

The sage of Wikipedia states

The actual size and behavior of floating-point types also vary by implementation. The only guarantee is that long double is not smaller than double, which is not smaller than float. Usually, the 32-bit and 64-bit IEEE 754 binary floating-point formats are used, if supported by hardware.

So the program implementation assumed a behavior that was not guaranteed, and was burned when it used an outside library which was specification compliant but not in the same way as that particular implementation.

A poor workman blames his tools. And in this case I'm not referring to MinGW, which is admirably neutral in its reporting.

And abusive troll moderation rears its ugly head.

From TFA:

That's because the laid-off workers sued the company and won just, he says, as Mandriva was breaking even. (The details of the suits, including names of employees involved, are confidential, he told us, and he declined to offer details.)

So... not trolling at all.

Poland tries to drag us into a new cold war with Russia together with the US and the fascist Kiev coup junta.No thanks, let the poles first grow up and get over their grudges.

Hi Vladimir! Protip: wear a shirt, you're not in your 20s anymore.

Finally, proof that we are the product.
But if we are the product, can we sue for our share of the payout?

From the FTC's perspective, you're not the product, but your information is a business asset.

Your information would already go along with the business in any change of control or merger -- the privacy policy did not preclude that. And yes, your information has value in that context, just like any customer list, but you do not have any claim upon that value. You gave the business the right to use it in its business.

The FTC's perspective is that your information should not have independent value from the business as a separable asset. They're seeking to substantially enforce the promise in the privacy policy -- that the asset is tied to the business and its operations, and not freely alienable to anyone willing to pay for it.

Since only coprorations are now people and people are not people, we'll all have to form little corporations of course, in order ot get our due.

Forming a corporation won't save you from the consequences of your negotiating skills (or lack thereof).

No, I do not. People have families. People work jobs to pay for undergrad tuition. People transfer between schools. As for your "I have a right to know everything if they ask me for crowdfunding" approach - no. You have the right not to offer funds. The rest of us have the right to deem your request unreasonable given that, again, this was a baseline credential earned 20 years ago. Disclose your professional history for the past 28 years and I'll reconsider.