I get 550+ miles out of my BMW 740iL. It is old too. Of course, well, the tank is 27 US gallons.

I seem to recall Bond doing it first though it is a feature on the HMMV IIRC.

Probably because YouTube has the money to defend themselves in court. I also wonder when they'll start charging knife dealers for armed robbery.

I once told a (now ex) girlfriend this, "You know, sometimes your mother makes me think homicidal thoughts."

I was arrested for "Terrorizing."

I took the plea agreement so I'm unable to remark on the laws themselves and that's about all the information I have. The agreement bundled it into a bunch of other charges and was well worth it in my opinion as I was certainly guilty of the rest.

Or he is only 30+ years old and hasn't seen any in his life. It could be their way of saying that.

If I had initiative I'd start a company having to do with GINA in Virginia and make a unique business name. Yes, yes I am three and have no real point other than that.

If they hesitate use that lull in the conversation to assert that you do so, regularly, with his wife. It won't win the argument but it will be hilarious which, really, is all that matters because life is short and we all need a black eye at some point.

I don't think your comment is true though maybe I know a different class of people. Do you have a citation for this? Do you have any evidence suggesting that we want, collectively as it is my road too, our privacy eroded for your inability to accept the risks inherent in a free society?

How much say do you get? I'm almost certain I pay more in taxes, specifically in road taxes, than you so do I get two votes to your one?

Anyhow, provide proof that this is what we want on our public road or take your cowardice on out of here and lets let the adults decide what to do with their property. Mmkay?

It would have been simpler if you just said you don't understand and you don't understand copyrights and haven't a clue what you're on about. That would have saved us some time. It would have been honest, too.

(No, it isn't copyright.)

They need the code to access the site to submit, grade, and record their work. The use is only good for the duration of the class. You *CAN* buy the books cheap. You can even buy them used. What you can't do is buy the CODE for the website because it was good for only one use. You can buy a used book and a new code.

Copyright, again, has nothing at all to do with this other than you're incorrect zealotry assuming that it has. This isn't a difficult thing to grasp so I'm forced to conclude that you're a fucking idiot which is shameful. With your low user ID you'd think that we'd have taught you a few things by now but it appears that is a mistaken assumption on my part, a failure on our part, or just an impossible task.

I, unlike you, will accept my failings and admit them. What I should have been doing all these past years is babysitting you to remind you that you're not smart enough to speak without doing some thinking and research before typing. Now, try again, and next time it will be $80 for the online course work.

Access to the book != access to the online content which is enabled by the code and tied to an individual user but you knew that, didn't you?

I'm not a fan of laws, I view each law as a limitation of freedom and think we have more than enough laws already. I realize that that's a simplistic view and that things change and new laws will always be required.

I don't think I'd mind too much (though I'd prefer if it were a standard voluntarily followed instead of a law) that **IF** a manufacturer or direct vendor is going to allow user posted online reviews on their site then they should be required or recommended (say for maintaining membership in a BBB or similar organization or for something like 9002 ISO certification or something similar) that verified users of the product who follow certain standards of decorum should not be censored or edited by the company or on the company's behalf.

Wow that is an unwieldy sentence.

Basically... I'd prefer it be for certification purposes or similar but wouldn't be entirely pissed off by a law that:

IF the company allows reviews...
AND the user is a verified user...
AND the user follows language and readability standards...
AND the user submits a review for inclusion on their site...

The company should not edit it.
The company should post it regardless of the rating.
The company should not have it edited on their behalf.
The company should not attempt to get the user to alter their review.

For inclusion I'd add:

The user is limited to a single review per product per some arbitrary period of time.
The user is limited in the amount of time during which they can make said initial review.
The user is required to have owned/used the product for some arbitrary period of time before reviewing it.
The only reviews that would be covered by this would be from people who can demonstrate an ability to judge the product.
The company should be able to fix the issue and the user can leave an updated review.
The initial review would not be deleted even in the case of the above happening.

Obviously refining would be needed to prevent cheating or dishonesty by either party. People paid for reviews, professional reviews from journalists, and reviews posted by affiliates or those who may benefit directly or indirectly should certainly be allowed but should be disclosed clearly as such if not labeled as advertisements.

I'm not a huge fan of laws but this one wouldn't make me gnash my teeth, rend my clothing, nor cover myself in sackcloth. I'd much rather it be required for inclusion in professional groups, ISO certifications, chambers of commerce, etc... That seems far more reasonable to me than a law. I realize that it isn't perfect but I think it would help. Censoring reviews, while perfectly understandable, is sleazy. I get that a company wants to protect its image and that negative reviews aren't good but it just reeks of dishonesty, shady business, and is absurd.

Anyhow, those are my thoughts on the subject I suppose. I've pondered this before. While it is funny to read some of the reviews on Amazon, I sometimes feel bad for the company. I also don't really think it is valuable (or valid) to have someone who is clearly out of their league writing pissed off reviews simply because the product (otherwise good by all rights) didn't do what they were expecting. I, for example, have no business writing a scathing review about how Photoshop is too difficult to use because I have absolutely no skills or experience to decide that. Biasing people based on my ignorance or incompetence is bad and protecting the business is just as valid (in this case) as it is protecting the consumer.

I don't believe patents work that way.

You can make an exact replica of most anything you want. What you can't do is SELL it. You can make a "2012 Ford Mustang" in your garage, complete with ECU and everything.

What you can't do is sell it.

You can make your own iPad, you can even round the corners and include the logo. You can even install the OS and have it be identical in every way. You'll still not have violated patent laws until you market it.

In some of those cases there's some nasty DRM laws that may get you in trouble but that hasn't anything to do with patents.

Now, I could be mistaken but I'm pretty sure I'm not and I'm pretty sure you're mistaken and that you're not alone on that. A lot of people think that. A lot of people think you have to file, put a symbol, and include a date (and update it) for copyright too - that is also incorrect.

Patents are public knowledge, you can use any of them in your own private project. You can't market them.

Trademarks a whole different entity, more like copyright that people think copyright is (when it isn't - copyright laws were changed a long time ago) and, again, you can't use them without permission if you're going to market them. I'm a little unsure of this one - but I'm pretty sure and too lazy to check which means I'm likely correct - but you can use a trademark without permission at any time you want for your own personal use. I can put the Nike "Swoosh" on my boat shoes if I want.

Copyright, actually is way confusing, but is created on creation and is assumed from the start. Registering copyrighted works is only valuable if you expect to recoup losses of a certain type.

Again, just so you know, if you want to use something and there's a patent then you're free to do so without fear so long as you don't market it. The minute you market it, or even insinuate it, or even have it somehow associated with a profitable venture I'd recommend both not doing it and getting a lawyer. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from creating your own Windows 8 operating system - complete with logo - for personal use. There is no legal recourse either.

However, if you then use that OS to sell or even use it in your office where you perform profitable activities I'd get a lawyer or ten. The first one is certainly going to get you in trouble and the second one just might but I'm not entirely clear on that.

Also, you don't "lose" a copyright like you can a trademark. Yes, we all blow our nose on a Kleenex but you can't just bang out a rehash of Never Gonna Give You Up. I include that just because the subjects are often intertwined and there is a lot of confusion.

If I'm mistaken then I'm sure someone will be along but I don't believe I am. You can use the patent library and build yourself a whole bunch of awesome and there's not a damned thing the lawyers can do. To say so is silly and is nothing less than FUD. Which leads to this...

I'm going to assume it was a mistake based on ignorance but that doesn't speak very well for you. I'm going to assume you just didn't know better but you made an attempt to speak authoritatively on the subject, as in you presented a clear and precise statement that is patently (pun intended) false.

Now, my question is, why did you say that? You stated, clearly, that making "your own computer" would be prevented by an "army of patent lawyers" which is false. Even if they did send you a letter there's no judge out there that's going to accept the case. There is no case to be had so long as it is "your own computer" (which is pretty clearly established in the text).

I guess I can understand that some folk wouldn't know this BUT there are a few things strange about this.

Your comment is moderated as being insightful.

Your comment is not correct.

The reason I know your comment is incorrect is because it is an often discussed topic here on Slashdot.

In other words, I learned (from here) more about patents than I'd needed to know and I learned that you can ignore them for personal use as they only restrict commercial applications. It is so commonly discussed that I, of all people, learned this from this site specifically. You made a statement that is clearly not in agreement with the many times this has been discussed for some reason. Someone has come along and moderated it as an insightful comment which lends weight to it as if your comment is correct when, unless the many times it has been cited, demonstrated, and discussed are all mistakes, is just absurd.

So, again, why? Why did you say this, who is supposed to benefit from this?

I *could* be mistaken but I've read a few of the citations when this topic has come up before. If I'm mistaken then I offer my most sincere apologies but I'm pretty sure that patent licensing isn't required for anything but commercial (or distributed) goods in all but a handful of countries and you insinuate typical as opposed to the rare exception.

So, again, why? I'm mostly curious as to your motivations, please don't take it personal. I am assuming that you've never read a single patent thread on Slashdot before, completely ignored any conversation about patents ever, and are just mistaken but it's actually simpler to believe you have some axe to grind, some bias that allows you to ignore reality, etc... In other words, I'm assuming the best that I can (that you're ignorant OR that I'm mistaken) but neither of those makes sense. The only thing I can think of that makes more sense is that you have some sort of objective...

I realize that's not very nice but, well... Yeah, why?

Let me say that I am NOT a fan of the walled garden... I feel that this needs to be made clear. However, I fear the remainder of this may not be as clear. It is difficult for me to put the entirety of the thought process into a short post I suspect as there is much to be covered and I make it a point to assume nothing as a base level of understanding/agreement/education/civility/openness when having an online conversation. To be frank, history and personal experience (no offense intended) have shown me that assuming the commenter has an even basic grasp of logic is risky. I don't direct that at you personally but wish to make it clear and give the reason for the length and, oddly, lack of depth. (See? There's an example of that right there. I can already tell this will be a longer post than I'd hoped.)

Now what if, we just suppose that your analogy was taken a step further and this internet moniker of "information superhighway" means something. If that too is true and if the internet is a public resource (both of which are fairly difficult to argue against) then your argument begins to fall apart.

I don't support such legislation BUT I'd understand the pressures in place to support it. Let's say that this public resource needed protecting from idiots who can't maintain a secure computer without the walled garden approach... Where are we then?

Basically, you are presenting an argument that could easily be for forcing walled gardens onto all computers that access the internet. Malware infected devices cause problems and propagate. A walled garden can be a very effective tool to ensure the security of the devices connected to the public space.

I could EASILY see laws proposed that attempted to enforce that all computers accessing the internet (which is one of the major features of the items being discussed so exceptions do exist but are pointless for this conversation and will surely remain available for the foreseeable future) be at a certain level of expected security and because we humans seem incapable or unwilling to learn precautions the walled garden is the most effective solution at this time and thus may be a portion of this mythical law.

We have, to use your analogy, certain behaviors and certain equipment standards that must be maintained to legally operate a vehicle on a public way. The precedent has been set and your 'argument' is actually in favor of this.

As you say, if you want to drive around like a madman you're free to do so on your private property (maybe, there are some exceptions surely). However, the devices sold are being sold not for use in your back yard but for cruising down the information superhighway. (Yes, I did feel dirty typing that.) In much the same way, these devices are being sold with these restrictions in place. Just as you can modify your car and tool about in your backyard with little regard for your emissions or speed you can modify your device to install all the malware you want. Someone will be along to help you do it if you're incapable of doing it on your own actually.

The restrictions aren't something you can't overcome just like you can modify your Honda to handle your backyard demolition derby.

And that, my good sir, is likely where the argument is going to go. I'm all in favor of keeping devices open and the risks of being infected high - it helps keep some of my best friends employed and makes the 'net a more interesting place. The company, as you insinuated, isn't saying that you can't do those things - they're saying that the device isn't meant to do those things, that they won't support or warranty your device if you do those things, and that if you want to utilize their additional services then you won't do those things.

What I find more frightening and concerning is that we're moving backwards even though our compute cycles are insanely cheap now yet we're moving towards dumb terminals and centralized computing and storage. I find that a lot more worrisome than having to sideload an app onto my iPod or rooting an Android device. Also, as near as I can tell (I've not yet tried it) there's no plan in the works that actually will restrict you from installing applications from alternate sources with Windows 8 though I suppose the phone version may be a bit different but, that too, I suspect will eventually have sideloading and may even have a button to allow it just like you have on your Android phones.

Again, I don't support the idea of walled gardens in general and prefer the freedom to screw up royally more than I value the illusion of safety. I do, however, believe you're being (at least) dishonest with yourself and your complaints are thin and largely unfounded. Hell, I haven't looked but I'm pretty sure I can even root my Nook if I wanted to. The walled garden isn't anything of the sort, it is only that if you want to limit yourself to remaining in the good graces of the company that sold you the product and I distinctly recall that not being of great import around here. I can't see why that would change, we're geeks - hacking around restrictions is what we do. Well, it is what we do when we're not busy finding things to complain about.

There's a lot more to add and to be said on the subject and I'm moderately interested but this is long enough and I'd rather not write a novella at this ungodly hour of the morning. Perhaps the topic will come up again when I'm good and drunk and value my time less while simultaneously believing my opinion is more important? Let's both have some hope that the timing will never be right for that. ;)

I like to point out the degradation of society since they let women vote.

It helps me figure out those who don't understand the difference between correlation and causation. It also helps me figure out which one it was that brought the shitty beer though that is another topic for another day.

For whom? /votes third party almost exclusively