I seriously think the people running Microsoft have completely lost their mind. Every one of their core consumer software products -- other than MS Office -- has turned into a lame iOS clone. Exactly why do they they people buy a smartphone, a laptop, a desktop, a tablet or a gaming console? Do they seriously think people want the same capabilities everywhere? I understand the idea, and in theory is quite elegant. But it's just not reality. It's like a cafeteria that serves up salisbury steak, corn, fruit medley, and chocolate pudding with RC Cola to drink every day for all three meals. Allergic to corn? Too bad. Vegetarian? Too bad. Want diet soda? Too bad. Want breakfast? Too bad. This is what our product does, and it does it exactly this way, and you have no choice and no options. It does everything our marketing team says you want, so if you want something else you must be doing something wrong. Honestly that would work just fine for most people I know that didn't grow up playing on computers and with video games. It seems unbelievably dense to try that now as first gen computer kids are in their 40s.

I think the final nail for the XBox One is the BS for playing used games, since this also means that you can't borrow games from your friends (unless, get this, *you* sign in on your friend's console and play under *your* profile). Couple that with the fact that it seriously damages the secondary market -- who doesn't know someone who recycles games they're done with into credit for the next game -- and there's very little incentive to choose the XBox One over the PS4.

[Emphasis mine]

Oh this generation is going to be fun.

I don't know if you realize this, but the subject line is where you enter a brief summary of the topic. It's not where you start typing the message.

For me it brings back memories of the cartridge-based Lotus 1-2-3 on the PCjr.

It's probably the only software for the PCjr I have that still works (other than the BASIC cartridge).

That doesn't mean the IRS has the authority to storm in on an unrelated search warrant and demand the information or summarily shut the healthcare facility down.

"We have can access to this information" is not the same as "we have a right to take it at any time we want in any manner we choose at any time we chose".

Nemesis was not really a Star Trek movie. It was just a movie with Star Trek actors in a Sci-Fi setting.

I like to think Nemesis was a holodeck malfunction: Shortly after the credits finish there should've been a scene where Data, Geordi (visored), Dr. Pulaski, and Wharf and a security team (dressed circa season 2) force open the doors of a deactivated and visually damaged holodeck to find a dead Tom Hardy dressed in standard issue command uniform. Dr. Pulaski checks him over, and looks a Wharf and shakes her head. Data taps his comm badge and says "Data to Picard. I'm sorry, sir. We were too late to save Lt. Shinzon."

I'll ask you since I'd like to know: I've heard that one of the most positive innovations for traffic lights is the inclusion of a "timer bar". A bar light along side the normal traffic signals indicates how long the single has until it changes. I've heard that the places it was tested vastly reduced the number of collisions and injuries. Is there any truth to that?

The "reason they haven't been implemented" is supposedly because they vastly reduce people running red lights while being significantly more expensive, and so vastly reduce red light camera revenue while raising operating costs. Having worked in a government office, I'm willing to believe that the "more expensive" portion alone was enough to make municipalities avoid them. I'm just curious if there's any truth to it.

Captain Hindsight says:
If you wanted Pluto to remain a planet you shouldn't have insisted we explore the solar system to find out why it behaves so weird.

I don't see why the court would ever do that in this case. The court doesn't give a rats ass why the executive branch has deemed Monsanto's plants patentable under the laws passed by the legislature (i.e., the Patent Office issued a patent in accordance with the law) and it's the legislative branch's job to change the law if the executive branch is doing something the people don't like. Since the legislature has done little more than add to the list of patentable plants (U.S. Plant Patent Act of 1930, U.S. Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970, amended in 1980 and 1994 to further restrict farmer and breeder rights) the court can't really argue that these type of patents are weak, untested, or even unusual. The laws in the US are not even significantly different than those in Europe, as most of the amendments above were made to bring US law in line with European under UPOV.

So, why is it the judicial branch's job to curb the patent office when the executive and legislative branches are ostensibly OK with the patent and laws (as is the international community) and there are no constitutional issues surrounding the case? The question before the court was "Does a patent right for self-replicating technology expire after an authorized sale?" and the answer was "No." If the answer were "yes" then you essentially couldn't patent plants, and given the body of law that explicitly says you can it seems unreasonable to think that the laws were made to be so pointless.

As usual, though, I encourage people to read the actual opinion of the court, which always explains things very well even if it ends up being very dense.

I am, however, laughing about this:

That's a horrible name for a lawyer, especially a corporate lawyer. I immediately think he looks like Snidely Whiplash.

There's also prions like those that cause mad cow disease. Those cannot be reasonably destroyed by cooking. Heat can denature them, but you have to heat them so high that the resulting food is inedible.

I've heard this before. Apparently in Africa there's a huge amount of resentment towards the starving people in Africa because they refuse to leave land that can obviously no longer support them, and then expect the government (or foreign governments) to save them.

Who would have thought that Sam Kinison was right?

Shit that means we're the product of summaries and articles? And God is the editor? I guess that actually explains a lot....

I felt the same way, but it was 3 months after initial release. I never felt compelled to play the game after the first few weeks. I felt obligated, and that made me feel disgusting. I had a six month initial subscription, and effectively stopped playing after the first 3 months.

I'm so glad I figured it out quickly.

And I'm sure their report will promptly be made available.

Shortly before the turn of the century, that is.

Thank you for providing such an accurate example of the kinds of things nerds would discuss about BattleStar Galactica.