Its worse than that. When monsanto's "patented" pollen contaminate non GMO plants, the offpring is suddenly monsanto's property.
As I understand patent law, as it stands now, a patent holder can sue *anyone* who is involved in patent violation. That includes end users who by a disputed wi-fi router. There appears to be no limitation.
As this is the OED, and you are quoting HHG another British work, the line was 'torch' not flashlight.
Making the argument about Card based on a straw man of what are now cultural anachronisms isn't valid. Lets go with what stupid things hes espoused based on his 'belief'
"How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn"
Thats right kids, he wants to *destroy* a govt that doesn't conform to his opinions on how that govt should oppress others.
So if I parse your logic here, if someone believes it to be sacred *in the present*, then classifying it as being equal to other passe religious material is bigotry?
I then ask is it 'bigotry' to merely claim it to be untrue? If so, they asserting any other 'sacred' belief of anyone, at any time, to be untrue is also bigotry.
Is this the new tack taken against atheists (presumably by apologists), calling then brave, sardonically?
Just because you have a democratically elected govt does not mean that their actions are in the spirit of or advance the cause of democracy.
My experience is this:
1) High level person talks to middle IT (and usually incompetent IT manager) about a bunch of buzzwords they read in an in-flight magazine
2) IT middle manager doesn't bother to say (or know) that buzzword won't work or is inappropriate for location.
3) Peons who actually work on the stuff tell MM all the issues, and as he doesn't understand plows forward anyway.
4) Bid gets put out and approved because its buzzword capable, and its what was the requested specifications.
5) Thing of dubious value gets installed ( or not)
6*) [Bonus!] actual needs aren't met because there no money left becuase of shiny new toy that makes upper level ppl happy that they are "cloud enabled"
How on earth does Piriforms ToS have any bearing on a 3rd party item. Pirifrom doesn't own it, and BleachBit doesn't use CCleaner as a module. I think someone over at Piriform needs a good swift kick in the head about what words mean.
This case should be tossed. Has anyone thought how much this would cost Valve and the game studios to implement? Doing this correctly would be seriously expensive, and there is no scenario here where it doesn't result in driving up the costs of games on Valve just to benefit a tiny fraction of the user base.
Once again, a consumer protection agency driving up the costs for consumers.
Who wins? A handful of cheapskates get $10 for their used game, and bunch of lawyers make $ millions.
More like greedy media ruining the planet. They claim they dont sell you a product but only a "license". But that license isn't something you own either, as you can't sell it or transfer it or even use in a manner you want to. The system is more like a 'rental at our indulgence, you dirty potential thief'
I suspect that Valve will effectively kick this up stream. Even if they choose do make this feature available with their games, they don't control the licensing restrictions laid down by the publishers/devs/studios.
Well you might ask someone for a link to the newspapers for their own policy, but someone would have to pay to give it to you.
It seems of all the folks who want to do TVIP, only Google seems to be taking any action on the sorry ass state of US broadband. The telecomms sure arent. They are in the game of eating taxpayer subsides while lobbying for metered data and data caps. Cable TV has woefully failed at a la carte, instead is a force-fed smorgasbord of rotten tripe, most of which any individual doesn't want.
I just don't know what will be the tipping point for something to change, will it be when watching tv will become too expensive to do for typical family?
So I'm going to jump into this mostly blind, as the comments on Linus are the top ones and the comment on the actual issue isnt.
Saying that, lets say hypothetically that the patch actually implemented 'correct' behavior that induced a failure of an app either miswritten, or written to work around the previous wrong behavior... who should be getting chewed out? Presumably, if its a fix that is correct then someone should ping the upstream app dev. If they don't respond do you then add an exception for one bad app, or let it remain broken?