But they don't have any such thing. That's the crux of the suit. They present the authorization in such a way that the person believes they are authorizing one single payment. In fact, Google takes it as authorizing that payment and infinite more payments for the next 30 minutes. No meeting of the minds.

So all Google really has is a clear record that you authorized one single payment.

Here's your car analogy. You take your car in for an oil change. The mechanic says it will need a new air filter as well and that's going to be $15. You say OK, sign on the bottom line and go get lunch. When you get back you find that he has the engine out of the car and partially disassembled. He explains that he decided it needs a complete re-build and since you signed, you agreed to accept the additional $5000 cost. Can't imagine why you're complaining, that was clearly indicated on page 243 of the microdot affixed to the authorization form.

Perhaps "not expected to" would be a better phrasing, or even "are not yet developmentally capable of". Most adults ARE developmentally/neurologically capable of knowing the consequences of their actions even if they fail to utilize that capacity. For those adults with developmental challenges, they often do get special treatment.

Sometimes the animal adaptation proves to be a problem for us (and the animals). For example, not everyone is terribly happy that coyotes have adapted to suburban living. A lot of people aren't that happy that bears have adapted to food locked in small cars.

Really, we need to restore the understanding that if the law forbids something, it forbids paying someone else to do that thing. Murder is illegal, so it is also a crime to hire someone to commit murder. Government prying without a warrant is illegal, so buying the same information from someone else is just as illegal.

The NSA is not supposed to have any domestic operation at all. If they happen to capture a Citizens call at the foreign endpoint, that's one thing, but no call that stays in the U.S. should ever be seen by the NSA.

However, at this point, we would pretty much have to dismantle the NSA entirely and form it again to break their culture of lawlessness.

Oddly enough, once you remove the fluff, all you are left with is rounded corners and touch what you want.

No, those are something else entirely. The crimes happen when government agencies exceed their mandate or the limits of the Constitution. Of course, that puts the NSA firmly on the wrong side of the law here. I'm just waiting for the announcement that they are merging with the RBN. If they were at all honest, they would have struck the colors and hoisted the Jolly Roger by now.

Agreed 100%.

It is unfortunate that there is so much craptastic USB hardware out there. The sad part is how often it is decent(ish) hardware crippled by a terrible driver. Of course, it is sometimes crappy hardware papered over by the driver.

In a sense USB is a victim of it's own success. It was designed to allow for mass produced inexpensive interface chips. It allows for a lot of good and inexpensive hardware that just works, but it also allows for a lot of really cheap junk. Due to branding and market segmentation, it's hard to tell one from the other. The more expensive device might be better or it might just be over-priced. A lot of the no-name stuff is exactly the same as the premium branded stuff minus the expensive badge.

One thing USB did right was defining APIs for common device types. A surprising amount of USB hardware just works with the generic driver in Linux.

I wouldn't mind seeing an 'It just works' certification (optional, of course).

Because the hardware (which Apple had nothing to do with) wasn't really there yet. However (as I mentioned elsewhere) a few ATMs actually did implement it back when Apple was considered an also ran. Before that, it was in about half of all sci-fi movies (where they didn't have to worry about the hardware). It was occasionally faked up mechanically by printing the option on the button. A static form of it even appeared with those crappy membrane keyboards.

That's not actually an uncommon situation. Some idea is all over the place but nobody implements it because the underlying tech is just not up to the task yet. Then someone takes a small evolutionary step with that underlying tech and suddenly the idea is reality. Then some asshole tries to claim it was all theirs.

That's because there were a bunch of other equally obvious mechanisms. The industry was essentially trying them all. They were mostly just GUI analogs of real world objects of various sorts. It just turned out that the slide to unlock caught on as a fashion. Fashion is not patentable.

Apple did none of the work that made the touchscreen useful. The problem with touchscreens was bulk, cost, and resolution. Apple fixed none of those. What they did was incorporate the new and better displays (made by others) quickly into their products. They integrated it all into their OS. That's really cool, but product development is not patent worthy.

I remember some ATMs in the '80s with limited touchscreen capability. It showed a few options and you touched the one you want.

I have actually written a touchscreen driver. It's not as messy or complicated as you think it is. Unless your hardware is crap.

Perhaps not how it should work, but it is how it does work. Unless/until you are actually accused of infringing and hit up for money, you can't get the issue before the court at all.

How about if Apple just didn't sue the entire planet for rounded corners and touching the thing you want. You know, just have those bogus patents in a portfolio and only bringing it out when someone threatens to sue them.

They had that option. It works well for many.

Both are the problem. I can understand Apple having defensive patents, but they are using their patents offensively. They are actually pushing the button over and over. They are willfully abusing a system that is wide open to abuse. Both are at fault.

Practically all patents fail that one. There is actually a sub-specialty in patent law to describe an invention in such a way that you get the rubber stamp and can win in court but a person of average skill in the art will have no idea what you're describing, much less how it is done.