Wasnt there a SCOTUS ruling recently that ruled that agencies cannot enact their own rules, but can only enforce rules as laid out in law? And if Congress wanted the agency to enforce a rule, it should pass a law to that effect?

We all know that that was targeted at agencies like the EPA, FDA etc, to get rid of the agency-created limits on things, but it feels like it should equally apply here - the law says X, the agency cant change the law.

The big underlying issue is why does Microsoft deliver software with so many flaws?

I'd think that tractor tag-axle replacements could be a next logical step, even with no onboard batteries on the tractor and using an umbilical to the trailer's batteries, or else a small set of batteries in the truck, supplemented as needed by a large set of batteries on the trailer.

Plus this only blocks Youtubes adverts - these days you often have to wade through the content creators own ads, at least one for the “sponsor of this video”, and then at least one for the content creators own Patreon or equivalent merch site

Just timed a 9 minute video I was watching while browsing this story - 3 minutes of content creators ads, 6 minutes of content.

And theres no way around the content creators ads even if you do become a Patreon.

The whole process that split AT&T's System V and BSD should bear some weight here, at some point there was an agreement that, once BSD rewrote the few offending portions, AT&T had no claim anymore.

Frankly I'm surprised that the settlement between SCO and IBM didn't include verbiage that this was a done deal with no right for any successor-entity to bring this up again.

There are tons and tons of pathogens with high mortality rates without medical intervention. There are tons of pathogens that only see minimal death rates without active medical intervention because vaccination reduced the penetration that those pathogens have into the community and may have even forced evolution for increased transmissibility in lieu of virulence in order to spread at all.

I didn't get the feeling that the GP post was claiming it was valueless. I got the feeling that the concern was it would get out of the control of its creators, manage to mutate or evolve past a death in five generations, and become a threat to everything we know and love.

I would really prefer the other way around, invoking Windows containers for the few Windows apps that I am stuck running.

Just because someone is stupid doesn't mean that they aren't subject to specific protections under law.

Ernesto Miranda, for whom the Miranda Warning is named, was by accounts a terrible person. Miranda's conviction was thrown out on those technical grounds that his confession should not have been permitted, then he was retried and convicted of the crime without his confession as evidence. Once he was released from prison he died in a bar fight.

The point of protections are that they apply to everyone, guilty or innocent, and are supposed to regulate the way that the legal system all the way from the patrolman to the attorney general behave. That doesn't mean that criminals aren't still criminals, but it does mean that the government has to provide proper justification for its actions against persons. If someone really did commit a crime then the government should be able to show cause, and this keeps everyone else from being scrutinized when the government has no business scrutinizing.

I don't wonder what PJ is up to. I can't even remember the site name/URL that originally was covering that and had forums, but when the password restrictions because utterly freakin' stupid for a new aggregator and discussion forum I just stopped bothering to visit.