Short story is that USPTO has stupid counterproductive performance metrics, so everyone games the system to look good by the metrics (we've all seen that before). Some managers recognize this and don't want to be assholes about time charging rules because of it, as long as employees are doing good work. Others get upset that the rules are being broken and assume it is blatant time card fraud, and blew the whistle to the news outlets.
It doesn't decrease the incentive to produce software nearly as much as the threat of being sued for violating patents that never should have been granted. There's plenty of software out there that attracts customers by being good and doesn't need the threat of patents to succeed.
The contract terms will only work against actual customers, though. They won't do a thing to stop an enemy or prankster who hasn't actually bought the product or service, and consequently hasn't entered into the contract. All it will do is prevent people who are actually well informed from commenting.
They are evaluating different technologiess, some of which are implemented on and affect a single phone, others implemented with hardware in the car and affect all phones in the car. But even if it disables all phones in the entire car, I am completely fine with this. Yes it is inconvient, but it's not like it is being required as standard equipment on all cars all the time. It is only being applied to cars of people who broke the law and put others around them at risk. You want to keep using your phone when you are riding with a friend/spouse; then give them shit about texting while they are driving.
How they've managed to make so many people believe that's the way coffee is supposed to taste is something I'll never know.
The best explanation I've heard is that darker roasts stand up better when you add stuff to the coffee. If you drink your coffee black, you probably want a mild roast or it will be too bitter to drink. If you dilute it with a bunch of milk, flavored syrup, and maybe drink it cold, you won't be able to taste the coffee unless it's roasted almost black.
That simply isn't true. The 4th Amendment says that:
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
IOW, they can ask for a warrant when they have a strong reason to believe that something contains evidence; they don't have to be absolutely certain. That's what "probable cause" means: enough evidence to convince a skeptical individual that something is probably true. It's a fairly strong standard- the person asking for a warrant needs to present some kind of evidence rather than just a hunch- but it doesn't demand certainty. That's why people who ask for warrants are not routinely punished when the warrants don't pan out; they only get in trouble if it can be shown that they materially misrepresented facts they used to support their warrant request.
Without student loans, colleges would only be able to charge what the market can bear. No entity can violate this ironclad law of economics. If families can't pay the amount of tuition that you charge, you're not getting that amount of tuition, period. Loan availability increases the amount that families can afford to pay. In principle, there is nothing wrong with this idea, and in fact if the free market were allowed to determine loan availability, the system as a whole would quickly converge onto the optimal amount of loan availability. Under this hypothetical free-market scenario, banks wishing to make student loans would have to vet their students properly and make sure with reasonable confidence that they will be repaid. If the free market were at work, there would be a natural market-based limit on the amount of loan money available, simply because not every student is going to represent a good investment.
Unfortunately, what we have right now in the student loan market is not even close to a free market. The dominant lender is the government, and even in the case of privately held student loans, the laws and regulations governing student loans are highly and artificially favorable to the lenders. To give just a few examples, unlike any other form of loan, student loans (including private loans) can almost never be discharged in bankruptcy; cannot expire from statute of limitations; allow the lender to garnish wages, tax refunds, social security, and disability payments without a court order; and repayment is guaranteed by the government, even if the borrower defaults (but the lender can still pursue the borrower for repayment even after the government makes them whole). The result of such amazingly biased and favorable laws is exactly what you would expect: lenders throw money at students far out of proportion to the actual amount of money that it would make economic sense for them to lend under ordinary circumstances. Having this much money supply available in the system is then the primary factor that enables and allows ridiculous increases in tuition.
I don't have school age children yet, but I will soon. I have no intention of taking out loans or making them take out loans, no matter how hard it is to achieve this goal. I would love to compete on a level playing field with other similarly responsible parents, but unfortunately I'm not going to have that chance. Instead I'm going to have to compete with irresponsible borrowers who have borrowed way more money than anything that remotely makes sense for them to borrow.
You're thinking about the 4th Amendment right to avoid unreasonable searches and seizures, but cyborg implants potentially invoke the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. If the implant is actually a part of the person, some lawyer will argue that forcing the person to divulge the information on it is forcing them to testify against themself. When does the information in the cyborg implant stop being like information on a device like a phone and start being like information in your brain?