The court has already decided many of the claims against SCO including copyrights and ownership. The claim in this order was about tortious interference: Did IBM, by hardening Linux and porting code over to Linux, maliciously interfere with SCO's customers and business relationships?
Like many of SCO claims, the tortious interference were ambiguous and ever changing and lacked any detail. The number of parties that SCO alleged that IBM had caused interference changed by the month despite IBM asking repeatedly (and the court ordering SCO to respond repeatedly) to name the parties and the detail the interference. It was as low as 3 and as high as 150 with 150 being a number that SCO only claimed because one IBM email mentioned that it had 150 new customers on Linux.
Similarily to other claims, SCO brought almost no evidence to the case despite years of discovery. In fact it was often contradicted by indisputable evidence that IBM brought. For example, SCO claims that IBM damaged SCO's Unix by communicating to their third parties like their investor, Baystar, that IBM was supporting Linux and that the third parties should abandon Unix. Almost all customers third parties swore to the court that they never had communications with IBM on the topic. The only party that acknowledged it had any discussions with IBM was Hewlett-Packard and they testified that the discussion did not change their relationship with SCO so there was no damage.
The theory that SCO offered as motivation was that IBM wanted to damage SCO by hardening Linux and porting Unix code. Former SCO employees testified against SCO in that they did not believe damaging SCO was ever the motivation for supporting Linux. Their analysis was that IBM was competing against the likes of Sun and Microsoft by offering a cheaper Unix-like OS on cheaper Intel hardware that was nearly as good or better than Unix.
There are still a few claims left but at this point the pattern keeps repeating: SCO loses on summary judgements because they never had a case.
You've got it basically backwards.
Making a nuclear weapon is basically about doing some math, and having the materials of enough purity. Making a thermonuclear weapons takes a whole lot more work, and a whole lot more effort and time. And then you end up with something the size of a building, which is only good for vaporizing the island that the building is sitting on.
Then, after spending an ungodly amount of money and supercomputing time, can you then shrink your warhead down to something that is what in the US arsenal is referred to as "modern".
Yes, you're right, the first fission detonation was in 1945. But in 1965 the US Air Force's main ICBM was the Titan II missile, which was optionally used to launch a Gemini capsule with two people in it into orbit, because the US nuclear missile force still required something that could put 8200 pounds into a 10,000 km suborbital trajectory. The Titan-II was still in use as an operational ICBM until Ronald Reagan retired it in 1981, and used a W53 warhead / Mark-6 reentry vehicle weighing in just under that.
The smaller warheads available to the US Military which enabled the idea of MIRV was brought about by a few different things: massive increases in computing power, the idea that big-dick multi-megaton bombs just didn't do as much destruction as a few smaller, more reliable warheads, guided by new inertial guidance systems that didn't exist in the early days of nuclear missiles.
But it still took untold billions for the US to finally arrive at the W88 warhead which "probably" weighs less than 800 pounds, and still carrying a yield estimated at 475kt.
Of course not, he is the real world Iron Man, while Tony Stark is the Marvel Universe Iron Man. You see, not the same person, just a universe crossover. Happens all the time in comics.
My neighborhood does not have center markings on the access road. Some jerk off in a huge bro-truck just about tore the front end off my car by cutting a left turn 90 degree corner in a road.
A center line would help him keep that pig in his lane, rather than trying to set off my airbags.
And if the full cost of taking a train was included in what you pay at the fare box, the trains would run empty.
Yes, roads and highways are expensive. So are $300M/mile light rail lines that aren't even sold to the public as mass transit anymore, but rather as value enhancement for property owners. You see, they're turning yet another negative about rail transit into a positive - once the tracks are set, they can't be moved to meet demand like a bus can.
The Federal Highway speed limit is 55, but states have increased it within their borders to as high as 80 depending on the state.
Most states use 65 or 70 MPH outside urban areas on modern highways.
Then don't make the advertising on your site intrusive, and abusive.
Ads have been on the Internet for 15 years now, we're willing to accept some advertising. But if you go overboard, we'll find ways to make it go the fuck away. The rise of ad blockers can be correlated with the rise of in-your-face pop-over infuriating advertising. I know the bills have to be paid, but stop throwing it up in my face covering the content.
You've got nobody to blame but yourself. Think of ad blocker software as the DVR 30 second skip button of the Internet. It exists purely as a reaction to content providers going over the line a few too many times.