Best Buy used to have a warranty where the paid you back exactly what you paid for the device. So if your brand new original XBox that you paid $300 +tax for broke after 23 months they would give you $300 +tax and you could turn around and buy a brand new one for $200 +tax - since the price dropped by $100 after 2 years. Warranty return was no questions asked return for any reason and get handed a Best Buy gift card right there. How is this not a good deal?

Bit Coin works even if there are no "firms" to issue or exchange. Therefore, there is no one to regulate.

Everyone has overly complex ideas on how to reform the patent system. Why not simply leave it alone and reform the system that allows people to sue when someone violates their patent.
In step 1 of the defense, the defendant provides prior art, claims of obviousness... to the Patent Office who then determines if the patent is still valid. The Patent Office (who are the experts, not the courts) judge if the patent is still valid based on all evidence.
After that if it still goes to court then loser pays attorney fees. No fees are paid before step 1 - so both sides get to hear the arguments before going to court. Plaintiff doesn't get punished with paying legal fees for simply not being aware of prior art. Defendant doesn't pay legal fees until they lose their appeal with the Patent Office and still decide to continue to fight. If the Patent is stuck down in step 1, then the Patent is void. It does not just apply to this single case.

Not all software patents cover a couple lines of code. Some represent man-decades of effort. Am I expected to first come up with my idea, then write the software, then apply for a patent and then wait 18 months (time from application to publication) to determine if someone else filed before me and that everything I have done is wasted. Do you really expect me to file the patent when the code is complete - giving someone else who does a half-assed implementation a couple year head start? Or let someone else get the patent when they came up with the same idea the same time as me (5 years ago) but filed 1 day before me. I'm not talking rounded buttons here. Think video compression algorithms, advanced image processing, recognition algorithms...

The site displays the source and destination IP of each attack. Doesn't this give the attackers the list of IPs of the Security VMs they should avoid? Maybe they change the IPs regularly?

Or maybe find a non 20-something that can program Java. They do exist and are more likely to stick around. They might even require less training. From TFA, it sounds like the CIO created his own problems by treating the web/java development team differently:

Question:

Best explanation I ever heard was that without Network Neutrality, our home internet could become just like our mobile internet. It would take a while to get there, but given the limited number of providers in each city it is possible. We really can move backwards. I don't buy the "alternate vendor" argument. Most cities have only 1 or 2 viable options.
You want chat with your internet. That's $5/month. You want email, voice mail, VOIP, games, NFL games, Blockbuster Streaming... That's extra. You want Netflix streaming. You can't have it. We don't have an agreement with them.
Most people talk about Network Neutrality as if it is giving preferential speed to one site over another. It can be much worse. We saw what happened when torrents (legal or illegal) were deemed to cause most of their network load. They tried blocking them. My provider blocks the standard SMTP port just in case my computer is a SPAM BOT. How soon before they deem that streaming movies are responsible for 50% of their bandwidth (and are a direct competitor with their own Cable TV offerings) and they block streaming video to "improve quality" for those poor customers who have their bandwidth unjustly stolen from those few who watch TV shows on their computer.

Probably because they can alter the LCD screen from R + G + B to a R + G + B + UV - just a 4th wavelength for the monitor to handle - kind of like Sharp's RGBY TVs. Then the visible + UV light emitted by the backlight through the LCD panel is what changes the surface of the monitor. You don't need to run wires to every pixel in the monitor - wires that would be on top of the touchscreen and on top of the LCD panel.

Hiding the wires to control the shape isn't an unsolvable problem. Touchscreen monitors have the same issue. There will be other methods of changing the shape of a display, but this is the method Microsoft came up with - which is why Microsoft got a patent on an obvious feature. The patent is for the method of achieving this feature, not just making a shape shifting display. Tying the shape of the display to the existing video display technologies simplifies some things and has its advantages and is worth a patent.