Unless a bankruptcy court or the receiver can terminate the license (as a contract entered into by a non-bankrupt entity). Apparently this is an issue in Germany at least; there have been some attempts to make an exception for open source licenses, but I don't believe those have been successful yet.
As I understand it (I am not a lawyer), under US bankruptcy law the same holds: IP licenses are typically "executory contracts" (there are continuing obligations on both sides) and can be either assumed or rejected (terminated) by the trustee with court approval. A licensee would be able to sue for monetary damages, but not to continue the license. It might be possible to argue that a particular free software license doesn't meet the criteria to be an executory contract, but I have no idea how likely it would be for a court to accept such an argument.
It shall not be a violation of this section to circumvent a technological measure in connection with a work protected under this title if the purpose of such circumvention is to engage in a use that is not an infringement of copyright under this title.
Circumventing an access control measure was never (by itself) an "infringement of copyright": It is a separate offense created by the DMCA.
"I don't think the U.S. government even realized how far it had spread,"
who's the numbnuts who thought it would be a great idea to make this information available to anyone who asks for it?
Changing the color of a link you've visited has been around forever. Changing the style of a link you've visited to one that can send information back to the server eg "background-image:url(/visited.pl?site=slashdot)", that's newer.
Sorry but I don't think I fully understand how that relates to this story. Would you elaborate please? What you describe there sounds like a re-implementation of so-called "http ping."
By putting this CSS under an a:visited selector, they only get the ping if the link points to a URL you have visited. Though they can't get your entire history list, they can query whether (your browser thinks) you've been to a specific page.
You're right. According to that document (p. 4, about halfway down), the machine draws 1.6 to 2.7 W (depending on model) in standby; 1.5 to 2.1 W in soft-off with wake-on-LAN enabled; and no power in soft-off with wake-on-LAN disabled ("wake up power button only"). So the article is simply wrong when it says the computer is "able to use no power while in standby mode", unless they're redefining "standby" to mean S5 rather than S3.
It may simply be that, when WOL is disabled, shutting down the machine puts it into "mechanical off" rather than "soft off"—just like in pre-ATX PCs.
grep me no patterns and I'll tell you no lines.