This is essentially a high-stakes gamble. The payout is potentially millions, so they just try whatever. And I bet if it all turns against them and they're forced to pay legal costs etc. they'll just file for bancruptsy.

Those parasites at SCO made a living litigating BULLSHIT claims on licenses they "acquired" I hope this is the last of it. They should have DiaF years ago.

Perfect illustration of the thinking problem here. You don't even get WHAT the problem is.

Why is a driver able to fuck up a system? The OS should be the watchdog that says "WTF are you doing there?", not the obedient slave executing whatever.

A great illustration is W^X - first found not in Windows, but in OpenBSD. Because Windows happily goes "whatever you say, master", while the guys at OpenBSD said "no actual use case of non-broken, non-malicious software should ever behave like that, so we'll block it".

If you are responsible for a sensitive location, and a five-year old kid from the neighbourhood one day just wanders in and take a look around out of curiosity, pressing a few buttons to see what happens - you would definitely not keep your job by claiming that the little kid is actually the problem here.

Would a properly installed firewall stop someone from accessing this via the IP?

Seems to me that is what firewalls are supposed to do - stop random people from accessing IP addresses on your network.

From my minimal web search it appears to me that:
1) the Plaintiff, Global Plasma Solutions appears to make an inferior product and make ridiculous claims for it.
2) The defendant, media company Elsevier published a poor quality review that made ridiculous and unsupported claim about the quality of the review.

In other words, two a-holes fighting.

Nods. Sadly, it's probably not enough to bankrupt them even if this company wins, but it's a good start.

I own a house 40 minutes outside of SF in the East bay. I lived there for years and loved the area. My parents aged out and retired in Yuma. I am the care giver for both. I rent my house out and live with Ye olde folks. The politics are weird in Cali but the atmosphere is awesome and there is so much to do. Cost is insane but if you can work in that market you can live outside the SF proper. I like where I am at now, but it is 3-5 hours for any sort of culture. Phoenix is 3 hours, San Diego is 3 hours, Vegas is 4.5 hours. I am going to see Alan Parson in Sept in Phoenix, and I 'll have to stay at a hotel rather than try and drive home that night.

WTF.. garbage statement. AI will NOT change math at ALL. It will hopefully extend math comprehension by a large margin, but I seriously doubt it "changes" any of the underlying supports. Maybe AI will suddenly discover new numbers ??

And you clowns don't think that your OS is a fragile pile of crap if it's that easy to fuck up?

Seriously? Do you even know what the job of an OS _is_ ?

Well Whoop-D-Dooo. NYC has 8.5 million people vs. SF at 850 K and they just FINALLY got more tech workers. NY would be one of the FEW places more expensive than SF. I can see the draw to NYC, but this seems like a hollow celebration.
  In the news NYC has more muggers than SF, and probably, maybe more homeless ?

Or...I've very personally seen and live with the resulting human destruction low life people can and will do to them selves and everyone around them. It is amazing, how you fully analyzed me from a paragraph. You must be a genius...or something. Live a while, watch the needless suffering caused by drugs and the morons who use them. If it hasn't touched you personally, be thankful and STFU about things you can't know unless you lived them.

Technically you are allowed to lie to MOST cops.

But there is a law that makes it illegal (5 years punishment) to lie to certain federal officials, as you referenced.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

This definitely applies to the FBI (lots of cases) and I think it applies to Border agents, but I am not as sure about that. So yes, the border agents that questions him should be able to charge him for lying.

EXCEPT:
The border agents claimed he was not entitled to a lawyer because he was legally not in the US until after he passed customs. He repeatedly asked for one.

If the court holds this to be true (unlikely) than he could argue he was not in their jurisdiction when they questioned him.

If the court says it was not true, then the courts will state anything he said cannot be used as evidence after he asked for a lawyer, including any lies he stated.

If that was what happened, you would be correct. But it is NOT what happened.He did not just try to refuse a search. He also specifically asked for a lawyer. While inside the physical US.

The border patrol stated and said that legally he was not inside the US and therefore did not have the right to a lawyer. They denied him one.

Which means either:

1) (Stupid argument in response to their stupid claim) They are correct and he was not inside the USA so the they did not have jurisdiction which means they cannot charge him with a crime for anything he did. US codes do not apply.

2) (Real argument) They denied him a lawyer when he was asked for one during a search, which means it was an ILLEGAL search and he had the legal right to destroy the evidence as they had no legal right to get it.

This is the actual argument his lawyer is already making.

Crank whores deserve whatever they get. Meth during pregnancy is the almost worst thing you can do. 2 decades in jail for ruining your child's life, and inflicting your forever needy child on society seems like she got off lightly.

You are right. A screen that does not replace physical controls is a nice thing.

And I agree. Any vehicle that doesn't have a proper dashboard in front of me, where I need to look to the side to see important information, is a no-buy for me.