I believe the old saying is, "For every problem there is a solution that is simple, cheap and wrong"

Windows actually is a registered trademark for Microsoft. However, it's a registered trademark specifically in relation to computing and technology. Bear in mind that a trademark isn't granted on *any* use of the term, but with respect to specific industries (which was the bone of contention with the term "Apple" when Apple moved into the music distribution business and tried to throw its weight around in that industry). If Microsoft wanted to start up in the business of glazing - even say smart glazing - they'd have trouble asserting their Windows trademark in that area.

The problem with "Spectacles" isn't just that it's a word in common(ish) usage in English, it's that it's a common word relating to watch Snap are selling: eyewear.

I think you're putting "Passing on the right" - and the legality thereof - above the statement from the human testers "That was safe to do".

Legal and safe are by no means the same things.

Oh, you cannot be serious. You're agnostic about god, because god can't be defined? But it's not about evidence, it's about philosophy? Seriously?

The impossibility of defining "god" is a good reason to be agnostic? It's impossible to define "asdjfop". It's impossible to define because I just made up the word, and it has no meaning. I could pretend it had meaning, but I could then pretend that it was impossible to define its meaning. You must, therefore, be agnostic about "asdjfop" as you cannot define it.

It's not about evidence of "asdjfop", after all. It's about philosophy - specifically, the logical impossibility of knowing everything about existence.

Especially asdjfop.

Surely before trying to answer the question of whether god exists or not, it would be useful to define "god". Asking, "What evidence do we have against his existence" is a pointless question unless you first define what "he" is. And there we reach the first - and fatal - stumbling block. There is very little - if any - agreement between faiths, nor between people who ostensibly share the same faith, as to what "god" is.

So, a question: what precisely is it that you're agnostic about?

That's the future of books. Being able to share your thoughts about a book with other people all over the world reading the same book, at the same time.

Oh good god please, no! At the end of every page, will there be a "comment on this page" button, where everyone reading the book will stream their comments, and someone will - almost invariably - spoil the ending? That's settled it for me - definitely not getting an eBook.

Yeah, Adrian's creepy. He's creepy in the book too. It doesn't take much of reading the book to realise he's up to something, just as it didn't take much of seeing the film that he was up to something.

But did you *really* work out the extent of what he was up to just from that one scene?! Somehow, I very much doubt that (spoilers have already been declared, but *SPOILERS* anyway) from that one scene you not only worked out that Adrian killed the Comedian, but also why, and that the Comedian had planned on setting up Dr Manhattan as a man prepared to kill millions simply to prevent a nuclear war.

If you weren't suprised, you weren't paying attention. The film, until the ending, was rather true to the book. But the ending is different between the two. If you haven't read the book, I would recommend you do so before claiming you worked it all out so easily.