In this case I don't see that it did anything wrong.

But IBM is still evil. SCO just sucks.

There are Linux alternatives. LibreCAD is not bad.

I have discovered the reverse. I have an old Deskjet 460 that no longer has Windows drivers, but works just fine in all the Linux distros I have tried.

Sometimes Linux is a good option for hardware that has been orphaned in Windows.

Many times in the past I have run into issues with PowerPoint files ... in PowerPoint. More specifically, details of slides I agonized over not storing and reloading correctly. Same with some Word files, on occasion.

Some Windows programs aren't even compatible with themselves.

Not emacs? [*shrug*]

True perhaps, but that's not an "opposite" problem. It's a different kind of problem.

The current discussion is about apps, not repositories. And I daresay Windows does not have the opposite problem when it comes to apps. Many Linux apps are ported to Windows. I don't think you see the reverse nearly as often.

You left out the obvious one:

"The law that supports these cameras is unjust, and that's why I'm challenging it."

There are rare -- extremely rare -- times in history when a citizen has challenged an unjust law, and may not have won in court, but succeeded in effecting change. Rosa Parks refusing to sit at the back of the bus is perhaps a canonical example.

Someone who follows this strategy must be prepared to face the consequences if they lose. But they may be celebrated as a hero. Or may not.

The satellite bounce(s?) is not the only source of latency. Consider also all the ground links between the subscriber and the servers.

Altogether, the slightly higher orbits for Amazon Leo won't matter that much.

Obviously I meant SCOTUS, not POTUS. Sorry.

Wow. Poe's Law is strong on this AC post.

So, Trump is a king. No more pretense?

You mean, oh say, Congress and SCOTUS? (*) Co-equal branches of the US government? Those other people?

(*) Yeah I know, these days they support him more often than they obstruct him.

Uh ... no, because (1) the USA is not currently in a war declared by Congress, so nobody can be convicted of treason; and (2) pushing back on what the President does is the job of Congress and POTUS -- it is not treason in any way.

Shift debt onto the public? How does that work exactly?

Owning stock in a company that is in debt does not make the stockholder in debt. It just means the investment is at risk if the company can't pay off the loan.

For the record, I'm against the government having a position in OpenAI, or any other AI company. At this time, there is no need to rescue the industry, or to have a strategic stake in it.

It's worth remembering something about Nixon: we have the tapes. He incriminated himself in his own voice, by committing obstruction of justice.

Now, I'd like to hear whether the current administration considers obstruction of justice to be a core act of the presidency (with absolute immunity) or an official act (with presumed immunity). On second thought, never mind, maybe I don't need to hear it.

Thank you for making my case for me. Railroads did not just do whatever they wanted. Sometimes they were challenged in court. Sometimes they won. Sometimes they lost. The point is that they didn't just do whatever they wanted with no push-back.

But you appear to claim Musk is the only one who should decide what to do with space because "it's his money." I disagree. I expect that he will need regulatory approvals, and must comply with space treaties. He may even be challenged in court. And if he is, he'll need a stronger defense than just saying "it's my money."

As for airlines, they can't just do whatever they want either. They need to file flight plans, get approval for routes, negotiate with countries for landing privileges, and so on. Your retort about planes flying over someone's house is a strawman. "People" does not just mean individuals. It also means the governments that represent their interests. Including the nuisance of planes flying over their houses. Airports have curfews for that very reason.

Non sequitur. None of your examples were ever thought to be "stupid." Maybe controversial for a time, but not stupid.

Science advances through speculation followed by verification with experiment/observation. There are no "stupid" ideas in science, just wrong ones. And they get discarded.

Free to do whatever you want, as long as it does not impact others negatively. And launching a million satellites into earth-orbit space is likely to do just that. It's several orders of magnitude beyond the number of active satellites currently there. People shouldn't be allowed to just go ahead and do such things without compliance with regulations and treaties, just because they have the "time and money" to accomplish them.

And BTW, Russia has been un-free for a while now, not just "recently."

Define "we."

People who built railroads and airlines needed the consent of the people who lived on the land and below the sky.

You seem to think Musk should be allowed to just go ahead and do whatever he wants with earth-orbit space because "it's his money."