Personally, I won't use it either way - thus I'm not in that "potential user" category...but you shouldn't make that assumption - it's a really bad one.
We have dedicated courts specifically for Bankruptcy and Immigration. We need a dedicated court for both Patent and Malpractice issues.
We have dedicated courts for Patents, that's a good bit of the problem. Congress created it to take the load off SCOTUS (who use to be the sole arbiter of patents cases); since then NPE's have arisen and it's become a nightmare for everyone.
They don't have to "Sign it away to heirs". Copyrights automatically become property of their estate, Unless they put in a legal structure to explicitly donate that asset, and their heirs will ultimately direct the disposition.
And the Executor of the Estate has to usually be convinced of to do what is being asked, they often have not understanding of the field, etc - so it's usually a very long, hard road; usually code gets rewritten in those cases.
The standard GPL license has a clause allowing the code to be distributed under the current license *or any future version* of the GPL license.
That's not part of the GPL AFAIK, rather it's the language some developers (not all) put into the code files that they are licensing. Personally, I don't do that and any version of the GPL that does auto-include such language is something I'd avoid. Sure, I trust the license that I am using now but I don't necessarily trust a newer version to do something I don't approve of.
To me it sounds like there wasn't enough spare space, and you ended up with an incomplete install that was unbootable *because* it was incomplete.
Linux and Mac users?
There is a case where an "undefined language condition" caused a C++ program to destroy a computer. (Well, such was reported in, I believe, "Effective Modern C++", though without sufficient data to track down the actual case.)
Given that, there's nothing unreasonable in saying your computer was destroyed by an MSWindows "upgrade". I don't know that it's true, but it isn't intrinsically unreasonable. More likely, the system could consume so much disk space that a complete version couldn't be written to disk, resulting in an unbootable system. In that case a geek could retrieve any data that wasn't overwritten by the installer. Now whether the user data *would* be overwritten by the installer I can't say. I expect you could probably recover any non-encrypted data by mounting the disk in another computer...but if the partition were encrypted (does mswindows do that?) then it might well be irrecoverable. Or if it were a RAID setup. (Again my ignorance of MSWindows is showing.)
They probably won't use Oreo, because that names a trademark. (You could argue that this is another area of business...but better to avoid legal wrangles.) Orangeade would probably be safe, but it's not similar to marshmallow or nougat. I suppose they could just use orange. (That would let them use quince for "q". But I still don't see how they'd handle 'x'.)
OK. I'll say color management was introduced on the Apple ][.
OTOH, this is a really stupid argument. Names are just names, and two guys named Harry can be quite different, yet both really named Harry. I don't know what the MSWind color management system is like, or what the Android color management system is like, but even if they're quite different they can both reasonably be called by the same name if they do *something* having to do with managing colors.
It's easy to do your own programming on your own computer. It's only through the trap of sloppiness one would use their employer's equipment. That's one reason it's nice the California law focuses on that: make some minimal effort to partition your life, and in return get some (unfortunately minimal) protection. Likewise, "free time" for someone on salary is meaningless. The problem is entirely "existing or prospective," which this policy doesn't seem to change from the California baseline. It's onerous because:
- you are likely to be interested in similar things to your work, otherwise you wouldn't have taken the job.
- for large companies the category is incredibly broad. For example, at Google it would cover basically anything, so the pattern of discretion that their judgement committee exercises determines how onerous this rule is, not the law, and not the policy.
Well, this may be something that is more unique to GitHub (and similar companies - GitLab, BitBucket, etc) where the companies product is something it's employees would like to use on their own for their own projects. Essentially, if they were an employee of GitHub under most normal policies they wouldn't be able to use GitHub for their personal work or contributing to projects hosted by GitHub as that would be using "company resources". So the change is slight in that it is really just allowing their employees to use their product - which has become a standard in the industry - for the employee's personal works without GitHub being able to claim ownership of random things.
And in all honesty, when I talk to employers about jobs I make sure to have something similar - I have my own projects that I am working on, and while I avoid using company resources for those projects, I still want clarity that it's mine and the company can't take it or I don't sign.
It's a nice snarky response, but not appropriate for lab technologies. Lab prototypes are not exactly like commercial cells; they tend to be heavy and/or require a lot of supporting hardware and/or are sensitive to their operating conditions and/or other issues. The potential of a technology that's been researched in the lab requires analysis; turning it into finished commercial products takes money. You can't just say "send me a working battery" as if things pop straight from lab tech to some sealed product that blows refined commercial products off the market.
Thankfully, at least from reading the paper, the tech being utilized here doesn't sound particularly complicated to build. Hopefully there will be some outside attempts to reproduce it soon. If outside attempts confirm the results, then it can start to come time to think about making it into actual battery products. Although they're going to need to have a firm understanding of exactly what's going on in order to be able to optimize it. If outside attempts can't reproduce it? Then there's a good chance it'll go down the cold fusion route.
To which they could just invite him to the lab. The snarky response is mostly to keep away people that are just tossing out theories with no proof. Musk would probably be glad to stop by and see a working prototype, get the explanation, and then participate in the validation phases. But it keeps away the people asking for research money saying "I can do X if you give me $YYYYYYYYY" - he's not interested in funding that.
What you have said is, in theory, correct. There are, however, cases that cast a lot of doubt on how that theory is actually applied in practice. Naturally we probably only notice outliers, but those outliers *do* exist, so there is a definite chance that the judge could take a large number of years to decide that he's "unpersuadable".
Now the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" also has a large number of counter-examples, especially when the accused is being accused of something that most people consider horrendous. In fact, if the accusation is vile enough, many people won't even consider whether the evidence has any validity, or whether it could have been faked, or....well, much of any mitigating factor. He is being accused of obstruction of justice, which may or many not be true, and he will be punished extensively before there's ever a trial at which he, presumably, will have a fair defense. Many, however, never receive a fair defense, or even an only moderately poor defense. And even if he's found not guilty he will already have been punished extensively.
I don't know what an ideal way of handling things would be, but don't fantasize that we in the US have something even coming close to something fair to those who are poor or unpopular.
You are making the presumption that he is guilty. This may or may not be true. He might be innocent and actually have forgotten his password.
OTOH, just consider, if he gives them his password, they will be able to implant any evidence they choose onto his disks. Whoops! Forging dates isn't that hard.
Sorry, but that's not true. I know I've forgotten my own password a few times. I had to reinstall and recover from backups. (I really don't like sudo, and I also don't like logging in as root, and a decade or so ago I forgot the root password twice. It was really annoying, but not a real problem as one of the times I'd been thinking about switching distros anyway. The other time was more annoying, but I had the original CDs, and there hadn't been THAT many updates. [I said it was over a decade ago. I think it was while I was using Red Hat Professional edition, before I switched to KRUD Linux.])
That would be destruction of evidence...if done by the accused. After a warrant was served.
OTOH, if it's set to do this after n failed attempts, then it could quite likely be done by inept police, who didn't bother to image the disk before working on it. And then it's the police who destroyed the evidence...if such it was.
That said, I really doubt that applies in this case. But I know *I've* forgotten passwords, and had to reinstall, and recover from backups. So "I've forgotten the password" sounds possible, though unconvincing.
You have a massage (from the Swedish prime minister).