Digitizer is a pretty decent use case (though it would be awkward on a pure laptop, no? As you point out, your colleagues are docked in tablet mode).

Does anyone other than you actually want a touchscreen on a pure laptop?

Our standard corporate laptop has been a 13" 2-in-1 for the past six years. I can count the number of people who have used it in tablet mode on one hand, and the only comments I've gotten about the touchscreen in laptop mode have all been negative.

Seriously, what's the use case here?

I'm not familiar with Sen. Widen, but a brief review of the wikipedia entry on him shows that, while his social positions (abortion, gun rights, etc) are what we generally call "left," he also supports free trade, lower corporate taxes, and privatized health insurance. So I'm going to say [citation needed] on your claim.

Your sheet music (or your CD, or 24-track tape, or vinyl record, or brail impressions) is a physical representation of your music. When you perform your music, it is now in my mind, it is not physical. See how that works?

So are you arguing against copyright law, here? Because if you're arguing that you own the physical representation of your music and it is not ruled by IP law... you do understand that once your music is in my head, I can transcribe it to paper (my paper, and with my pencil that you have no ownership of) or play it on my piano, or trumpet (again, my piano, my trumpet, that you have no ownership of) without any effect on your ownership of your written notes. "IP law" is the only thing that inhibits me from doing that.

Are you suggesting there is no creativity in inventing? But, sure, let's apply Zog the caveman to music instead of invention. Do you think Zog was sitting around telling people that eight note ditty that he liked to whistle was his and his alone, and no one else could whistle it?

I stated "the idea to incentivize the promoting of "the progress of science and the useful arts" is a sound one" so it's pretty clear I'm not taking any attitude against IP law in general, and am not saying that music isn't something that people should not be paid for.

No, obviously, that would be stealing your table, a physical thing. But absent IP law (and hell, depending on the design of your table it might not even be protectable) I can make my own table that looks just like yours (with blackjack! and hookers!) and I can even make more than one and sell those to whoever I want. Once you build your table and I see it, it's in my head and there's nothing you can do about that. Once you sing your song, it's in my head and there's nothing you can do about that. That's not "communism," that's just fucking life.

You have to be trolling here... right? IP law only exists because of government (it's rather inherent in the whole, you know, "law" part). Absent said law, your stuff was already in the public domain.

While I think some IP law is a good thing (the idea to incentivize the promoting of "the progress of science and the useful arts" is a sound one) the above is just a stupid take--the lack of something that did not exist until after the invention of the printing press is not "communism." Absent IP law, the default state of the world is, indeed, you invented something and everyone was free to make use of it. Zog the caveman was not sitting around scolding people about making use of his invented process of slamming rocks together to make fire.

Chicks and ducks and geese do a runner
When I take you out in the Hummer
When I take you out in the Hummer with the fringe on top

Slashdot actually did once sell a (IIRC) two digit uid.

Congratulations, you're a fucking loon. The X-37 was doing atmospheric tests twenty years ago and has been operational for fifteen years, and the two vehicles have combined for a total of more than ten years in space (shortest flight 224 days, longest 908). The Space Force has been around since 2019.

Meta's contention here (which, FWIW, I agree with) is not that copyright infringement has not occurred, it is that they have not committed copyright infringement, based on the premise that the copy was created by the seeder, not Meta.

As an analogy: if you're walking down Delancey Street and there is a guy selling bootleg DVDs and you purchase one, did you infringe upon the copyright?

My comment is not specific to Canada, it relates to the idea of high speed rail being a "national defense" asset. It is not.

No, you slow down to significantly before the patch, go slow over the patch, then accelerate again. Now have two patches on the line. Now three. Now you no longer have high speed rail at all, you have low speed rail.

You say that with such certainty, but an unborn human is still considered a "fetus" at 38 weeks, and aside from just not having stepped out of the womb yet, that's a "person" for any reasonable definition of the word. The truth, such as it is, is that sometime between "implantation" and "birth" the "clump of cells" becomes a "person." Reasonable people can disagree just when in the process that occurs, but it's unreasonable to state that is at either the very beginning or the very end.

No one is moving equipment with high speed rail, and rail lines also tend to be high priority targets in war. High speed rail is even more vulnerable than traditional rail, because if someone blows up a section of track, you can't just fill in the hole, lay some new ties and rail and go about business as usual... laying track for HSR is precision work. It's even worse if your rail line is built on pylons.

I agree that what RedHat is doing is almost certainly against the spirit of what RMS had in mind when he created the GPL. Unfortunately, that does not change that RedHat is living up to its obligations under the license.

The contract relates to Redhat's distribution of binaries to you. You have no right to those binaries in the first place, you only have the right to the source to those binaries provided to you, and you may make use of said source under the terms of the GPL. Redhat does not interfere with your rights under the license at all.