I have seen some California state plates where there is a darker color lettering over one of their special stylized backgrounds and the letters/numbers just blend into the background making them impossible to read, day or night. Honestly, I don't think the people who do these designs even think about the implications, just that the new look will be great aesthetically. How it passed the reviewers is beyond me - there are reviewers, aren't there?

Isn't it convenient that just as Windows 7 support ends, a major flaw is announced that impacts it, but starting now Microsoft only publishes fixes for Windows 10, thereby putting people in the position of being forced to upgrade, or else live with an OS that will be actively exploited? Yes, awfully convenient.

For me, it is mostly because what I want or need to do, I can't wait the one or more days it takes for it to arrive. Some times emergencies happen. Another reason that has popped up is because I need to verify that the part fits, like the right cable connectors, which requires physically checking it in the store. Besides that, you are right.

We have had two Epson printers in our house. The one from twenty years ago worked great for over a decade, but the later one clogged soon after we got it and it wouldn't clean. Took it back, and the second did the same thing. Gave up and replace it with a Canon. There is a downside to builtin print heads that cost as much to replace as a new printer costs.

Or were they denied because the standards have changed due to some recently publicized abuses, meaning how many would have been denied if submitted about two years ago?

All we have are some numbers, and now people will claim conclusions that fit their desired viewpoint.

Could it? Yes. Will it? No. The other OSes will always be putting something in that makes it break, and playing catchup isn't viable. You also don't want always to be the tail getting wagged by the big dogs.

I wasn't trying to say the musician copied, just that the parent's assertion doesn't logically hold that this shows at least three of the four claimants must have copied their material since they all claim copyright infringement against the same piece. I understand the fuzzy matching problem that probably caused the claims.

Your logic is broken. His work is 10 hours long and each of the five claims could be for different, non-overlapping sections within it, so none of the five need contain any content from another. For example, if I took five songs from five different performers and concatenated them together, all five would have the right to make a copyright claim even though none contain another's work. The claims in this case though are still garbage.

In all fairness, if using the phone extensively can cause the battery to bulge, then that is a problem with the phone's or battery's design. The fact it is made more likely to occur by the malware doesn't change that the phone's design is flawed.

We are talking about regulations that govern how a company is allowed to operate, specifically companies deemed to be communication carriers, meaning companies that transmit traffic on behalf of third parties. Government ownership or government operation isn't required.

No, they are different. You are allowed to do what you want with the traffic destined for you once it reaches you. A company in the business of delivering data that is handed a data packet addressed to you shouldn't have the right to decide on their own that they chose not to deliver it unless you have given them that right. No more than AT&T can receive a call request from Sprint destined for your phone and decide they don't want to let the call go through since it came from Sprint (again, barring legitimate operational or legal reasons). The government's purpose is to protect the rights of its citizens, and in this case, that means the right to be treated fairly. The argument is what is fair.

The difference is in one scenario your organization chose what traffic they didn't want to process, and in the other an entity outside of your control did it without you having any say (other than changing providers if that option exists).

That concept seems to appear in a lot of the comments, and isn't true. An end user (you work) is free to what they want since it is their traffic. Net Neutrality deals with a middleman making that decision for the end users without the end users consent, and without a clear network protection or legally required purpose.

There is a flaw in the premise. Does this show the type of alcohol affects the mood, or the mood/personality affects the choice of alcohol?

I doubt the professor used a public terminal to work on student records. More likely, the professor logged into his account from a computer in a lecture hall to pull up a presentation, and with one username/password for all activities, that gave the student access to what the professor did in the grading system as well.

This reminds me of the US patent debate. It is the same type of spying that has been happening since forever, except with "over the Internet" attached. Yes, the Internet makes the remote access attacks easier, but really it is just a different form of the same type has has always existed. Countries have been stealing the weapon plans of other nations, and will continue to do so using whatever mechanisms are available, and no one should be surprised.