It strikes me that putting a product name inside source code under GPL license -- which explicitly encourages modification and distribution of source code -- should constitute abandonment of U.S. trademark. However, a California District Court ruled against that logic in Neo4j v. PureThink. It seems GPL needs to explicitly address trademarks, such as right to say "fork of X" -- akin to how it had to address the patent issue.

I have been to all of the QC Snapdragon briefs, know the engineers personally, and have written about the shitshow on SemiAccurate.com extensively, basically I know what is going on. QC doesn't understand what they are doing and why, and there is ZERO internal impetus to change from the people on top. They do nearly nothing on software enablement because, "That is Microsoft's job". Drivers are intentionally locked down and encrypted to block Linux, and x86 compatibility is BETTER in hardware than the Mac Mx line (Same people who did the M1 and M2 did the X1 and X2, and they all just bailed on QC) but the software is.... oh look outside, there is a sky.

TLDR: No chance in hell there will be a fix.

                    -Charlie

Wait a minute, they showed the Artemis crew a story about a guy who is drugged and kidnapped by his space agency and wakes up 11 light-years from home with the rest of his crew dead to bolster their spirits?

...on its face as it boots up?

Yeah, exposing a film to DLP is a little different than to a rounded, bezel-masked CRT

The media format is 16mm film. Here's the irony. Unlike U.S. television shows, BBC was an early adopter of video tape. (Recall that video tape was invented really late, available in 1956; everything before then had to be either live or telecined from film live.) But when shipping shows to far-flung international destinations, BBC "transferred" the video tape to film by filming a TV! That's what was found in the collector's cardboard box. That BBC used video tape is what allowed them to erase said video tapes.

Prosecution must have argued she deceived customers into thinking they were getting something they could legitimately used.

18 U.S. Code 2320 defines "counterfeit mark" rather broadly. Included in the definition in (f)(1) is a "spurious ... label ... likely to ... deceive".

Why would a website containing "tech" in its domain name feel a need to put "requirements" inside scare quotes and refer to it as "parlance"?

It may not be as much as we need or hope for, but I still about fell out of my chair laughing. Now I can make things shitty without even getting up!

Based on 5-10 minute videos like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zZP1uzp_YQ, I look forward to feature-length fan replacements for Episodes VII, VIII, IX. Perhaps within a year?

Grocery stores and Wal-Mart trimmed their hours for COVID and never restored them. We are definitely no longer on the 24-hour society trajectory we were on in decades past.

...that this sort of thing was a possibility when the first ATX power supplies came out. I still say that if you can't disconnect the power source, especially if it's a difficult to remove battery for a laptop or phone, you can't really turn it off.

...not guilty plea, even if you are caught with the chicken head bitten off and you're covered with blood, because it leaves the door open for a plea deal, which you can sometimes swing by saving the government the cost of a pointless trial. It's just one of the rules of the game.

This is what happens when you lack the ability to express emphasis in your output. Perhaps he should have posted his opinion in Markdown for clarity.