...but once it's off the test track, it turns out there's a hidden coal-powered steam engine in it.

I have to assume that they're getting some lump sum payment as part of the severance package, and getting that payment is contingent on agreeing to offer support later without *further* compensation.

Otherwise, you'd be an idiot to agree to it-- enforceable or not-- and who wants idiots providing operational support down the road?

You're thinking of trademark law. You don't lose a copyright automatically for failing to sue over it.

This is pretty much old news, going back to the leaked document that gawker got in 2012 (http://gawker.com/5885714/inside-facebooks-outsourced-anti-porn-and-gore-brigade-where-camel-toes-are-more-offensive-than-crushed-heads).

What I can't tell for sure, and as someone not particularly affiliated with the Kurdish or Turkish causes, haven't experienced directly, is Facebook applying all of these standards (e.g. denigration of Ataturk) to all Facebook users, or does it only affect users from Turkey?

That is, if I post something denigrating Ataturk, will they potentially block it entirely or just block it in Turkey? If it's the latter, well, that's unfortunate, but that's Turkey's anti-free speech laws. If it's the former, that's especially repulsive, and basically pushes Facebook to the least-common denominator of free speech.

At any rate, the Turkish government's sensitivity to "insults" against Ataturk are somewhat ironic, since Erdogan is doing everything he can to spit on Ataturk's policy of strict secularism.

Today I learned that Amazon is the only employer in Seattle, and apparently the sole driver of Seattle's skyrocketing economy.

Way to go, Amazon!

As for you, Jeff, why don't you do everyone in Seattle a favor, and instead of complaining about how terrible Seattle is becoming for your dating life and your aesthetics, move the hell out?

Why is there an ESRB?

An analogy that breaks down if you push it too far?

Ridiculous! You cannot push analogies. They are not tangible things.

From what I can tell, Amazon is still offering the products for sale, but not stocking it as they don't have a contract with the publisher. So if you buy one of the books not in stock, they have to order it from the publisher on demand.

I don't see why a retailer should unilaterally compromise their business (stocking large quantities of books without a contract from the supplier) in order to serve customers just because the publisher doesn't accept the proposed terms.

Both companies are playing hardball maybe, but the fact is there's no supplier contract and that's what's they need to agree upon for business to proceed as usual. In the meantime, there's plenty of other places one can buy Hachette's books from.

Both parties admit they're in contract renegotiations. So the current public spat appears to be about whether a retailer should be obliged to continue to stock the goods under negotiation for resale without a contract, because... authors?

Amazon stock doesn't pay dividends.

That word is "fungible". Look it up,

Yeah the objection voiced above seems to be based in the premise that people won't know about Kindles if they're not on display in their bookstore. Sort of like how if I close my eyes, you can't see me.

...or, they could have a zero-tolerance policy for all screenings and people who can't put their phones away during a movie can take their 'private screen' and go elsewhere.

In my opinion, this is a pretty serious change in stance for Oracle and amounts to killing free Java for certain types of applications, at least if you care about accuracy.

If there are free alternatives, then why would that amount to killing free Java for certain types of applications?

If you know what to type to reach it, is there a link to it in your brain?