Famous last words of ineffective protectors since the dawn of time.

It may be that the users have already learned, through trial and error, that game designers are more likely to include poorly-considered gimmicks as "puzzles" instead of real puzzles. And that even when they try to create real puzzles, they suck at it.

It's exactly what a layman would understand the right to a jury trial to be; if you disagree with the fine, you can wait until they prove it in court to pay.

That's exactly how every other fine works.

You were so eager to agree the gubermint is bad that you didn't even rub two brain cells together before deciding what you think the dispute is about, nor did you put on your thinking cap before choosing an angle of attack.

Thanks! It's amazing how awful most of the headlines are. Here at slashdot we have

which is not at all true, it has nothing to do with the President or any decision or policy that he or anybody in the administration made. It's actually, as you point out, corporations challenging a government power nearly 100 years old.

It would be just as reasonable to say, "Supreme Court Sides with Carter Administration," which of course would be silly.

Over at SCOTUSblog, a more reputable source of news, their headline reads:

which is a lot more accurate.

You can quibble, but you're wrong. Username checks out.

If that's your understanding, then every time in your life you've heard people talking about it you misunderstood them, and even now when faced with the actual meaning you simply refuse to look into it.

"Mindless trial-and-error learning" is just about the stupidest thing I've heard anybody say all year.

And I read the news.

Good, I wouldn't accuse you of that, either.

Luckily for them the copyright holder gets to choose what uses to give permission for, and what not to give permission for.

On paper. I guess we'll find out from this situation if UK businesses operating in the UK actually have the rights the UK (and the US) promises them, or if some UK court will step in and invent a loophole.

"Your honor, see, the victim isn't actually a victim at all, because if they'd just stayed home (an option available to anybody) they would not have been attacked!"

The part I don't understand is why? Why do you shamelessly shill for big corps abusing people's rights? It seems unlikely they'd actually pay you to do it.

Tip: That's what they're asking for. That google be held to the same rules as everybody else. Those rules include not being allowed to copy and republish their content without their permission.

Are you an idiot, or do you just play one on the internet?

As always, "overthinking" happens when an idiot approaches a problem and doesn't think about it enough to support their conclusion.

A baseball bat is a better analogy than you realized. As with the baseball bat, if you intentionally accelerate it at somebody's head then it's a weapon. If you use it for it's intended purpose, it isn't. Duh.

tldr; if you're trying to drop it on somebody that is when it gets the label "bomb."

When a person construes being critical of the modern onslaught of low-quality papers as being "anti-intellectual" it's pretty obvious they don't read very many papers.

I guess if you never read any academic papers they all look the same!

Indeed, the idiots have always been among us, and today one of them pretended to be great defender of some sort of academic thing they don't really understand. But people with letters next to their names must be the gatekeepers of knowledge, so it was easy to know who was right.

There are so many dingbat papers that didn't need to be papers being published these days that if you choose one narrow specialty and spent 16 hours a day reading the papers within that specialty you wouldn't be able to read 10% of them.

If I was doing work in the field and there was a "white paper" version, (eg, one without the academician fluffing and that just gives the information an engineer would want) would I read it? No? Then I'm sure as **** not going to read the "paper."

As for reading the summary, you're apparently new here. Perhaps you purchased a user id, or recently awoke from a coma.

Yeah but it's IBM, so we can already infer that they'll be submitting them upstream. They're a services company now, they make more money from being the people who wrote it (and therefore the first choice for consulting) and they make nothing extra from trying to prevent distribution. The directly involved service is about security timing, so their customers will have it long before upstream can push the fixes back down.

So many "nerds" still think of IBM as being the company from the 1980s.

A lot of people are commenting on some apparent friction between IBM and the GPL crowd, but a reasonable observer should note that IBM's preferred Open Source licenses are Apache and BSD. That's the real source of the friction, and people shouldn't let the FSF trolls convince them that IBM has a poor record with Open Source. They've been one of the biggest spenders on OSS programming hours for a few decades now, many of our toys exist because they paid for them to be written.

IBM releases a lot of stuff as open source (often Apache license) that other companies would keep proprietary.

They sell services. They do a great job supporting open source because corporate users pay a lot more for support and services than for the actual software.

You've been hating IBM your whole life, but their market footprint completely changed during that time. And you haven't noticed, because you hate them too much to pay attention.

And also an idiot.

Did you even click the right post to reply to?