Having a family is a choice and in this world, a fucking stupid one.

This protein is changed so little across the entire spectrum of eukaryotic cells that brewer's yeast can have their CDK replaced with the human version with no ill effect. Something that's proliferated for so long with so little change indicates that very small changes make the organism unviable. Tampering with the expression of this protein seems like an amazingly bad idea.

Much like how Tumblr was for Porn, Twitter's only real use case is dunking on blue checkmarks. RIP.

The second amendment recognizes that an armed population is harder to dominate by a central authority. This is as true today as it was then, and just as important. The right to bear arms is not for the purposes of hunting or other recreational activities. It is a check against tyranny. History has shown power to be a corrupting force, so preventing the concentration of power should be the goal of any civilization interested in longevity.

Ending the private ownership of weapons should be considered carefully. Freedom is easy to lose and hard to gain. The loss of this particular freedom would make it considerably easier to lose the rest of them. What safety is worth that cost?

Isn't Android also? As is WebOS (HP Touchpad). I think Microsoft makes the only tablet OS that isn't *nix based.

What's better...

Swiss army knife with storage
Sex with a mare

As long as we have any publicly funded health care, then government is paying for the health consequences of smoking. With that in mind, why is it wrong to tax a behavior that increases an individual's societal burden?

Individual behavior that has a societal cost should be fair game for targeted taxes. In many cases I think that allowing someone the freedom to engage in the costly behavior while asking them to compensate society for the privilege is preferable to an outright ban on the behavior.

At least in this case the innovations/patents are for actual hardware rather than mathematical formulas.

Not necessarily. I would think that Motorola is as capable at filing for bogus patents as other companies, and it would be odd if they had only filed for patents on hardware. Especially if and when they saw significant value in their patent portfolio; why wouldn't you file for easiest ones you can get? Surely they have filed for all kinds of patents, including (but not limited to) hardware ones. It would be nice to get a breakdown of types of patents, as well as years they were applied for; it seems that the trend for bogus patents has been increasing... so older patents may be bit less likely to be bs ones.

What's better...

Straw man attacks against conservatives
Sex with a mare

What's better...

A map of the Universe
A map of a mare... for sex. With a mare.

I'd just like to point out its not much of a defense if you don't enforce your ownership at some level.

Usually defensive here means using patent lawsuits in defensive way (against other companies suing you); not so much defending patents themselves. There is no need to defend patents, per se, unless someone is specifically trying to get them invalidated. As in not initiating the court process, but responding.

Gosling did a piss poor job on the design and evolution of Java to begin with.

How so? I thought it was generally consider a pretty decent job, and not just due to actual success of the platform and language. While Java has its quirks like any other programming language, it seems pretty well-rounded and practical. Your statement would suggest much more than that, so what exact things back up your statement?

I agree in that Gosling's checking of codebase is probably not all that valuable in itself (as he can't really be external objective third-party here), but I think it can have positive effect for credibility of Google's defense. It's not about trying to prevent Oracle from suing, but rather in improving chances of winning, or limiting damages. Gosling is obviously knowledgeable on Java and history, but also about various litigations related to Java.