Some people don't know exactly what the complaint was about, either. Specifically, most of /. users I'm reading here.

Technically, it's a combination of hardware IDs on your computer. ID of the install HD, ID of the CPU, ID of the motherboard chips, ID of the video card, ID of the NIC... The strictness of the check depends on the type of license, but replacing things one at a time is generally safe. If you have an OEM license, you generally have to replace things with very similar parts; e.g. if your MB dies, you need to replace it with the same style MB.

You really think the MS security techs (or their registry system) is that lame? MS would almost certainly store the public IP which originated the registration request. It's not magic - it's part of the network connection.

If someone stole a manuscript from Disney and got away in a blue Ford with a license plate of XXX-123 and then pirated the manuscript, it certainly would be within the court's power to allow Disney to subpoena the owner of that particular Ford to ask who was in control of the car at the moment of the theft. It might have been the owner's son, or neighbor, or it might have been stolen. But it's a legitimate request to ask the question.

Ding! We have a winner several zillion posts down the page and buried.

If a software/firmware update can disable the key wipe, then the FBI should be able to bypass it through direct hardware access and copying. The new phones do this all within a secured chip, making it much harder, but the 5c doesn't have that extra hardware protection.

To prove that anarchist pajamas-in-Mom's-basement types can be more antisocial than Scrooge and the Grinch, perhaps. Otherwise, I can't even begin to guess at what bright flame of sub-genius decided this would be a good idea.

If the photograph was originally taken in a private location, then the person retains more rights to their likeness than they would if it were taken in a public place. In a public place, the person can only restrict sale of an image for commercial (i.e. advertising and advocacy) purposes. In a private place, however, a person must generally give consent to publish regardless of the purpose of publication. Again - in the US.

Wouldn't this be settled as part of a divorce decree in the US?

Or did the problem arise after the divorce, when pictures started appearing on the Web?

In the US, there is essentially no right to personality except in defamation suits. Copyright law would govern, and since there's a person's likeness involved and no formal consent form signed, a lawsuit *could* prevent the photographer from publishing or selling the photos, subject to normal copyright fines. Since some of the images have been found on the Internet, she could also go after him in a private civil lawsuit. But AFAIK there's nothing in US law that says that one person has a right to destroy another person's possessions just because their relationship has ended.

I have a Dell Latitude E7240 that works fine with Ubuntu 14.04 LTS - use it for work, even.

Now if only Adobe would figure this out, I'd pay them for a CC subscription. As it is, I refuse to trust my business to Adobe's online model - I want a piece of software that works after I stop paying, not hundreds of useless files that are the life of my business.

This. I get Netflix so I can "rent" movies. While I've liked some of the Netflix original content, what I really want is a super video rental store.

Current rights holder to Superman, but not to the Fleischer cartoons. If a work falls to the public domain, some company can't just come in and suck of the rights to the work - it remains in the PD.

We effectively do without a scrum master. It can be done with an open and communicative team, so long as everyone recognizes the rules of the game and is willing to speak up to guide the process. Product owner buy-in is essential (and a scrum master IMHO an essential backup if the PM is fighting the system); they don't make the system work, but without good backlog management they can make the system break.

Our team succeeds at Agile more than anything else because our developers are respected by management. Our product owners and management have both wanted longer term planning and a more waterfall process because it's easier for them, but we have the ability to push back, and they have the respect to listen.

Management push-back is a tough one and understandable. They want to know where the company is going in a quarter, two quarters, next year. That means big plans, and it means estimating the size of things way in advance. That's something that Agile is specifically designed to avoid - unnecessary advance planning. I think this conflict exists (or should exist) even in the best Agile development shops. The alternative is the ultimate in management short-sightedness - no plan for the future, just get through the quarter. On our team the compromise is doing some one quarter rough-grooming and having our engineering team manager (who was a team member before being promoted) flesh out the more distant epic level grooming with our PM.