War crimes are mutually agreed by close to parity powers. Crowd control isn’t. One group decides what is acceptable and what isn’t. I would be surprised if any government allow citizens the right to use CS gas on their police force.

They aren’t going to reevaluate crowd control tactics because the crowd don’t have the power to force a change.

Pop OS is the same machine as the Ubuntu but with RGB.

Not all patents are good. But a patent system is good. It could be better but the general concept is not flawed like the person I was responding to suggests.

The physical object isn’t what is patented in this case. It is the method to create the object that has a patent. One that can’t be reversed engineered as it isn’t part of the final product. You could only reverse engineer it if the process was not novel or not obvious to anyone knowledgeable in the field. If both of these conditions are true then the patent should not have been granted.

Patents are not inherently bad. This is a bad patent. Patent laws don’t have to be changed, because this patent shouldn’t have been granted. The issue is ineffective patent reviews, not patents. Getting rid of patents is not a good idea. If you think it is you probably don’t have a good enough grasp on what a patent is.

You can make something if you figure out how they did it because it was obvious. In this case the patent isn’t valid. If you have to develop a solution then the patent is probably valid. The patent is a reward for developing and sharing the solution publically.

If you still don’t grasp why patents are useful. It may be helpful to think of it like open source software. The patent is the code base that is freely accessible to everyone. This preserves the knowledge and lets others build on it. However, to incentivise people to make their code open source you provide protections that stop others from selling the same code you developed.

The incentive mechanism is why far more businesses produce patents than produce open source code.

If you remove patents businesses stop funding internal r and d overnight. It increase the risk and reduces the reward.

The patent system explicitly provides free access to knowledge. The patent is the knowledge that would be kept secret otherwise.

You would still have monopolies, except things like the ingredients to medicines would be unknown.

Patents do provide some value. If there were no patents than companies would make their technological development a a secret and not share the work with the world.

The patent systems exchanges knowledge and technology development for a temporary monopoly on the technology. It means a company can publish the ingredients to medicines, methods of manufacturing etc. if they didn’t have the patent system they would keep these secret and if a business folded this knowledge would be lost.

Probably better to make those submitting false patents pay a large fine.

RS, not the same breath but the pricing is usually good.

It was very likely a designers decision. It forces the use the use case they wanted; wireless mice should be used wirelessly. I would bet they fought marketing and management to get this on the final product.

Marketing would want the mouse they can advertise as being useable with and wireless. Female ports are easier to mount and manufacture with they have depth to set the socket. So a plug on the front is much cheaper and easier to manufacture.

The fact the charging cable doesn’t get used in motion means it will last longer and you wouldn’t have people useing fraying cables on the front of their mouse.

It costs extra to have hardware that can support the full spec on all ports simultaneously. The rear ports have the higher bandwidth to support screens with lots of pixels and a high frame rate, plus they are more likely to be daisy chained.

People with exploits available that are unpatched are waiting for that end of support. It increases the value of their unreleased exploit.

It was 12 years ago he said he would put a man on mars in 10 years.