One of my favorites is selecting an expression and hitting a key combo to assign it to a new local variable. I don't have to know the type of the expression, the IDE will do it for me, and pick a reasonable name.
Copyright law was never designed to promote incentives for creating intellectual properties, it was designed as a shield where those who create intellectual properties could protect what they create in a court of law.
Then it needs to be repealed, because there is no constitutional authority for copyright law that is not designed to promote public progress.
Of course, the provider has to be trustworthy, as my bank is now!
Not just trustworthy, but secure. Criminal organizations and foreign nations would be trying to break in and steal the information needed to make use of the pointers you describe. And eventually one or more of them would probably succeed.
Re: Yet Another Libertarian 'Free-Citizen' Circle Jerk
Translation back to How the Law is Supposed to Work:
Man previously arrested for smuggling cigarettes, found in another state with lots of cash. Police confiscate cash without probable cause and retain it in violation of forfeiture procedures, and with actual knowledge that he wanted it back.
Demanding due process is not "libertarian uberspeak".
But Twitter is not "a person", unless there's some Citizen's United-esque legal definition out there.
Not new, no. "Person" in a legal context means something more like "entity". That's why there's the term "natural person" to distinguish an actual human from other things the law refers to as persons, such as corporations (I don't known if there are others).
An individual cannot file a civil rights action until they prove enough instances where similarly situated persons have faced the same violation.
That's not true, the rights guaranteed by the Constitution protect individuals, not just groups. You can see this is the case by the very lawsuit in question. It is not a class action, it is about this one incident.
Do you have any proof for this "Microsoft decides they should come back" actually happens?
I never claimed that it has happened, so I'm not sure why you're asking for proof of that. I'm just pointing out these things:
A: Windows Update can update the registry (I think this is true though I haven't verified) B: Windows can be configured to automatically install whatever updates Microsoft chooses (I think this is the default configuration)
Given these facts, if a system is so configured it naturally follows that Microsoft can undo your solution whenever it wants. Will they do so? How much do you trust them not to?