I usually interpret “think different” as “think about the concept of difference”, as in “When you think ‘different’, think Apple”. I don’t know if that’s the intention though.
Isn’t it enough to link to the source? If not, then how many links in the chain of links should they preserve? Maybe someone linked them to Gruber, who in turn linked them to Blogspot?
And a GPS app looks at the road and gives you directions, which is also something a human can do. Yet there are tons of articles about people driving off roads and crashing their cars because they trusted their GPS.
The point is, a program can give you false information because of a coding error, and people can be stupid enough to trust that information anyway.
I don’t understand why you object to the FDA wanting to ensure that the information is correct.
There is no “seller” other than Microsoft and the publisher. You buy a license to play their game. If you take the game disc to a friend and install it on their console, your friend can now buy a license — from Microsoft and the game publisher — to play their game.
It’s not your game. You don’t legally own anything. You don’t get any money.
That’s weird, because that’s how I felt about most other Google Reader alternatives I tried. To my mind, NewsBlur gets out of my way and lets me read the articles.
