Speaking to Reuters from the WinHEC conference in China, Microsoft's operating system chief Terry Myerson said, "We are upgrading all qualified PCs, genuine and non-genuine, to Windows 10." This means that everyone running Windows 7 or 8.1, irrespective of whether you pirated the operating system or not, will be allowed to upgrade to a legitimate version of Windows 10.

It isn't clear if Myerson's comments only pertain to China, or to all Windows users worldwide. We have reached out to Microsoft for clarification, but haven't yet heard back. Myerson's wording certainly sounds like this will affect all Windows users worldwide.

Updated: ZDNet's Ed Bott got a response from a Microsoft spokesperson, confirming that the free upgrade path is indeed available for all pirates everywhere, and not just in China.

As you may have heard before, Microsoft has long had an issue with Windows piracy, especially in developing markets. Back in 2011, then-CEO Steve Ballmer estimated that only 10 percent of users in China were actually paying for Microsoft software. Rather famously, one of the main reasons that Windows XP had such a massive share of the desktop market for so many years was due to rampant piracy in China. A more recent study by the BSA says that 74 percent of commercial software in China is unlicensed.

But now, according to Myerson, it's time to "re-engage" with Chinese users of Windows—and that means a free, legitimate upgrade license for Windows 10, even if you're a pirate. We don't yet know how this program will be implemented, but presumably it's an extension of the previously announced program, which will see Microsoft offer free upgrades to Windows 10 during the first year of availability.

HBO said its stand-alone online service will debut next month with Apple Inc. as an exclusive partner, bypassing traditional cable packages and challenging Netflix Inc.

The Web-streaming service -- known as HBO Now -- is $14.99 a month and will be available April 12, HBO Chief Executive Officer Richard Plepler said Monday at an Apple event in San Francisco. HBO Now will be available exclusively on Apple TV, iPhones and iPads for three months.

By offering the Time Warner Inc.-owned premium channel outside the cable bundle, HBO could prompt more consumers to cut the cord and threaten the TV ecosystem. The move pits HBO directly against online streaming service Netflix, which has more than 57 million subscribers worldwide.

“This is a transformative moment for HBO,” Plepler said at the event. “All you need to get HBO Now is a broadband connection and an Apple device.”

Statement:
To those who have misused their free speech in such a reprehensible way, I have a message for you. You are disgraceful. You have violated all that we stand for. You should not have the privilege of calling yourselves “Sooners.” Real Sooners are not racist. Real Sooners are not bigots. Real Sooners believe in equal opportunity. Real Sooners treat all people with respect. Real Sooners love each other and take care of each other like family members.

Effective immediately, all ties and affiliations between this University and the local SAE chapter are hereby severed. I direct that the house be closed and that members will remove their personal belongings from the house by midnight tomorrow. Those needing to make special arrangements for possessions shall contact the Dean of Students.

All of us will redouble our efforts to create the strongest sense of family and community. We vow that we will be an example to the entire country of how to deal with this issue. There must be zero tolerance for racism everywhere in our nation.

President Boren

House Speaker John Boehner’s annoyance with President Barack Obama is turning into a grudge match against the Constitution.

Boehner’s decision to invite a foreign head of government to address Congress without first consulting the sitting president has no precedent in American history. And for a simple reason. It’s unconstitutional.

Boehner (R-Ohio) fully admits that his failure to communicate with the White House was not an oversight. Like a schoolboy passing notes when the teacher turns to the blackboard, he sneaked behind Obama’s back to set the date for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech with his country’s ambassador to the United States. Boehner asked the foreign dignitary not to tell the U.S. president.

“I wanted to make sure,” Boehner later explained on Fox News, “there was no interference.” Netanyahu is now scheduled to address a joint session of Congress on March 3.

This is unheard of in U.S. history. American Congresses have sometimes rejected a president’s foreign policy, of course. That is within their rights.

Though the president has the power to negotiate agreements with foreign countries, the Senate can reject or approve them. President Woodrow Wilson, for example, journeyed to Paris in 1919 to negotiate the Treaty of Versailles after World War One. Wilson was instrumental in writing the treaty, particularly those sections that created a new institution, the League of Nations, to provide collective security.

Last year, a 13-year-old at the Shawnee Mission Middle School in Prairie Village, Kansas, wandered past a sex-ed poster that listed ways that people showed affection. Among them were "kissing," "sexual fantasy," and "anal sex." Outrage ensued after the girl told her mom, and ultimately a state senator named Mary Pilcher-Cook vowed to never let another pre-teen be harmed by a poster.

Soon, the Kansas state House of Representatives will decide whether teachers who show their students objectionable material should be charged with a crime, which means sex ed will be nearly impossible to teach and classical art as well as other curriculum staples will be effectively banned. Although these book-banning-type bills come up from time to time in square-shaped states where conservatives live in fear of Harry Potter and think AP US History is an anti-American conspiracy, Senate Bill 56 actually stands the chance of passing. On February 25, the Kansas Senate approved it 24 to 16. As of right now, it's not on the House's schedule, but it could pop up any day.

If it becomes law, Senate Bill 56 will eliminate a clause that exempted K-12 teachers from a public-morals law, subjecting them to jail time if they are found guilty of having shown "harmful material" to minors in class. A complaint from a parent about a film, novel, or even a picture of Michelangelo's David could put an educator in the slammer for up to six months, effectively ending their career.

"Nobody's out there putting pornography in front of kids," said Marcus Baltzell, the communications director at the Kansas National Education Association. "We keep telling people this is a solution in search of a problem."

So what qualifies as "harmful material," you ask? Oddly, there's a whole section of the bill that seems to be dedicated to 50 Shades of Grey, or, as the bill's language puts it, "flagellation or torture by or upon a person clad in undergarments, in a mask or bizarre costume or in the condition of being fettered, bound, or otherwise physically restrained on the part of one so clothed."

And course, any material that depicts masturbation or homosexuality is immediately off the table. However, Baltzell brings up other even more benign examples, like a Judy Blume book that mentions menstruation or wet dreams. He also says teachers could be liable if a kid picks a "harmful" book up herself as part of an independent reading assignment.

The Kansas House, like the state Senate, is controlled by Republicans. The governor's office did not return VICE's request for comment, so it's hard to say whether or not Republican Governor Sam Brownback would sign the bill.

"We live in a democracy and believe the free exchange of ideas is crucial to critical thinking," Baltzell said, adding that the biggest problem about the bill is that the language is so broad. "And there's no definition of what is harmful. You may think Harry Potter is completely reasonable or the Teletubbies, but if one parent finds something objectionable, a teacher is vulnerable to criminal prosecution."

Last Thursday, a state law was introduced that, if passed, will eliminate the “personal belief” exception to California’s vaccination law.

Right now, under California law there are two ways to get out of having a child vaccinated: one is if you have a medical reason, and two is if you have a “personal belief” that prevents vaccination. The law proposed last week would leave that medical exception in place and get rid of that “personal belief” part.

The lawmaker who authored the bill is State Senator Richard Pan, who is also a doctor. He’s concerned about the outbreak of measles in California since December and the high numbers of people opting out of vaccines using the personal belief exemption.

The law as it is written so far does not have any religious exemption. And one might not be required. According to a 1944 U.S. Supreme Court case, “the right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death.” In fact, West Virginia and Mississippi do not have religious exemptions.

To be clear: the police don’t come to your house and check to make sure children are vaccinated. In California we find out about a child’s vaccination status when you try to enroll them in school.

Legally, you can’t enroll children in school without vaccinations or an exemption. So, let’s assume that the personal belief exemption goes away, parents could still avoid vaccination by homeschooling their children. But that would still probably be a smaller number.

I believe that some version of it will pass. It already has 26 sponsors, mostly Democrats, but 2 Republicans have also signed on. Politically, here’s what’s most important: for years there has been a small, vocal group of parents who oppose vaccination and there wasn’t a huge “pro-vaccination” outcry. But that has all changed. In recent months, there has been an uproar of pro-vaccine voters demanding higher rates of vaccination and and politicians are paying attention. It’s not just California, either – lawmakers in Washington and Oregon are considering closing some vaccine exemptions as well.