My neighbor and I don't mix our bank accounts together, and I doubt you mix yours with yours with your neighbor.
At my last job, I did devops for the entire organization. The organization had many different programs, including one funded by a DHS grant (cybersecurity classes). My work benefitted ALL programs, including the one program funded by the DHS grant. Were the things I did work under a federal grant, and therefore subject to 50,000 pages of federal regulation ? That was an actual, real problem.
The bill includes this definition of "critical infrastructure":
"(2) the term âcritical infrastructureâ(TM) means systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have catastrophic regional or national effects on public health or safety, economic security, or national security."
Thanks for the offer, we're scheduled to close on the new place in country June 20th. Horse pasture is prohibitively expensive here in the city of Dallas. Fiber is prohibitively expensive out at the new place, so we appreciate your help paying for it. Houses are too damn small in the city too, our new country place is three times the square footage of our current place.
The new place in the country doesn't even have natural gas service either. Would you want to help put that in? I also worry a bit because there aren't the same educational and cultural opportunities for my daughter - no museums or anything. It would be cool if you could build a couple, so that the kids have the same opportunities as city kids.
Should I post my address so you can send a check or....
The second sentence from your link, "to utter to a third person ". There really are two defintions in law, aren't there. Where one is required to "publish" notice, the statute typically specifies something specific like "publish in the primary newspaper of daily circulation". Where one must NOT "publish" (defamation, classified info), it means tells communicate to an other person.
What are you talking about? Given the topic, I'm guessing that you mean energy companies might get subsidies for their solar-electric programs, where they spend considerably less on solar than the subsidy amount, and the same company might also be involved in oil, meaning the solar subsidy would in effect offset costs on the oil side?
Typically, when people mention "oil company subsidies" they mean to confuse the reader by effectively claiming that recognizing expenses, as all companies are required to do under General Accepted Accounting Principles, is somehow unique to the energy industry and of some special advantage to the company. In fact the opposite is true - scams like Enron work by NOT recognizing expenses, thereby falsely inflating profits (and the executives go to jail when caught).
The facility performing the test communicates it to the client. The research on their new products idea IS published, as the word is used in law. To "publish" something is to communicate it to another.
A better rule might be if it were "offered to the public", the price must be minimal.
> The question is whether the research is being directly payed for, in full or in part, by a government grant
I have a hard time thinking of ANY organization that doesn't make "adjustments" to what expense is paid for by what money, since that's an entirely imaginary concept. The government gives the school some money, which goes into the school's checking account. Students give the school the some money, which goes into the school's checking account. The school writes a check for some new furniture. Did the government pay for the furniture or did the students? The answer is entirely in the book-keeper's imagination.
An example from this week:
Right now I'm buying a house. I'm a bit short on the down payment I'd like to have. My take-home pay is about $8K, and my bills+groceries etc is about $8K. Clearly there's money from my salary that I can add to the down payment.
I'm getting a big check from another source, but I'm not allowed to use that big check for the down payment. Darn.
So I'll use the big check to pay all of my bills, groceries etc., and put 100% of my salary to pay the down payment.
You'll notice that has PRECISELY the same effect as using the big check for the down payment. All the money goes into my checking account and it all comes out of my checking account, so "which money pays for what" is entirely, 100% in my imagination, it's what I choose to "label" it.
I support the intention behind this directive. There are, however, some gray areas and some unintended consequences.
>> publications on the results of research supported by public and public-private funds
> Nothing unclear about that.
It's not that bad, but there are significant gray areas. Here are a few:
A) Most importantly, most "publications on the results of research" that they intend to cover are financed by universities. Most universities get at least some government funding, if only 5% of their budget. So figure a school is privately funded 95%, and gets 5% of of it's budget from government grants for providing certain types of education. Is the institution barred from recouping some of the costs of the research? Maybe so, maybe not.
B) This one is complicated, but I have direct experience with it and the new rule seems to ban a system which has worked extremely well. The last place I worked was an "extension" office. Funding was very interesting. We had world-class experts and facilities in the fields we covered, and we did two different but related things with our experts and facilities. Companies like Boeing or Ford would pay us to do testing and research for them. In a year, we might get $80 million dollars in contracts and have $30 million in direct costs for those contracts. We'd spend $20 million on training programs, mostly having our experts train first responders. That leaves $30 million "profit" which we'd give to the state, since it was a state agency. The state would turn around and appropriate back $10 million for our facilities expenses. So in the end, our agency received NEGATIVE $20 million from the taxpayers. We paid the tax payers, from fund received for contracts and also provided free training for first responders). We were giving money TO taxpayers, not getting money from tax payers, right? (Which is awesome, IMHO.) Well, after we gave the taxpayers $30 million, they gave us back $10 million for our facilities costs, so on paper we received taxpayer funds. Does that mean that the testing we did for the private companies would have to be open to the public for free? it would seem so. Which would suck, because Boeing and Ford aren't wouldn't keep paying us $80 million to test their new ideas if the results are immediately available to their competitors. Those contracts had been paying for our public services, such as first responder training, as well as paying a "profit" to taxpayers, but seemingly that would no longer be allowed.
C) A more common scenario, given the exact wording used, might be the following. It says "publications on the results of research which was funded..." have to be open (not the research itself, but any publications discussing the results). So my boss asks me to write up an analysis of some new government data on cell phone use amongst college students and correlate it with our in in-house data, in order to make suggestions for our business strategy over the next 24 months. My analysis would be "on the results of" government research. Therefore we can't keep our analysis private?
Again, it's not necessarily a bad idea, but there are some issues, some gray areas and some areas that would be affected which might not be the intent of the supporters.
20-50 miles from an airport might work, as long as the Apple Maps team doesn't code it. While most inhabited areas of the US and Europe are near an airport, it's not hard to find an airliner that crashed in the suburbs.
Really, it's the crashes over open ocean that are hard to find, where there are no airports within 50 miles. The cost would be reduced by only putting them on planes that actually fly over open ocean.
They can be hard to find in mountains too, but "500 feet altitude" is hard to define amongst 14,000 foot mountains.
I'm picturing perhaps a CO2 canister to fill the balloon, since a lot of CO2 can fit in a small canister (at high pressure, 852 PSI).
> detects large amounts of pressure (from being, say, deep underwater
So the trigger mechanism detects the pressure from being deep underwater, 7,000 PSI. It releases the seal on the CO2 canister that's at 852 PSI. The water pressure forces the balloon INTO the CO2 canister.
You can't really plan on doing ANYTHING after the aircraft has come to rest deep underwater and it's under 7,000 PSI of pressure, I don't think. Any mechanical action needs to take place during the (potentially violent) crash.
80 years of "should be forced to" is why downtown Seattle has internet 1/20th the speed of semi-rural Texas towns with 20,000 residents. You could keep trying the same thing and expect different results.
What has worked well around here has been to allow overbuilders like Frontier to come and offer better service, to have competition amongst providers.
Because rain falls from above? A rain drop does fall on your head from above, at about 20 MPH. Meanwhile, the aircraft is running into the rain drops at 680 MPH. The rain doesn't fall on to the aircraft, the aircraft rams into the rain drops. The rain comes from straight ahead. And with 680 MPH relative wind, the water is blown across the full surface of the aircraft.
> Say at about 500 ft above ground/water level while on a downward slope at any location not in the vicinity of an airport
Typically, at 500 feet, an landing airliner will be about a mile and half from one end of the runway, about three miles from the center of the airport. So we might say you're not "near an airport" if you're least six miles from the center of an airport; sound about right? At the moment, there are two commercial airports within six miles of me, and at least two private airfields. At the last place I lived, in another town, there were also two airports within six miles. That's about typical - probably most places in the US have a commercial airport or two within six miles, and a couple of private airfields.
City-dwellers with 10 Mbps service by govt-enforced monopolies to buy gigabit for farmers
Last year, taxpayers paid the ISPs $9 billion for rural broadband, so that people who like owning horses can watch more Netflix movies simultaneously. Another couple billion this year, and $10 billion more planned. (About $82 per tax payer). Meanwhile, those of us paying for it get whatever Comcast or the local government franchise holder decides to give us, because the government has made if effectively illegal for a competitor to offer better service in our area.
I'm from the government and I'm here to help, they say. How about get the fuck out of the way and allow competition. There has been some of that in some states, and average speeds have gone up considerably in the last year.
I've never had trouble finding a 747 that I left laying around the house. USB drives, on the other hand -- I lose those son of a bitches all the damn time.
The submitter seems to think that a 2 inch USB drive will be easier to find than a 200 foot airplane.
On the other hand, the suggestion of a FLOATING auxiliary black box has been made seriously and isn't ridiculous. A challenge is that the device must reliably leave the airplane in case of a crash, but not be knocked loss by flying at 680MPH, or be dislodged by a rough landing at an airport.
That's an interesting question. I did a very rough approximation years ago, just to get an idea of whether it might be significant or not. All of the heat from machines comes from a fuel or power plant, of course. And all fuel energy eventually turns to heat. So we can look at the total energy use to get the amount of energy used by machines, which is equal to the heat the generate.
Each year, we use, globally, 15,000 Twh of energy. Each year, about 1,000,000 Twh of sunshine hits Texas. So the heat from the sun in Texas alone is in about 66 times as much as the heat from all the machines in the world. The heat from machines is negligible compared to the heat from the sun.
As you mentioned, there are a lot of different factors. As mentioned on the site you linked to, woodfortress.org, it's very noisy data - reliably identifying trends is difficult. Further, it's so political - 96% of the studies do things like start their time series at a time of record-low temperatures, guaranteeing an increase relative to that time, or conversely start a graph at a warm time, meaning the trend will be cooling compared to the time of record highs. The actual science and analysis itself is difficult, and the obvious political bias in most of the studies doesn't make it any easier.
Total solar radiation has varied less than 0.2%, comparing the average across the roughly 11-year cycle. It has neither increased nor decreased. What has changed over time os the length of cycle, and the variance in length correlates very closely with global temperature. See the chart here:
You may have noticed that of you fill a bathtub with hot water in the evening, it's still warm the next morning. Water is very good at holding on to heat. (Compare the air in your house, or the furniture, which will cool in minutes). The huge volume of water in the oceans may hold heat for years, such that the length of the solar cycle matters.
I did some looking into the effects of solar changes on global and solar-system temperatures, because I wondered how much of an effect it might have, if any.
I know most people are already fans of a certain "team" when it comes to global warming / climate change, so they are more interested in bulstering their original guess than learning more information, but those those who are curious here's what I found out. Temperatures on the other planets have, on average, risen less than on earth, but they have risen some. It's hard to be certain, but a reasonable estimate is that changes in the sun might account for 25%-35% of the warming we've seen on earth.
Digging through all the propaganda and distorted data on AGW is difficult, but there seems to be pretty good evidence to support the notion that 25%-35% is caused by increased CO2, caused both by fossil fuel use and deforestation. Deforestation also increases average daily high temperatures more directly by reducing evaporative cooling during the hottest part of the day (and corresponding rain).
That leaves about 40%-50% of the increase that can't be clearly attributed to any specific cause. Objective research by people not funded by political entities would be helpful.
I don't think any court ruled that "You're a hater. You're a troll. You're an 'imaginary property cop'." The guy is just being a complete asshole. I don't see him expressing any opinion whatsoever on how this is fair use, only an opinion that being a ignorant jackass is a good idea today.
One jury did rule that Google's use of the Java API in Android is a fair use (the other ruled that APIs can't be protected under copyright at all, a decision which was overturned). The AC correctly stated that the ruling does NOT imply that ALL use of APIs is fair use. By statute, fair use decisions must consider the effect of the use on the market for the original work. It may not, under current law, be fair use for someone to use the Java APIs in a way that is actually detrimental to the copyright holder, nor to use them along with other portions of Java. The AC is correct, the response was empty of any thought or meaning, only a guy showing his anti-social tendencies and ignorance of the topic at hand.
I'm"one guy who recognizes that free trading markets will always occur, underground or in the light of day. I'm glad to see this, assuming the reports are true and don't misrepresent the facts. (It's possible for something to be technically true, yet thoroughly misleading.)
I'm also a career information security professional (hacker) and it's good to see people who relate to Anonymous doing something above-board and apparently quite productive, rather than causing damage.
A belief that free markets work better than having Washington bureacrats make decisions for you does typically recognize that you are best equipped to make decisions about your own life when you have the relevant information. This information appears to be relevant to investors, so it's a good thing. (Again assuming it is true and not misleading).
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah he says:
"really you can't opt out of Facebook. I'm not on Facebook "
Not sure what he thinks the word "can't" means. I'm don't use Facebook either. I still get party invites, often via my wife.
I actually created a Facebook account many years ago which I never use, so I COULD log in and use it if I wanted to.
My neighbor and I don't mix our bank accounts together, and I doubt you mix yours with yours with your neighbor.
At my last job, I did devops for the entire organization.
The organization had many different programs, including one funded by a DHS grant (cybersecurity classes). My work benefitted ALL programs, including the one program funded by the DHS grant. Were the things I did work under a federal grant, and therefore subject to 50,000 pages of federal regulation ? That was an actual, real problem.
The bill includes this definition of "critical infrastructure":
"(2) the term âcritical infrastructureâ(TM) means systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have catastrophic regional or national effects on public health or safety, economic security, or national security."
Thanks for the offer, we're scheduled to close on the new place in country June 20th. Horse pasture is prohibitively expensive here in the city of Dallas. Fiber is prohibitively expensive out at the new place, so we appreciate your help paying for it. Houses are too damn small in the city too, our new country place is three times the square footage of our current place.
The new place in the country doesn't even have natural gas service either. Would you want to help put that in? I also worry a bit because there aren't the same educational and cultural opportunities for my daughter - no museums or anything. It would be cool if you could build a couple, so that the kids have the same opportunities as city kids.
Should I post my address so you can send a check or ....
Oh my God sometimes you can't stream multiple Netflix movies at once? Of course you want to watch two movies at once.
I want a pony, and it's too expensive to have ponies in the city.
You have ponies in the country. That's not fair. Buy me a pony.
The second sentence from your link, "to utter to a third person ". There really are two defintions in law, aren't there. Where one is required to "publish" notice, the statute typically specifies something specific like "publish in the primary newspaper of daily circulation". Where one must NOT "publish" (defamation, classified info), it means tells communicate to an other person.
So what "oil company subsidies" are you talking about, and how does that relate to the topic at hand?
What are you talking about? Given the topic, I'm guessing that you mean energy companies might get subsidies for their solar-electric programs, where they spend considerably less on solar than the subsidy amount, and the same company might also be involved in oil, meaning the solar subsidy would in effect offset costs on the oil side?
Typically, when people mention "oil company subsidies" they mean to confuse the reader by effectively claiming that recognizing expenses, as all companies are required to do under General Accepted Accounting Principles, is somehow unique to the energy industry and of some special advantage to the company. In fact the opposite is true - scams like Enron work by NOT recognizing expenses, thereby falsely inflating profits (and the executives go to jail when caught).
The facility performing the test communicates it to the client. The research on their new products idea IS published, as the word is used in law. To "publish" something is to communicate it to another.
A better rule might be if it were "offered to the public", the price must be minimal.
> The question is whether the research is being directly payed for, in full or in part, by a government grant
I have a hard time thinking of ANY organization that doesn't make "adjustments" to what expense is paid for by what money, since that's an entirely imaginary concept. The government gives the school some money, which goes into the school's checking account. Students give the school the some money, which goes into the school's checking account. The school writes a check for some new furniture. Did the government pay for the furniture or did the students? The answer is entirely in the book-keeper's imagination.
An example from this week:
Right now I'm buying a house. I'm a bit short on the down payment I'd like to have. My take-home pay is about $8K, and my bills+groceries etc is about $8K. Clearly there's money from my salary that I can add to the down payment.
I'm getting a big check from another source, but I'm not allowed to use that big check for the down payment. Darn.
So I'll use the big check to pay all of my bills, groceries etc., and put 100% of my salary to pay the down payment.
You'll notice that has PRECISELY the same effect as using the big check for the down payment. All the money goes into my checking account and it all comes out of my checking account, so "which money pays for what" is entirely, 100% in my imagination, it's what I choose to "label" it.
I support the intention behind this directive. There are, however, some gray areas and some unintended consequences.
>> publications on the results of research supported by public and public-private funds
> Nothing unclear about that.
It's not that bad, but there are significant gray areas. Here are a few:
A) Most importantly, most "publications on the results of research" that they intend to cover are financed by universities. Most universities get at least some government funding, if only 5% of their budget. So figure a school is privately funded 95%, and gets 5% of of it's budget from government grants for providing certain types of education. Is the institution barred from recouping some of the costs of the research? Maybe so, maybe not.
B) This one is complicated, but I have direct experience with it and the new rule seems to ban a system which has worked extremely well. The last place I worked was an "extension" office. Funding was very interesting. We had world-class experts and facilities in the fields we covered, and we did two different but related things with our experts and facilities. Companies like Boeing or Ford would pay us to do testing and research for them. In a year, we might get $80 million dollars in contracts and have $30 million in direct costs for those contracts. We'd spend $20 million on training programs, mostly having our experts train first responders. That leaves $30 million "profit" which we'd give to the state, since it was a state agency. The state would turn around and appropriate back $10 million for our facilities expenses. So in the end, our agency received NEGATIVE $20 million from the taxpayers. We paid the tax payers, from fund received for contracts and also provided free training for first responders). We were giving money TO taxpayers, not getting money from tax payers, right? (Which is awesome, IMHO.) Well, after we gave the taxpayers $30 million, they gave us back $10 million for our facilities costs, so on paper we received taxpayer funds. Does that mean that the testing we did for the private companies would have to be open to the public for free? it would seem so. Which would suck, because Boeing and Ford aren't wouldn't keep paying us $80 million to test their new ideas if the results are immediately available to their competitors. Those contracts had been paying for our public services, such as first responder training, as well as paying a "profit" to taxpayers, but seemingly that would no longer be allowed.
C) A more common scenario, given the exact wording used, might be the following. It says "publications on ..." have to be open (not the research itself, but any publications discussing the results). So my boss asks me to write up an analysis of some new government data on cell phone use amongst college students and correlate it with our in in-house data, in order to make suggestions for our business strategy over the next 24 months. My analysis would be "on the results of" government research. Therefore we can't keep our analysis private?
the results of research which was funded
Again, it's not necessarily a bad idea, but there are some issues, some gray areas and some areas that would be affected which might not be the intent of the supporters.
20-50 miles from an airport might work, as long as the Apple Maps team doesn't code it. While most inhabited areas of the US and Europe are near an airport, it's not hard to find an airliner that crashed in the suburbs.
Really, it's the crashes over open ocean that are hard to find, where there are no airports within 50 miles. The cost would be reduced by only putting them on planes that actually fly over open ocean.
They can be hard to find in mountains too, but "500 feet altitude" is hard to define amongst 14,000 foot mountains.
I'm picturing perhaps a CO2 canister to fill the balloon, since a lot of CO2 can fit in a small canister (at high pressure, 852 PSI).
> detects large amounts of pressure (from being, say, deep underwater
So the trigger mechanism detects the pressure from being deep underwater, 7,000 PSI. It releases the seal on the CO2 canister that's at 852 PSI. The water pressure forces the balloon INTO the CO2 canister.
You can't really plan on doing ANYTHING after the aircraft has come to rest deep underwater and it's under 7,000 PSI of pressure, I don't think. Any mechanical action needs to take place during the (potentially violent) crash.
> phone monopolies should be forced to
80 years of "should be forced to" is why downtown Seattle has internet 1/20th the speed of semi-rural Texas towns with 20,000 residents. You could keep trying the same thing and expect different results.
What has worked well around here has been to allow overbuilders like Frontier to come and offer better service, to have competition amongst providers.
> Attach it underneath the wing.
Because rain falls from above? A rain drop does fall on your head from above, at about 20 MPH. Meanwhile, the aircraft is running into the rain drops at 680 MPH. The rain doesn't fall on to the aircraft, the aircraft rams into the rain drops. The rain comes from straight ahead. And with 680 MPH relative wind, the water is blown across the full surface of the aircraft.
> From what I've seen of airplanes hitting the water at full tilt, getting things to leave them isn't really all that difficult.
Sometimes. Other times it's gentler than the average landing at O'Hare:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
> Say at about 500 ft above ground/water level while on a downward slope at any location not in the vicinity of an airport
Typically, at 500 feet, an landing airliner will be about a mile and half from one end of the runway, about three miles from the center of the airport. So we might say you're not "near an airport" if you're least six miles from the center of an airport; sound about right? At the moment, there are two commercial airports within six miles of me, and at least two private airfields. At the last place I lived, in another town, there were also two airports within six miles. That's about typical - probably most places in the US have a commercial airport or two within six miles, and a couple of private airfields.
Not that it can't be done, it's just non-trivial.
Alternative headline for the same story:
City-dwellers with 10 Mbps service by govt-enforced monopolies to buy gigabit for farmers
Last year, taxpayers paid the ISPs $9 billion for rural broadband, so that people who like owning horses can watch more Netflix movies simultaneously. Another couple billion this year, and $10 billion more planned. (About $82 per tax payer). Meanwhile, those of us paying for it get whatever Comcast or the local government franchise holder decides to give us, because the government has made if effectively illegal for a competitor to offer better service in our area.
I'm from the government and I'm here to help, they say. How about get the fuck out of the way and allow competition. There has been some of that in some states, and average speeds have gone up considerably in the last year.
I've never had trouble finding a 747 that I left laying around the house. USB drives, on the other hand -- I lose those son of a bitches all the damn time.
The submitter seems to think that a 2 inch USB drive will be easier to find than a 200 foot airplane.
On the other hand, the suggestion of a FLOATING auxiliary black box has been made seriously and isn't ridiculous. A challenge is that the device must reliably leave the airplane in case of a crash, but not be knocked loss by flying at 680MPH, or be dislodged by a rough landing at an airport.
Thanks for that. In your link I see number of sunspots, what I found interesting was the cycle length, shown here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.g...
Is there a direct correlation between the two?
Of course, all of these charts may or may not mean much. After all:
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker...
That's an interesting question. I did a very rough approximation years ago, just to get an idea of whether it might be significant or not. All of the heat from machines comes from a fuel or power plant, of course. And all fuel energy eventually turns to heat. So we can look at the total energy use to get the amount of energy used by machines, which is equal to the heat the generate.
Each year, we use, globally, 15,000 Twh of energy.
Each year, about 1,000,000 Twh of sunshine hits Texas. So the heat from the sun in Texas alone is in about 66 times as much as the heat from all the machines in the world. The heat from machines is negligible compared to the heat from the sun.
Here's somen interesting information on that topic:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.g...
As you mentioned, there are a lot of different factors. As mentioned on the site you linked to, woodfortress.org, it's very noisy data - reliably identifying trends is difficult. Further, it's so political - 96% of the studies do things like start their time series at a time of record-low temperatures, guaranteeing an increase relative to that time, or conversely start a graph at a warm time, meaning the trend will be cooling compared to the time of record highs. The actual science and analysis itself is difficult, and the obvious political bias in most of the studies doesn't make it any easier.
Total solar radiation has varied less than 0.2%, comparing the average across the roughly 11-year cycle. It has neither increased nor decreased. What has changed over time os the length of cycle, and the variance in length correlates very closely with global temperature. See the chart here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.g...
You may have noticed that of you fill a bathtub with hot water in the evening, it's still warm the next morning. Water is very good at holding on to heat. (Compare the air in your house, or the furniture, which will cool in minutes). The huge volume of water in the oceans may hold heat for years, such that the length of the solar cycle matters.
I did some looking into the effects of solar changes on global and solar-system temperatures, because I wondered how much of an effect it might have, if any.
I know most people are already fans of a certain "team" when it comes to global warming / climate change, so they are more interested in bulstering their original guess than learning more information, but those those who are curious here's what I found out. Temperatures on the other planets have, on average, risen less than on earth, but they have risen some. It's hard to be certain, but a reasonable estimate is that changes in the sun might account for 25%-35% of the warming we've seen on earth.
Digging through all the propaganda and distorted data on AGW is difficult, but there seems to be pretty good evidence to support the notion that 25%-35% is caused by increased CO2, caused both by fossil fuel use and deforestation. Deforestation also increases average daily high temperatures more directly by reducing evaporative cooling during the hottest part of the day (and corresponding rain).
That leaves about 40%-50% of the increase that can't be clearly attributed to any specific cause. Objective research by people not funded by political entities would be helpful.
I don't think any court ruled that "You're a hater. You're a troll. You're an 'imaginary property cop'." The guy is just being a complete asshole. I don't see him expressing any opinion whatsoever on how this is fair use, only an opinion that being a ignorant jackass is a good idea today.
One jury did rule that Google's use of the Java API in Android is a fair use (the other ruled that APIs can't be protected under copyright at all, a decision which was overturned). The AC correctly stated that the ruling does NOT imply that ALL use of APIs is fair use. By statute, fair use decisions must consider the effect of the use on the market for the original work. It may not, under current law, be fair use for someone to use the Java APIs in a way that is actually detrimental to the copyright holder, nor to use them along with other portions of Java. The AC is correct, the response was empty of any thought or meaning, only a guy showing his anti-social tendencies and ignorance of the topic at hand.
I'm"one guy who recognizes that free trading markets will always occur, underground or in the light of day. I'm glad to see this, assuming the reports are true and don't misrepresent the facts. (It's possible for something to be technically true, yet thoroughly misleading.)
I'm also a career information security professional (hacker) and it's good to see people who relate to Anonymous doing something above-board and apparently quite productive, rather than causing damage.
A belief that free markets work better than having Washington bureacrats make decisions for you does typically recognize that you are best equipped to make decisions about your own life when you have the relevant information. This information appears to be relevant to investors, so it's a good thing. (Again assuming it is true and not misleading).