However, suppose we split patents into the real and the nebulous kinds. Patent trolls generally get nebulous patents and send out letters demanding payment, typically backing down if the target shows signs of fighting. Trolls are afraid of court decisions which will expose them to sunlight and turn them to stone.
This looks like a hard-fought legal battle, which means the courts have agreed that the patents are real and valid and do apply. This is at least not a typical patent troll.
It's fine to be against software patents, or patents in general, but this is how the game is currently played, and I can't blame someone for playing in the spirit of the game.
Sure, Presidents are accountable for their own actions. How accountable are they for other people's actions? The Republicans were willing to compromise with Clinton, but not Obama. We know that. We're speculating on the reasons.
I'm not at all sure that it has much to do with race, but I think it's more Republican attitude than Presidential competence.
Not to mention that alpha particles are destructive but have essentially no penetration. An alpha emitter near your hand isn't doing nearly as much damage as an alpha emitter in your lungs, which is where radon goes.
Then of course uranium is a naturally occurring element and we've evolved to deal with the sort of radiation the non-enriched variety of that puts out.
There's lots of things that are natural and not good for you. Also, most people don't have all that much uranium surrounding them.
Remember, these are for first responder guidelines. Not chronic exposures.
That depends on exactly how many incidents involving radioactivity we have, doesn't it? If we have more than a few, we may be asking first responders to take another dose. The alternatives are to fire first responders after their first radiation accident, or tell them to stay home and have an inadequate number. We'd like to see emergency-level doses repeatable without hurting the first responder too much.
A company cannot provide food, shelter, medicine, or whatever unless they make a profit.
Nope, the profit is unnecessary. Wages paid are not profits. Payments to suppliers are not profits. Operating costs are not profit. All of those are expenses. So is research, development, and investment. Profit is revenue minus expenses.
I remember a history teacher in high school making fun of "trickle down economics".
Are you going to claim that trickle-down economics works? Since Reagan started his voodoo economics, most increases in wealth have gone to a relatively few already wealthy people, and much less to people who actually work for a living.
Yup. Businesses get to globalize, while individuals don't. The businesses want to pay third-world wages while charging their customers first-world prices. If we could buy pretty much everything at the prices the poor countries pay, globalization would be a lot more fair.
In other words, those who produce are not safe from looting of one kind or another, and say to hell with it, and don't even try.
In other words, each poor person could become wealthy, but are discouraged by their quality of life. I suspect that most poor people would get a middle-class lifestyle if they could, and that you should really rethink your view of economics and society.
What you call "scraping by" is considered luxurious by most of the world.
Lots of problems with this statement.
First, I doubt that's true of "most of the world". Certainly a large part, but lots of people live in wealthy countries with access to health care, a "luxury" not possessed by the lower classes in the US. The world is advancing economically, and the main things now that keep countries poor are corrupt government and unbridled capitalism.
Second, you're dismissing one person's problems by saying someone else has it worse, which is callous at best.
Third, you're moving the goalposts along with the luxury boxes. We have a certain standard of living in this country (which varies a lot from place to place), and you're saying we should disregard this. Almost all of our media push this standard of living, and the well-off consider themselves so by how much they can exceed that standard. You're saying that it's fine to have your quality of life go way down as long as there are still less fortunate.
Capitalism is a very, very good way to generate wealth. It's not a good way to distribute wealth to people, unless you have no idea of equitable distribution. Unregulated capitalism divides the people into the owner class and the scrabbling-for-a-living class. Unregulated capitalism also favors the exploitation of other people and the destruction of the environment, civil rights, etc. As a society, we really should make a difference between people who get rich making stuff or providing services with little external cost, and people who get rich by doing things harmful to society.
The happiest countries in the world are those that are wealthy, have capitalistic economies, and have strong government support for people and restrictions on what business can get away with.
"Rich" is when a person's net worth exceeds the general cost of living
You're confusing amount and rate. Net worth is about how much money someone has, regardless of income or outflow, which just change net worth. Cost of living is normally expressed as a certain amount of money per year, normally calculated with the idea that you have a household set up. Now, a decent life style can't cost $300K/year in California, and has to cost more than what you can make by investing $300K, so I have no idea where you're getting your figures.
I consider myself very comfortable rather than rich, and I've got a net worth much higher than $300K. I still work for a salary, and (of course) sometimes wish I had more money so I could do something. My income is much less than $300K, FWIW.
My definition of "rich" would be being able to afford a lavish life style without working or having similar income, and having one's investments grow. I do realize that lots of rich people work hard, but my definition focuses on what they could do if they stopped working.
The Secretary of State, discussing classified matters on email through a private email server in her bathroom? Little people are in prison for less.
I haven't seen evidence that she was discussing classified matters, as opposed to getting some classified documents on her server.
Moreover, as far as I've been able to tell, no little people are in prison for doing what she did. Unless you're claiming she was deliberately and intentionally putting classified material on her server, she falls into the category of people who are not criminally prosecuted.
He was to report for extradition, pursuant to a perfectly legal request, and fled instead. I believe he agreed to turn himself in and instead headed for the embassy. That's a crime.
First, you're assuming the US has an interest. As far as I know, he hasn't violated any US laws, and I haven't heard any official action. There's no evidence of extradition attempts. There may have been surveillance attempts, although I haven't seen credible sources on that. Manning was an open-and-shut case.
Second, you're making Assange out to be a blithering idiot. If you don't want to be extradited to the US, the second-to-last place you should go is the UK, which is notorious for granting extradition requests to the US.
The simplest explanation is that Assange sexually assaulted two women in Sweden, left the country while he still could, didn't want to be extradited and face trial, and made up a story about the big bad US to look like the good guy in this. I haven't seen another good explanation that doesn't have unsupported assumptions about the US.
Like any man-on-woman sexual assault case, there are myriads of truth-challenged misogynists coming out of the woodwork to explain why the man is a saint and the victims are liars.
The extradition request is valid, including showing that what Assange allegedly did would be criminal under UK law. That means the UK warrant for Assange's arrest is valid, and Assange is, in fact, a wanted fugitive.
Neither of us actually knows what happened with the women in Sweden, but it's very clear that Assange has committed a criminal act under UK law.
I don't see government conspiracy theories under every bush, so I don't see why he'd be denied due process.
You do realize that the extradition request was found to be valid, including the fact that what Assange is alleged to have done is rape under UK law, right? If you commit some odd sort of crime in country A and go to country B, and what you did isn't criminal in country B, you aren't going to be extradited. Any oddities in Sweden's sex crime laws are irrelevant here.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe expert witnesses come in less than a hundred million each, which means Apple could have gotten plenty of them.
Judges are not typically stupid, and the judicial system has developed ways to deal with issues that judges don't know about.
If these are definitely BS patents, couldn't Apple have gotten the courts to look at them?
However, suppose we split patents into the real and the nebulous kinds. Patent trolls generally get nebulous patents and send out letters demanding payment, typically backing down if the target shows signs of fighting. Trolls are afraid of court decisions which will expose them to sunlight and turn them to stone.
This looks like a hard-fought legal battle, which means the courts have agreed that the patents are real and valid and do apply. This is at least not a typical patent troll.
It's fine to be against software patents, or patents in general, but this is how the game is currently played, and I can't blame someone for playing in the spirit of the game.
Sure, Presidents are accountable for their own actions. How accountable are they for other people's actions? The Republicans were willing to compromise with Clinton, but not Obama. We know that. We're speculating on the reasons.
I'm not at all sure that it has much to do with race, but I think it's more Republican attitude than Presidential competence.
Hyperbole? We've got hyperbole.
The US produces the best hyperbole in the world, and we're proud of it! It's part of what makes America great!
Not to mention that alpha particles are destructive but have essentially no penetration. An alpha emitter near your hand isn't doing nearly as much damage as an alpha emitter in your lungs, which is where radon goes.
There's lots of things that are natural and not good for you. Also, most people don't have all that much uranium surrounding them.
That depends on exactly how many incidents involving radioactivity we have, doesn't it? If we have more than a few, we may be asking first responders to take another dose. The alternatives are to fire first responders after their first radiation accident, or tell them to stay home and have an inadequate number. We'd like to see emergency-level doses repeatable without hurting the first responder too much.
Article I, first paragraph of Section 8.
The Air Force provides for the defense of the US.
Do you realize how paranoid you sound?
Of course, to quote River Song, "The Doctor lies."
Nope, the profit is unnecessary. Wages paid are not profits. Payments to suppliers are not profits. Operating costs are not profit. All of those are expenses. So is research, development, and investment. Profit is revenue minus expenses.
Are you going to claim that trickle-down economics works? Since Reagan started his voodoo economics, most increases in wealth have gone to a relatively few already wealthy people, and much less to people who actually work for a living.
Yup. Businesses get to globalize, while individuals don't. The businesses want to pay third-world wages while charging their customers first-world prices. If we could buy pretty much everything at the prices the poor countries pay, globalization would be a lot more fair.
In other words, each poor person could become wealthy, but are discouraged by their quality of life. I suspect that most poor people would get a middle-class lifestyle if they could, and that you should really rethink your view of economics and society.
Lots of problems with this statement.
First, I doubt that's true of "most of the world". Certainly a large part, but lots of people live in wealthy countries with access to health care, a "luxury" not possessed by the lower classes in the US. The world is advancing economically, and the main things now that keep countries poor are corrupt government and unbridled capitalism.
Second, you're dismissing one person's problems by saying someone else has it worse, which is callous at best.
Third, you're moving the goalposts along with the luxury boxes. We have a certain standard of living in this country (which varies a lot from place to place), and you're saying we should disregard this. Almost all of our media push this standard of living, and the well-off consider themselves so by how much they can exceed that standard. You're saying that it's fine to have your quality of life go way down as long as there are still less fortunate.
Capitalism is a very, very good way to generate wealth. It's not a good way to distribute wealth to people, unless you have no idea of equitable distribution. Unregulated capitalism divides the people into the owner class and the scrabbling-for-a-living class. Unregulated capitalism also favors the exploitation of other people and the destruction of the environment, civil rights, etc. As a society, we really should make a difference between people who get rich making stuff or providing services with little external cost, and people who get rich by doing things harmful to society.
The happiest countries in the world are those that are wealthy, have capitalistic economies, and have strong government support for people and restrictions on what business can get away with.
You're confusing amount and rate. Net worth is about how much money someone has, regardless of income or outflow, which just change net worth. Cost of living is normally expressed as a certain amount of money per year, normally calculated with the idea that you have a household set up. Now, a decent life style can't cost $300K/year in California, and has to cost more than what you can make by investing $300K, so I have no idea where you're getting your figures.
I consider myself very comfortable rather than rich, and I've got a net worth much higher than $300K. I still work for a salary, and (of course) sometimes wish I had more money so I could do something. My income is much less than $300K, FWIW.
My definition of "rich" would be being able to afford a lavish life style without working or having similar income, and having one's investments grow. I do realize that lots of rich people work hard, but my definition focuses on what they could do if they stopped working.
I haven't seen evidence that she was discussing classified matters, as opposed to getting some classified documents on her server.
Moreover, as far as I've been able to tell, no little people are in prison for doing what she did. Unless you're claiming she was deliberately and intentionally putting classified material on her server, she falls into the category of people who are not criminally prosecuted.
Actually, the real risk is being sent back to Sweden to stand trial on rape charges.
He was to report for extradition, pursuant to a perfectly legal request, and fled instead. I believe he agreed to turn himself in and instead headed for the embassy. That's a crime.
First, you're assuming the US has an interest. As far as I know, he hasn't violated any US laws, and I haven't heard any official action. There's no evidence of extradition attempts. There may have been surveillance attempts, although I haven't seen credible sources on that. Manning was an open-and-shut case.
Second, you're making Assange out to be a blithering idiot. If you don't want to be extradited to the US, the second-to-last place you should go is the UK, which is notorious for granting extradition requests to the US.
The simplest explanation is that Assange sexually assaulted two women in Sweden, left the country while he still could, didn't want to be extradited and face trial, and made up a story about the big bad US to look like the good guy in this. I haven't seen another good explanation that doesn't have unsupported assumptions about the US.
Like any man-on-woman sexual assault case, there are myriads of truth-challenged misogynists coming out of the woodwork to explain why the man is a saint and the victims are liars.
If he's a gay pedophile, exactly what was he doing with those women in Sweden? You'd think he wouldn't be attracted to adult women.
The extradition request is valid, including showing that what Assange allegedly did would be criminal under UK law. That means the UK warrant for Assange's arrest is valid, and Assange is, in fact, a wanted fugitive.
Neither of us actually knows what happened with the women in Sweden, but it's very clear that Assange has committed a criminal act under UK law.
I don't see government conspiracy theories under every bush, so I don't see why he'd be denied due process.
You do realize that the extradition request was found to be valid, including the fact that what Assange is alleged to have done is rape under UK law, right? If you commit some odd sort of crime in country A and go to country B, and what you did isn't criminal in country B, you aren't going to be extradited. Any oddities in Sweden's sex crime laws are irrelevant here.