That "perjury hook" wasn't dubious at all. You can argue it doesn't rise to the level of a sort of crime that should get a president impeached, but he did commit a felony. And instead of rotting in jail like your or I would the only thing that happened is he lost his law license for a few years.
I'm not wrong, obviously. When you actually go to do something in the real world you can't rely on stuff that seems easy but isn't, like ISRU. Stuff we can't do.
It has the big benefit that NASA can get a goodly ways into the project before the taxpayers lose interest and drag it over the finish line with the sunk costs fallacy. A reasonable Mars mission will have a long enough time frame it will probably never be funded.
"Treat you? We don't really know what this one does. It might not be bad for you at all. Or it might kill you in some new and interesting way. Hard to tell."
That's all true and irrelevant to the IP discussion. Off-patent drugs that are used widely generally have generics. Sometimes more than one.
As I said, the market is too small to support two producers. This is classic monopoly behavior - raise the price because you're the only producer. Other companies would make tons of money at this price, but they know damn well by the time they actually got to market the price would be too low for them to make money.
No, the summary is worded to be misleading inflammatory. There's no such thing as "exclusive rights" on a drug that's off patent. They bought the brand name, and any company can produce this drug as a generic.
The problem is the market is too small to support two producers. It's a textbook case of a company abusing a monopoly. It has nothing to do with IP.
Starting from scratch with a big war chest is going to be a big advantage. They don't have retirees to pay, they don't have plants located in inefficient places for historical reasons. They can get good tax deals and subsidies by playing states and cities off against each other.
Beyond that, the executives at companies like Ford and GM are used to playing around in the margins of the gasoline and diesel world. Trying to eke out just a bit better gas mileage or horsepower than last year's model. I don't think, institutionally, they'll be willing to gamble on something that's very different than the cars they already produce because of supply chain ripple effects.
The geography and weather come into play because people in those states aren't going to be going much faster anyway, so they don't care.
In any event, when Congress was debating whether or not to change it to 65 (still too slow, IMO), the opponents of the change were trying to kill it on safety grounds. After it passed Sen. Claude Pepper (D-FL) got the floor and told the chamber "The blood of thousands of Americans is on this Congress' hands!"
That's the heart of the issue right there. President Bush wrongly believed the threat of terrorism gave him authority to break constitutional law.
Except the courts have ruled now on multiple occasions his interpretation wasn't actually unconstitutional. Bush only authorized wiretaps on international calls to suspected terrorists, something that had been done on a smaller scale by presidents as far back as Carter.
Because it's a single use tool. Sure, it would be great for shooting up groups of twenty guys running around with RPGs and rusty AK-47s. But if we got into a fight with a country that has a non-trivial air defense, it would be completely useless where the F-35 would shine. This kind of article is a perfect exemplar of the "fight the last war" mentality.
I personally kind of like the idea that law would be uniform from state to state.
Not me. Regions have different cultures, different geography, different levels of wealth. That means they like to do things differently. A national approach means one-size-fits-all, which is never going to be as efficient.
The 55 mph federal speed limit is a perfect example. It may seem reasonable to people who live in hilly places that get bad weather, but if you live in Nevada, say, or Nebraska it's just a dumb idea.
Giving the known evidence, "half-ass" Keynes still works better than so-called "austerity" during down times. Hoover (1930's), UK, Greece, Kansas, and other tests of austerity suggests it either makes downturns no better or worse.
Hoover doesn't belong on that list, as he sharply increased spending as a result of the economic turmoil. During the campaign Roosevelt actually criticized him for it.
It should be borne in mind that polygraphy is vulnerable to simple countermeasures (PDF, see Ch. 4) that polygraph operators cannot detect. This case is yet another example of how the pseudoscience of polygraphy endangers virtually everyone with a high-level security clearance.
Wait a minute. If he's taking obvious steps to beat the test, no matter what you think of the general usefulness this is still a problem. There's a reason cops will come over and talk to someone who's acting suspicious.
I do not see enough passengers to justify enough planes to justify development costs.
There weren't enough to justify the development of the original passenger airlines - the jet engine itself would probably never have been developed if it didn't have military applications. If this plane has to rely on passenger fares to pay for development it will never fly.
It's too bad that 'piercing the veil' appears to be some kind of taboo in the US.
You're not using the right phrase here. That one refers to liabilities incurred by the owners of a corporation, which isn't something that normally happens. Judges can decide to do this based on things like material misrepresentations in corporate documents and the "absence of arm's length relationships", e.g. you start a corporation and then pay for personal items out of the corporate account.
What Volkswagen did all occurred within the corporation.
It isn't news because it's pure speculation. There's no support for the idea Intel killed it for nefarious monopolist (as if Intel were a monopoly) reasons. If they were really playing those kinds of games they would never have greenlighted the project to start with. It's far more likely either the project wasn't meeting expectations or they have some nearly-finished technology they want to incorporate into the next top-of-the-line part.
Slashdot Mirror
A million dollars? That's far more than I would have estimated.
Banks haven't worked like that for a long, long time.
Why would they disagree? That's exactly what it was.
That "perjury hook" wasn't dubious at all. You can argue it doesn't rise to the level of a sort of crime that should get a president impeached, but he did commit a felony. And instead of rotting in jail like your or I would the only thing that happened is he lost his law license for a few years.
I'm not wrong, obviously. When you actually go to do something in the real world you can't rely on stuff that seems easy but isn't, like ISRU. Stuff we can't do.
That's mostly a consequence of the fact that we've done the easy bits. Mars is a much, much harder place to get to than the moon.
"Senate Launch System". Heh.
It has the big benefit that NASA can get a goodly ways into the project before the taxpayers lose interest and drag it over the finish line with the sunk costs fallacy. A reasonable Mars mission will have a long enough time frame it will probably never be funded.
Nah. They're going to pretend to stop and we're going to pretend not to notice they haven't.
This is all for domestic consumption.
As long as you live in Seoul, sure.
"Treat you? We don't really know what this one does. It might not be bad for you at all. Or it might kill you in some new and interesting way. Hard to tell."
Yes. I had to laugh when I read this.
If there's a new threat to people in IT it's services like AWS, which reduce the number of people you need to maintain servers.
That's all true and irrelevant to the IP discussion. Off-patent drugs that are used widely generally have generics. Sometimes more than one.
As I said, the market is too small to support two producers. This is classic monopoly behavior - raise the price because you're the only producer. Other companies would make tons of money at this price, but they know damn well by the time they actually got to market the price would be too low for them to make money.
No, the summary is worded to be misleading inflammatory. There's no such thing as "exclusive rights" on a drug that's off patent. They bought the brand name, and any company can produce this drug as a generic.
The problem is the market is too small to support two producers. It's a textbook case of a company abusing a monopoly. It has nothing to do with IP.
Starting from scratch with a big war chest is going to be a big advantage. They don't have retirees to pay, they don't have plants located in inefficient places for historical reasons. They can get good tax deals and subsidies by playing states and cities off against each other.
Beyond that, the executives at companies like Ford and GM are used to playing around in the margins of the gasoline and diesel world. Trying to eke out just a bit better gas mileage or horsepower than last year's model. I don't think, institutionally, they'll be willing to gamble on something that's very different than the cars they already produce because of supply chain ripple effects.
The geography and weather come into play because people in those states aren't going to be going much faster anyway, so they don't care.
In any event, when Congress was debating whether or not to change it to 65 (still too slow, IMO), the opponents of the change were trying to kill it on safety grounds. After it passed Sen. Claude Pepper (D-FL) got the floor and told the chamber "The blood of thousands of Americans is on this Congress' hands!"
Except the courts have ruled now on multiple occasions his interpretation wasn't actually unconstitutional. Bush only authorized wiretaps on international calls to suspected terrorists, something that had been done on a smaller scale by presidents as far back as Carter.
Because it's a single use tool. Sure, it would be great for shooting up groups of twenty guys running around with RPGs and rusty AK-47s. But if we got into a fight with a country that has a non-trivial air defense, it would be completely useless where the F-35 would shine. This kind of article is a perfect exemplar of the "fight the last war" mentality.
Not me. Regions have different cultures, different geography, different levels of wealth. That means they like to do things differently. A national approach means one-size-fits-all, which is never going to be as efficient.
The 55 mph federal speed limit is a perfect example. It may seem reasonable to people who live in hilly places that get bad weather, but if you live in Nevada, say, or Nebraska it's just a dumb idea.
Hoover doesn't belong on that list, as he sharply increased spending as a result of the economic turmoil. During the campaign Roosevelt actually criticized him for it.
Wait a minute. If he's taking obvious steps to beat the test, no matter what you think of the general usefulness this is still a problem. There's a reason cops will come over and talk to someone who's acting suspicious.
There weren't enough to justify the development of the original passenger airlines - the jet engine itself would probably never have been developed if it didn't have military applications. If this plane has to rely on passenger fares to pay for development it will never fly.
You're not using the right phrase here. That one refers to liabilities incurred by the owners of a corporation, which isn't something that normally happens. Judges can decide to do this based on things like material misrepresentations in corporate documents and the "absence of arm's length relationships", e.g. you start a corporation and then pay for personal items out of the corporate account.
What Volkswagen did all occurred within the corporation.
It isn't news because it's pure speculation. There's no support for the idea Intel killed it for nefarious monopolist (as if Intel were a monopoly) reasons. If they were really playing those kinds of games they would never have greenlighted the project to start with. It's far more likely either the project wasn't meeting expectations or they have some nearly-finished technology they want to incorporate into the next top-of-the-line part.
734 U-boats were sunk during the war. Seems like it would be pretty easy to find one.