Yes, actually it is. Commercial firms are not legally allowed to deliver first class mail, and in fact companies have been sued by the government for using Fedex and UPS to deliver mail that isn't time-sensitive.
No, not poor areas. Rural areas. There are plenty of big city poor areas the post office can deliver to profitably, and there are wealthy ranchers who live miles from the nearest neighbor who are getting heavily subsidized junk mail. The cost to deliver a piece of mail has to do with density, not the relative wealth of the area.
They're negotiating deals with your insurance company so your co-pay for the name brand will be lower than generics, even though the rate the insurance company actually pays for brand-name Lipitor would be higher than the generic, so you save $5 on a copay but the insurance risk pool loses $50, because the drug company is insulating you from the underlying costs and distorting your buying decision.
I don't understand why the insurance company would be party to that arrangement.
Nope. Drug targets come out of universities. But drug targets are a dime a dozen. The real expense is in clinical trials, and that is paid by drug companies in almost all cases. When the cost is shared the university gets part of the patent.
I will certainly ride this train if it actually gets built. But it's a really, really dumb idea, and what we're likely to end up with is a train that goes from nowhere to nowhere because public support evaporated when the bill came due.
And remember, this is the state that cancelled dental insurance for poor people because it ran out of money.
I don't see any reason to believe this is true either in general or in this particular case, as the court rulings seem pretty logical. The government has always been able to go through your stuff with a warrant - prosecutors need this power to do their job. If, for example, the court knows you've hidden a document the cops can't find, the judge can compel you to produce the document, and throw you in jail until you do. How is that different?
This is not a question of courts removing rights you used to have. It's a question of you assuming (erroneously) because the government didn't used to do something it didn't have the power to do that thing.
If it didn't happen after Amazon's ridiculous 1-click patent, it's not going to happen. Also, I'm not convinced the patent situation is a result of "intense funding of politicians by industry sources". Industry doesn't benefit from these kinds of patent trolls. More likely it's "intense funding" by bar associations.
Not enough information. We have no idea what the odds are for abiogenesis to occur, even if the conditions are right. Even assuming we knew how often those conditions are present.
There was an article on slashdot about this very thing just a few months ago. The consensus seems to be your encryption keys are not covered under the 5th amendment. They're the digital equivalent to a safe combination, something judges can legally force you to disclose.
Inflating out is a perfectly rational strategy. That's exactly what Greece would have done if they hadn't foolishly joined the euro. Of course it will make everyone in the US a bit poorer, but that's certain to follow such a large trade deficit one way or the other. In fact, it doesn't really matter if China stops buying US debt or not. It will happen unless the US actually balances the national checkbook, and the odds of that happening are exactly zero.
So not true. For one thing, the Fed already has more debt than China does. They can just pick up the slack and nobody would know the difference. China has been reducing its purchase of US debt for years - I wouldn't be surprised if they've already stopped buying treasuries altogether.
In a trade war, China loses. The big disadvantage of artificially pegging your currency too low is you need other countries much more than they need you. It becomes a buyer-seller relationship instead of a mutual trading relationship. And the buyer can always buy from someone else.
It's not just about breaking hardware. You also want the people in charge to know that they're not safe even if they manage to reach bunkers during an attack.
I never have that problem, but I do notice if I play a game with driving (say, Borderlands or Half-life 2), it takes a few seconds for me to adjust my frame of mind to driving in the real world.
Israel will assassinate whoever it needs to assassinate in the interests of national security. Every country does at one point or another. The Israelis stand out because their national security interests are more immediately pressing than most countries, and because they have a lot of enemies using asymetric warfare.
Having said that let me say I doubt they would bother killing a computer virus researcher, even assuming he was dissecting their virus. There's no real benefit to it, since there are a lot of people looking at the virus, and they would risk having people captured or otherwise exposed.
I still don't understand how Stuxnet managed to get in so easily, or how this one is to those systems too. You'd expect the people to have some sense of the security implications of opening random crap.
Do you have any reason to believe Stuxnet got in "easily"? The Iranians don't know how it got there. It may be the Israelis (or whoever) had an agent inject it onto the Natanz network. And nobody had to "open" anything, since it will spread through infected thumb drives.
If you want growth, Microsoft is not where you want to be.
That's not what it means at all. It means if you wanted growth in 2000 Microsoft wasn't the place to be. The same may be true of Apple and Google today. That's likely the case, actually.
That's my take. The positions they've taken over the years on exactly what "property" is will be hard to reconcile, assuming the courts are interested.
His job was to bring customers to the site to read his reviews and articles, the twitter account was a tool used doubtlessly during office hours as part of that job.
That's really what the issue revolves around, IMO. If he spent company time building up his twitter following the account really should belong to his employer. If not, then it's his. The problem will undoubtedly be he spent both company and personal time on the twitter account, so then it probably boils down to how the company paid him.
Slashdot Mirror
No, USPS is no monopoly.
Yes, actually it is. Commercial firms are not legally allowed to deliver first class mail, and in fact companies have been sued by the government for using Fedex and UPS to deliver mail that isn't time-sensitive.
No, not poor areas. Rural areas. There are plenty of big city poor areas the post office can deliver to profitably, and there are wealthy ranchers who live miles from the nearest neighbor who are getting heavily subsidized junk mail. The cost to deliver a piece of mail has to do with density, not the relative wealth of the area.
They're negotiating deals with your insurance company so your co-pay for the name brand will be lower than generics, even though the rate the insurance company actually pays for brand-name Lipitor would be higher than the generic, so you save $5 on a copay but the insurance risk pool loses $50, because the drug company is insulating you from the underlying costs and distorting your buying decision.
I don't understand why the insurance company would be party to that arrangement.
Nope. Drug targets come out of universities. But drug targets are a dime a dozen. The real expense is in clinical trials, and that is paid by drug companies in almost all cases. When the cost is shared the university gets part of the patent.
I will certainly ride this train if it actually gets built. But it's a really, really dumb idea, and what we're likely to end up with is a train that goes from nowhere to nowhere because public support evaporated when the bill came due.
And remember, this is the state that cancelled dental insurance for poor people because it ran out of money.
I don't see any reason to believe this is true either in general or in this particular case, as the court rulings seem pretty logical. The government has always been able to go through your stuff with a warrant - prosecutors need this power to do their job. If, for example, the court knows you've hidden a document the cops can't find, the judge can compel you to produce the document, and throw you in jail until you do. How is that different?
This is not a question of courts removing rights you used to have. It's a question of you assuming (erroneously) because the government didn't used to do something it didn't have the power to do that thing.
Partially invalidated. You left out a critically important word.
If it didn't happen after Amazon's ridiculous 1-click patent, it's not going to happen. Also, I'm not convinced the patent situation is a result of "intense funding of politicians by industry sources". Industry doesn't benefit from these kinds of patent trolls. More likely it's "intense funding" by bar associations.
Yahoo Japan is actually a different company. I think they were part of Yahoo originally, but were spun off.
Not enough information. We have no idea what the odds are for abiogenesis to occur, even if the conditions are right. Even assuming we knew how often those conditions are present.
Not levied by the government, eh? So you can tell them to take a hike when they come 'round to collect?
There was an article on slashdot about this very thing just a few months ago. The consensus seems to be your encryption keys are not covered under the 5th amendment. They're the digital equivalent to a safe combination, something judges can legally force you to disclose.
Cops aren't that stupid. The first thing they do when they get your drive is copy it, and all the tinkering gets done on the copy.
Inflating out is a perfectly rational strategy. That's exactly what Greece would have done if they hadn't foolishly joined the euro. Of course it will make everyone in the US a bit poorer, but that's certain to follow such a large trade deficit one way or the other. In fact, it doesn't really matter if China stops buying US debt or not. It will happen unless the US actually balances the national checkbook, and the odds of that happening are exactly zero.
So not true. For one thing, the Fed already has more debt than China does. They can just pick up the slack and nobody would know the difference. China has been reducing its purchase of US debt for years - I wouldn't be surprised if they've already stopped buying treasuries altogether.
In a trade war, China loses. The big disadvantage of artificially pegging your currency too low is you need other countries much more than they need you. It becomes a buyer-seller relationship instead of a mutual trading relationship. And the buyer can always buy from someone else.
Gentle women like... Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir?
The type of woman who gets into a position that powerful is every bit as cutthroat as a man. Sometimes more so.
Yes, and when you launch it you hear "M-M-M-MASSIVE Ordinance Penetrator!!!!"
It's not just about breaking hardware. You also want the people in charge to know that they're not safe even if they manage to reach bunkers during an attack.
I never have that problem, but I do notice if I play a game with driving (say, Borderlands or Half-life 2), it takes a few seconds for me to adjust my frame of mind to driving in the real world.
And what about Canadian Gerald Bull?
Israel will assassinate whoever it needs to assassinate in the interests of national security. Every country does at one point or another. The Israelis stand out because their national security interests are more immediately pressing than most countries, and because they have a lot of enemies using asymetric warfare.
Having said that let me say I doubt they would bother killing a computer virus researcher, even assuming he was dissecting their virus. There's no real benefit to it, since there are a lot of people looking at the virus, and they would risk having people captured or otherwise exposed.
I still don't understand how Stuxnet managed to get in so easily, or how this one is to those systems too. You'd expect the people to have some sense of the security implications of opening random crap.
Do you have any reason to believe Stuxnet got in "easily"? The Iranians don't know how it got there. It may be the Israelis (or whoever) had an agent inject it onto the Natanz network. And nobody had to "open" anything, since it will spread through infected thumb drives.
If you want growth, Microsoft is not where you want to be.
That's not what it means at all. It means if you wanted growth in 2000 Microsoft wasn't the place to be. The same may be true of Apple and Google today. That's likely the case, actually.
That's my take. The positions they've taken over the years on exactly what "property" is will be hard to reconcile, assuming the courts are interested.
His job was to bring customers to the site to read his reviews and articles, the twitter account was a tool used doubtlessly during office hours as part of that job.
That's really what the issue revolves around, IMO. If he spent company time building up his twitter following the account really should belong to his employer. If not, then it's his. The problem will undoubtedly be he spent both company and personal time on the twitter account, so then it probably boils down to how the company paid him.
I'm not convinced this is a common occurrence, still.