GoDaddy is another bad registrar, and has been mentioned on Slashdot many times, including here and here. I'm assuming Dynadot should also be boycotted.
While the actions of Julius Baer, Lavely and Singer, and Dynadot were all despicable, they didn't break the law, per se. Breaking the law would be something like setting Wikileaks servers on fire (which is still a suspicious incident) or intentionally causing a DDOS on their servers. Violating someone's First Amendment rights is not quite the same; additionally, a judge agreed with them. Probably the most similar case, which has probably been mentioned many times, is New York Times Co. v United States. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the government's exercise of prior restraint violated The New York Times's and The Washington Post's rights to freedom of the press. I don't believe the newspaper won any money, though they weren't "damaged" because they continued to publish despite the threats from Nixon.
The OP asked about legal expenses, and not damages. Are there financial damages for a non-profit site that doesn't engage in the trade of goods? The counter-argument would be that the lawsuit actually made Wikileaks more well-known! Furthermore, no court has actually agreed with Wikileaks. The plaintiffs withdrew their lawsuit; that doesn't mean they're wrong (even though we know they are). To show damages, I would think that Wikileaks would have to show up in court, with lawyers, and argue that they were harmed. It doesn't seem like it's worth the effort.
On another note, has anyone ever received money after their work was taken off a website due to a false DMCA claim? I'm not aware of it ever occurring.
I don't know if that applies to Wikileaks. The quote says:
Lawyers for the intervening parties had threatened to try to recover legal fees... I think that refers to all the groups that filed amici curiae (friends of the court) briefs. These included (off the top of my head) Public Citizen, ACLU, EFF, and some dozen or so media companies. Wikileaks never went to court and never filed any legal motions! I don't think you can reimbursed for responding to frivolous e-mails from stupid lawyers (which, I understand, is all they did).
I think the laws that the statement refers to are California's anti-SLAPP (SLAPP = strategic lawsuit against public participation) statutes. However, it seems like the defendents must file anti-SLAPP motions, and we haven't heard of any that have been filed (though I may be wrong).
Dell's postmortem...
Company managers and executives also did their own postmortems on Vista... Maybe I watch too many crime dramas, but I originally thought the article was writing off Vista as being as good as dead, since they're already talking about Windows 7. Though I can't say I disagree.
FYI: Postmortem also has an informal definition meaning "an analysis or review of a finished event".
Like you, I have narcolepsy without cataplexy. I take modafinil during the weekdays, and try to give myself some real rest during the weekends. Luckily, I'm able to function normally, for the most part.
Have you tried to ask your doctor to prescribe it and write "no substitutes"? I don't remember the exact wording, but the doctor essentially says that you need the specific drug and cannot get a replacement, and insurance might cover it for you. I also get the 90-day supply by mail order. This might not work in your case, it's worth a shot. Good luck!
(I don't like pharmaceuticals either, but that drug has helped me a lot.)
I read through his ruling, and I think he was saying that, in retrospect, he should have dismissed the case. At the time, however, he felt that narrowing the patent infringement claims would have been unfair to the plaintiffs. It's not his job to decide whether BrainLAB infringed on SNT's patent, so he decided to let a jury hear the case.
Despite having dropped many of the claims of patent infringement, the plaintiff's lawyers proceeded to tell the jury how the defendent violated those same patent claims. And with respect to the second paragraph you quoted, the plaintiff's lawyers made that comparison in the closing arguments to the jury, which (the judge believed) was highly unfair. Though I wonder why he didn't object to the lawyers' behavior then. In any case, the lawyers took a statement from BrainLAB's FDA application out of context, using the phrase "substantially equivalent" to imply that the defendent admitted to infringing a patent, when it was talking about functionality of the product.
...the UK, which has a loser-normally-pays system (rather than loser occasionally pays, as in the US) I think you mean that the US has a "loser rarely pays" system. How often do you hear of a plaintiff's lawyers ever being forced to pay for the defendent's attorney fees? Some states, such as California, have anti-SLAPP laws, but this was a federal case and would not have applied here.
On the other hand, the UK's libel laws are completely unreasonable, as the "McLibel Case demonstrates. The European Court of Human Rights found that the two defendents' right to a fair trial and right to the freedom of expression had been violated.
Congratulations! I also remember reading your story a while back. The court opinion is quite a fascinating read too. Just curious - how much money did you spend on lawyer's fees and other costs, and how much time did you spend doing research, preparing motions, and being in court?
Maybe you're referring to this article, which was discussed here several months ago.
Inert objects implanted into the body cause fibrous encapsulation, when the body's immune system covers the implant with fibrous and connective tissues. I'm sure you probably noticed that the implant in your pet was covered in tissue after they removed it. The problem is that scientists haven't determined whether it's the RF scanners, the RFID itself, or the presence of an inert implant that's causing the cancer (or at least I'm not aware of any evidence of it). Having said that, I would never implant myself with a foreign object.
Now the shareholders of (for example) AT&T bear the cost of decisions they didn't make, approve, or know about.
...is a John Doe suit filed against the individual(s) within (for example) AT&T who actually made and authorized the decisions to compromise customers' privacy. I would love to see the individuals who made the decision get punished for what they did! But tell me: do you think a low-level manager actually gave the "OK" to allow the NSA to build a secret room at AT&T? Similarly, do you think the receptionists at Enron participated in hiding its losses? Of course not. These things typically go all the way to the top of the ladder. I know that most of the cases are civil lawsuits, but these companies did violate agreements with its customers, as well as some privacy laws.
Furthermore, keep in mind that a company and its shareholders are liable for the actions of its employees, provided its employees are acting on its behalf. My employer earns money from my work; shouldn't they lose money if I break the law? Think of investments, like stocks. If the company beats expectations, the stock goes up and you earn money (usually). If the company performs poorly, we all lose. Did I have any say in their decision to hire employee X who then cost $7 billion in losses? No. But as a shareholder, I'll still lose money.
I think you can't pardon a company, because a company would not go to jail or have a criminal record. The executives can receive criminal penalties, but as the sibling poster mentioned, many of the lawsuits are civil cases.
Furthermore, I think Bush's real reason is some sort of belief in his own infallibility. Though he makes a lot of grandiose statements about getting rid of lawmakers' earmarks or punishing members of his administration who have been convicted of a crime (see Libby), they are meaningless statements that go against everything he advocated. He never (intentionally) admits he made mistakes; you never hear him say anything about fabricating evidence for war, cutting funding for No Child Left Behind, etc. Bush knows he will never be prosecuted for telling telecoms to break the law, but he also does not want the public to know what he did do.
I hate W2s, as 1099s offer many more tax benefits. I've seen many friends give up their stable W2 jobs to move into 1099 contracting, and see their income double, but their tax share not move up as much. Correct me if I'm wrong, but under FICA, the government collects a total of 15.3% in Social Security and Medicare taxes. The typical employee (i.e., those who receive a W-2) only pays half this, or 7.65%, because the employer is liable for the other half. The employee would only be taxed (w.r.t. the income tax) on the remaining 92.35%. Independent contractors, however, have the 1099 because they are essentially their own employer, so to speak. Therefore, they pay 15.3% (of the 92.35%) in Social Security and Medicare taxes, and their income tax is based upon the remaining amount.
If what you say is true, then either your friends aren't paying the correct amount of taxes, or the calculations are different. Or maybe I'm wrong *shrugs*. Also, contractors may not necessarily receive other benefits like health insurance and retirement benefits (401k, IRA). Health insurance is not a big deal if you're young, but it makes a difference if you have a family.
I won't get into a debate about tax structure, but I surmise that the "better public facilities and police attention" is not solely a result of the government, but of a myriad of other factors like crime, county wealth, etc.
That was mostly in reference to burning coal, as China has been accelerating its production of coal power plants - and this will make its smog problem even worse. Its energy supply, like in this case, would be severely affected by disasters. I was also saying that the US should take heed of its own dependence upon coal or any one source of energy (I do realize that coal is a smaller percentage of the energy in the US than in China). Yeah, my post was confusing.
"Church teaching certainly cannot and must not weigh in on every novelty of science, but it has the task to reiterate the great values which are on the line and to propose to faithful and all men of good will ethical-moral principles and direction for new, important questions." "Science certainly cannot and must not weigh in on every novelty of church teaching, but it has the task to reiterate the great values which are on the line and to propose to reasonable and all men of good will rational-logical principles and direction for new, important questions."
In a strange (?) coincidence, China is experiencing blizzards that have severely hindered their railway system due to the difficulties of shipping coal. It might not be that bad come summer time, but who knows. It might help them realize that their dependence on coal is infeasible. And maybe the US should take heed.
That's ridiculous. Drugs are not priced based on market forces. In fact, there are no market forces. Assuming you have insurance, then the drug's cost to you is not the real cost - nor is the "market" price related to the cost to the company. Amgen and Roche are in a battle over dialysis drugs. With kickbacks, reimbursement rates, and other strange financial dealings, the prices become complicated. Look at Genentech too. Their main competitor to Lucentis, their drug for wet age-related macular degeneration, is Avastin, another one of their drugs! Yet Lucentis costs about 40 times as much as Avastin. That has nothing to do with the market. So what do they do? They try to prevent ophthalmologists from purchasing Avastin to use as treatment for AMD, by halting sales to compounding pharmacies.
The barrier to entry is also extremely high (though this might be necessary to ensure there aren't fakes). As a patient, you have little choice. Do you honestly shop around for the cheapest doctors when it comes time for surgery? You don't have much say in what the doctor will order for you, and you have essentially no say in who your anesthesiologist will be.
That's not true. Yes, patents should not be issued for things that occur naturally. But how about genes? It's ludicrous to think that someone could patent a DNA sequence, and force others to pay licensing fees when screening for that gene. Here's an op-ed by Michael Crichton that discusses patents on genes. Here's another article from Wired. That's just to give you an idea, though I'm sure there are many more informative articles.
Pharmaceutical companies? They care nothing except for their profit. Who said they were worried about staying in business? One company has never made a profit or marketed a drug of its own. And it's been in existence since 1981. Another company has lost $1.3 billion, yet is still up and running.
Yes, that was one of their demos. I heard their talk back in September. I work in eye research, so depth perception and visual cues are important to many of the researchers here. They mounted a camera and part of the computer system on an RC car and allowed it to travel randomly through a wooded area. The RC car traveled at a decent speed, but could determine which trees were closest and would avoid them. From the video, it looked quite promising.
The other demo involved an actual robot that they trained to pick objects up. For example, mugs should be picked up by their handles, cups by their sides, etc. They trained the robot to listen to voice commands, such as "Pick up the stapler from the room." The robot was a little slow as it tried to figure out if the target object was the stapler or not - I imagine it must do a lot of processing and other pattern-recognition. It was still amazing and looked quite promising.
Clap skates become popular in the late 1990s because they had an advantage over the traditional skates, and now nearly all speedskaters use them. Why did the IOC allow them to use it, but the IAAF prevent him from using his prosthetics? Could it be argued that skates who use clap skates have a technical advantage over those who choose not to?
While I may agree somewhat with Pistorius's disqualification, it is also important to note that his personal record for the 400m is well short of the automatic qualifying time.
Soft contact lenses are designed so that they act like a suction on your eye. They can do this because the material is mostly oxygen-permeable. They will, however, still move or rotate slightly in your eye, though it's usually not very noticeable. The orientation of toric lenses is important because it's supposed to correct for astigmatism in the eye; these lenses are usually prism-ballasted (the bottom of the lens is heavier) so that they keep the correct orientation.
Hard (rigid gas permeable) lenses do not have the oxygen permeability like the soft lenses do, and slightly lift up when you blink so you get adequate tear exchange under your lens. I would imagine that they would be using some sort of RGP-like material for the lenses.
Electrophysiology in the monkey (or other animals like cats) has been done for decades. I doubt Miguel Nicolelis was the first to create a neural prosthetic, but he has been very successful at doing so. Some of his publications are listed in that article, and a link to his lab website is there too.
I first heard about him on a rerun of the PBS show "Innovations" that discussed several prosthetics, including Dobelle's vision prosthetic. The episode aired in 2004, which meant it was produced even earlier than that. At that time, Nicolelis was already able to use a monkey to control a mechanical arm in his lab. To train the monkey to do so, they had him move a joystick into a circle repeatedly. An electrode array was implanted in the monkey's motor cortex, so they could record neural signals. After the monkey was trained, they took away the joystick and the monkey only had to think of making the arm motion to move the joystick into the circle.
I disagree, and argue that while the EU is doing everything that it can to force Microsoft into compliance, it is limited to what it can do and how quickly it can do so. Obviously the EU has to follow the laws, but it took four years for Microsoft's appeal of the earlier EU decision to stand. What will prevent it from violating antitrust laws and take over the next Netscape or RealNetworks? Five years later, when the case is finally decided, they'll pay some tiny penalty that is a mere pittance compared to their available cash.
To make an (admittedly terrible) extension to your analogy, it's as if Microsoft was speeding and intentionally ran an opponent over. When the police pull them over, they say, "Oh, I did what? My bad. Here, I'll pay the fine." And then do it again.
Keep in mind that many view Bill Gates as a true philanthropist for his humanitarian actions. While he's not on the level of Gandhi or Mother Theresa, both of whom had their own flaws, he is considered as a champion of children, health care for the poor, etc. I despise him and think he's a fraud, but most people think I'm just angry or something.
I believe the only true threat to Microsoft's power was the US antitrust suit some 10-odd years ago. The judge had the power to break up the company, though he chose not to do so. He did penalize the company, but since then it seems like the Bush DOJ has done nothing but support MS. I applaud the EU for what they've been doing, especially for standing up to the attacks from the US government. But without any sort of help, they are really limited in effecting change.
Ironic you point out someone else generalizing considering you implied a generalization that everyone in private school is "rich." No I didn't. I said: "rich people are often better academically than poor people," which says nothing about schools.
I do believe that the average family income of students in private schools is higher than those in public schools. But I never said that every student in private school is rich.
I would have no problem with them teaching intelligent design if they just followed the rules of science when teaching it. While I understand where you're going, you're asking for something that is impossible. Religion and theology could never follow the rules of science. Simply stating that a god created the world 2000 years ago violates fundamental principles in geology, anthropology, and various other sciences. Isn't religion already disproven by science? An anology would be to use science to disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. ID is nothing but a facade that allows them to teach creationism.
I learned about Greek and Roman myths, fables, fairy tales, tall tales, and many other fantastical things. They were never taught in a science class, and they were never passed as being real. If you want to teach the Bible, Koran, Tanakh, or any other religious work in a religious or literary class, then go ahead. But not in a science class.
Slashdot Mirror
GoDaddy is another bad registrar, and has been mentioned on Slashdot many times, including here and here. I'm assuming Dynadot should also be boycotted.
While the actions of Julius Baer, Lavely and Singer, and Dynadot were all despicable, they didn't break the law, per se. Breaking the law would be something like setting Wikileaks servers on fire (which is still a suspicious incident) or intentionally causing a DDOS on their servers. Violating someone's First Amendment rights is not quite the same; additionally, a judge agreed with them. Probably the most similar case, which has probably been mentioned many times, is New York Times Co. v United States. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the government's exercise of prior restraint violated The New York Times's and The Washington Post's rights to freedom of the press. I don't believe the newspaper won any money, though they weren't "damaged" because they continued to publish despite the threats from Nixon.
The OP asked about legal expenses, and not damages. Are there financial damages for a non-profit site that doesn't engage in the trade of goods? The counter-argument would be that the lawsuit actually made Wikileaks more well-known! Furthermore, no court has actually agreed with Wikileaks. The plaintiffs withdrew their lawsuit; that doesn't mean they're wrong (even though we know they are). To show damages, I would think that Wikileaks would have to show up in court, with lawyers, and argue that they were harmed. It doesn't seem like it's worth the effort.
On another note, has anyone ever received money after their work was taken off a website due to a false DMCA claim? I'm not aware of it ever occurring.
IANAL.
I think the laws that the statement refers to are California's anti-SLAPP (SLAPP = strategic lawsuit against public participation) statutes. However, it seems like the defendents must file anti-SLAPP motions, and we haven't heard of any that have been filed (though I may be wrong).
FYI: Postmortem also has an informal definition meaning "an analysis or review of a finished event".
Like you, I have narcolepsy without cataplexy. I take modafinil during the weekdays, and try to give myself some real rest during the weekends. Luckily, I'm able to function normally, for the most part.
Have you tried to ask your doctor to prescribe it and write "no substitutes"? I don't remember the exact wording, but the doctor essentially says that you need the specific drug and cannot get a replacement, and insurance might cover it for you. I also get the 90-day supply by mail order. This might not work in your case, it's worth a shot. Good luck!
(I don't like pharmaceuticals either, but that drug has helped me a lot.)
I read through his ruling, and I think he was saying that, in retrospect, he should have dismissed the case. At the time, however, he felt that narrowing the patent infringement claims would have been unfair to the plaintiffs. It's not his job to decide whether BrainLAB infringed on SNT's patent, so he decided to let a jury hear the case.
Despite having dropped many of the claims of patent infringement, the plaintiff's lawyers proceeded to tell the jury how the defendent violated those same patent claims. And with respect to the second paragraph you quoted, the plaintiff's lawyers made that comparison in the closing arguments to the jury, which (the judge believed) was highly unfair. Though I wonder why he didn't object to the lawyers' behavior then. In any case, the lawyers took a statement from BrainLAB's FDA application out of context, using the phrase "substantially equivalent" to imply that the defendent admitted to infringing a patent, when it was talking about functionality of the product.
...the UK, which has a loser-normally-pays system (rather than loser occasionally pays, as in the US) I think you mean that the US has a "loser rarely pays" system. How often do you hear of a plaintiff's lawyers ever being forced to pay for the defendent's attorney fees? Some states, such as California, have anti-SLAPP laws, but this was a federal case and would not have applied here.On the other hand, the UK's libel laws are completely unreasonable, as the "McLibel Case demonstrates. The European Court of Human Rights found that the two defendents' right to a fair trial and right to the freedom of expression had been violated.
Congratulations! I also remember reading your story a while back. The court opinion is quite a fascinating read too. Just curious - how much money did you spend on lawyer's fees and other costs, and how much time did you spend doing research, preparing motions, and being in court?
Well, I didn't think those needed to be said, but yes I would. I suppose you could add other things like absorbable sutures too.
Hmm, I hadn't heard of the term "bionic ear" for cochlear implants before. Kind of a creepy name if you ask me.
Maybe you're referring to this article, which was discussed here several months ago.
Inert objects implanted into the body cause fibrous encapsulation, when the body's immune system covers the implant with fibrous and connective tissues. I'm sure you probably noticed that the implant in your pet was covered in tissue after they removed it. The problem is that scientists haven't determined whether it's the RF scanners, the RFID itself, or the presence of an inert implant that's causing the cancer (or at least I'm not aware of any evidence of it). Having said that, I would never implant myself with a foreign object.
...is a John Doe suit filed against the individual(s) within (for example) AT&T who actually made and authorized the decisions to compromise customers' privacy. I would love to see the individuals who made the decision get punished for what they did! But tell me: do you think a low-level manager actually gave the "OK" to allow the NSA to build a secret room at AT&T? Similarly, do you think the receptionists at Enron participated in hiding its losses? Of course not. These things typically go all the way to the top of the ladder. I know that most of the cases are civil lawsuits, but these companies did violate agreements with its customers, as well as some privacy laws.Furthermore, keep in mind that a company and its shareholders are liable for the actions of its employees, provided its employees are acting on its behalf. My employer earns money from my work; shouldn't they lose money if I break the law? Think of investments, like stocks. If the company beats expectations, the stock goes up and you earn money (usually). If the company performs poorly, we all lose. Did I have any say in their decision to hire employee X who then cost $7 billion in losses? No. But as a shareholder, I'll still lose money.
I think you can't pardon a company, because a company would not go to jail or have a criminal record. The executives can receive criminal penalties, but as the sibling poster mentioned, many of the lawsuits are civil cases.
Furthermore, I think Bush's real reason is some sort of belief in his own infallibility. Though he makes a lot of grandiose statements about getting rid of lawmakers' earmarks or punishing members of his administration who have been convicted of a crime (see Libby), they are meaningless statements that go against everything he advocated. He never (intentionally) admits he made mistakes; you never hear him say anything about fabricating evidence for war, cutting funding for No Child Left Behind, etc. Bush knows he will never be prosecuted for telling telecoms to break the law, but he also does not want the public to know what he did do.
If what you say is true, then either your friends aren't paying the correct amount of taxes, or the calculations are different. Or maybe I'm wrong *shrugs*. Also, contractors may not necessarily receive other benefits like health insurance and retirement benefits (401k, IRA). Health insurance is not a big deal if you're young, but it makes a difference if you have a family.
I won't get into a debate about tax structure, but I surmise that the "better public facilities and police attention" is not solely a result of the government, but of a myriad of other factors like crime, county wealth, etc.
That was mostly in reference to burning coal, as China has been accelerating its production of coal power plants - and this will make its smog problem even worse. Its energy supply, like in this case, would be severely affected by disasters. I was also saying that the US should take heed of its own dependence upon coal or any one source of energy (I do realize that coal is a smaller percentage of the energy in the US than in China). Yeah, my post was confusing.
In a strange (?) coincidence, China is experiencing blizzards that have severely hindered their railway system due to the difficulties of shipping coal. It might not be that bad come summer time, but who knows. It might help them realize that their dependence on coal is infeasible. And maybe the US should take heed.
That's ridiculous. Drugs are not priced based on market forces. In fact, there are no market forces. Assuming you have insurance, then the drug's cost to you is not the real cost - nor is the "market" price related to the cost to the company. Amgen and Roche are in a battle over dialysis drugs. With kickbacks, reimbursement rates, and other strange financial dealings, the prices become complicated. Look at Genentech too. Their main competitor to Lucentis, their drug for wet age-related macular degeneration, is Avastin, another one of their drugs! Yet Lucentis costs about 40 times as much as Avastin. That has nothing to do with the market. So what do they do? They try to prevent ophthalmologists from purchasing Avastin to use as treatment for AMD, by halting sales to compounding pharmacies.
The barrier to entry is also extremely high (though this might be necessary to ensure there aren't fakes). As a patient, you have little choice. Do you honestly shop around for the cheapest doctors when it comes time for surgery? You don't have much say in what the doctor will order for you, and you have essentially no say in who your anesthesiologist will be.
That's not true. Yes, patents should not be issued for things that occur naturally. But how about genes? It's ludicrous to think that someone could patent a DNA sequence, and force others to pay licensing fees when screening for that gene. Here's an op-ed by Michael Crichton that discusses patents on genes. Here's another article from Wired. That's just to give you an idea, though I'm sure there are many more informative articles.
Pharmaceutical companies? They care nothing except for their profit. Who said they were worried about staying in business? One company has never made a profit or marketed a drug of its own. And it's been in existence since 1981. Another company has lost $1.3 billion, yet is still up and running.
Yes, that was one of their demos. I heard their talk back in September. I work in eye research, so depth perception and visual cues are important to many of the researchers here. They mounted a camera and part of the computer system on an RC car and allowed it to travel randomly through a wooded area. The RC car traveled at a decent speed, but could determine which trees were closest and would avoid them. From the video, it looked quite promising.
The other demo involved an actual robot that they trained to pick objects up. For example, mugs should be picked up by their handles, cups by their sides, etc. They trained the robot to listen to voice commands, such as "Pick up the stapler from the room." The robot was a little slow as it tried to figure out if the target object was the stapler or not - I imagine it must do a lot of processing and other pattern-recognition. It was still amazing and looked quite promising.
Clap skates become popular in the late 1990s because they had an advantage over the traditional skates, and now nearly all speedskaters use them. Why did the IOC allow them to use it, but the IAAF prevent him from using his prosthetics? Could it be argued that skates who use clap skates have a technical advantage over those who choose not to?
While I may agree somewhat with Pistorius's disqualification, it is also important to note that his personal record for the 400m is well short of the automatic qualifying time.
Soft contact lenses are designed so that they act like a suction on your eye. They can do this because the material is mostly oxygen-permeable. They will, however, still move or rotate slightly in your eye, though it's usually not very noticeable. The orientation of toric lenses is important because it's supposed to correct for astigmatism in the eye; these lenses are usually prism-ballasted (the bottom of the lens is heavier) so that they keep the correct orientation.
Hard (rigid gas permeable) lenses do not have the oxygen permeability like the soft lenses do, and slightly lift up when you blink so you get adequate tear exchange under your lens. I would imagine that they would be using some sort of RGP-like material for the lenses.
Just to add a few points:
Electrophysiology in the monkey (or other animals like cats) has been done for decades. I doubt Miguel Nicolelis was the first to create a neural prosthetic, but he has been very successful at doing so. Some of his publications are listed in that article, and a link to his lab website is there too.
I first heard about him on a rerun of the PBS show "Innovations" that discussed several prosthetics, including Dobelle's vision prosthetic. The episode aired in 2004, which meant it was produced even earlier than that. At that time, Nicolelis was already able to use a monkey to control a mechanical arm in his lab. To train the monkey to do so, they had him move a joystick into a circle repeatedly. An electrode array was implanted in the monkey's motor cortex, so they could record neural signals. After the monkey was trained, they took away the joystick and the monkey only had to think of making the arm motion to move the joystick into the circle.
I disagree, and argue that while the EU is doing everything that it can to force Microsoft into compliance, it is limited to what it can do and how quickly it can do so. Obviously the EU has to follow the laws, but it took four years for Microsoft's appeal of the earlier EU decision to stand. What will prevent it from violating antitrust laws and take over the next Netscape or RealNetworks? Five years later, when the case is finally decided, they'll pay some tiny penalty that is a mere pittance compared to their available cash.
To make an (admittedly terrible) extension to your analogy, it's as if Microsoft was speeding and intentionally ran an opponent over. When the police pull them over, they say, "Oh, I did what? My bad. Here, I'll pay the fine." And then do it again.
Keep in mind that many view Bill Gates as a true philanthropist for his humanitarian actions. While he's not on the level of Gandhi or Mother Theresa, both of whom had their own flaws, he is considered as a champion of children, health care for the poor, etc. I despise him and think he's a fraud, but most people think I'm just angry or something.
I believe the only true threat to Microsoft's power was the US antitrust suit some 10-odd years ago. The judge had the power to break up the company, though he chose not to do so. He did penalize the company, but since then it seems like the Bush DOJ has done nothing but support MS. I applaud the EU for what they've been doing, especially for standing up to the attacks from the US government. But without any sort of help, they are really limited in effecting change.
I do believe that the average family income of students in private schools is higher than those in public schools. But I never said that every student in private school is rich.
I learned about Greek and Roman myths, fables, fairy tales, tall tales, and many other fantastical things. They were never taught in a science class, and they were never passed as being real. If you want to teach the Bible, Koran, Tanakh, or any other religious work in a religious or literary class, then go ahead. But not in a science class.