fatdog789

You vastly overate the value of promotion. At some point, the owner would much rather have actual money in the pocket than "awareness", whatever that means.

After all, who cares if you get 100000000 views on YouTube if you never make a dime from it?

It's just like Hulu and the TV studios: they don't care if they lose out on the "promotion" of their product to the millions of viewers around the world by limiting viewership to the US, b/c they have no way to monetize foreign viewers.

Most courts resolve small cases like this within a year or two, including appeals. Indeed, a case that lasts more than 2 years is considered anomalous unless a huge corporation or very wealthy clients are involved. It would take about 1 week to 10 days once appeals have resolved for the funds to work their way through the system. Every state has a deadline for paying off judgments. The only reason payment of a judgment would be delayed is if the defendant declared bankruptcy.

If he failed to look at the books in 20 years, or even once notice the shoddy numbers, that would be very strong evidence of negligence. Delegating an essential job doesn't take away the responsibility for supervising performance to make sure the job was done right.

Actually, the theory explains both: it is well-documented that starving the body induces inherent fat-retention mechanisms, in reaction to perceived famine conditions, which results in fat buildup in some parts of the body (usually the torso, the primary fat deposit region), while emaciation in other parts (usually the limbs, due to muscle loss). Once the famine conditions end, the body craves excess food in an effort to repair the damage caused during the "famine." It does not explain the 1950s treatment, but then again, in the 1950s, they did lots of crazy stuff which wouldn't make sense today, like electroshock and lobotomies.

How in the hell do you eat 6000 calories a day? That's the equivalent of 6 double-patty burgers, plus 3 large fries and a 3 large sodas, at most fast food restaurants.

You burn roughly 10 x (your weight in pounds) calories at rest, plus an additional 10% (of that number) for each activity level (office/couch potato = 10%, moderate exercise 4 times a week/average (1 hour each session) = 20%, strenuous exercise 4 times a week/average = 30%, dedicated athlete = 40%. The percentages increase with muscle mass, but not by much. These numbers are for base calorie burn; calories actually expended through physical activity are in addition to these numbers.

Hell, you'd have to be an Olympic or professional athlete to come even close to needing more than 5000 calories in a single day.

Isn't this article about correlation? Isn't the point of the article that something about eating less meat (whether it's lifestyle, actual dietary effects, or something innocuous) correlates, whether or not there is a causal relationship*, to significantly increased longevity?

Yes I did. Campbell did not misrepresent anything; abstracts are highly condensed summations written by someone else who may or may not have the background necessary to fully convey the underlying research.

Poorly written abstracts are the leading cause of sensationalist headlines.

If by decline, you mean "ironically increased in occurrence until it has become the number one killer of men and women", then yes, it's declined dramatically.

However, the problem isn't meat eating; it's the quantity and fat content of meat that is eaten. Eating moderate amounts of beef, chicken, etc, is associated with longer life and healthier hearts, but eating too much is associated with heart disease.

Transactional backbones run COBOL, not Java. Only the inter-system interfaces uses Java and other "new" languages. However, most of them run on Unix...as in, versions of Unix that are older than the internet.

Biggest red flag No regulators == no means to protect depositors, and no means to punish bad actors. History has repeatedly proven that the market itself is not sufficient to regulate bad behavior because it depends on the participants choosing to remain in the market, rather than amassing an ill-gotten fortune and then pulling out.

2ND biggest red flag: There is significant risk, but absolutely no incentive for bearing that risk (i.e., interest). Interest exists, and indeed, is based upon incentivizing people to take risks with their money. That's why higher-risk investments have higher interest rates and returns.

It doesn't provide any means for the bank to make profit, ergo, no incentive for banks.

It doesn't provide sufficient security measures to protect money/ecurrency/whatever that's held in these accounts. Even worse, b/c it's electronically based, it's dependent on power supply. This won't work in most of Africa, and large/undeveloped portions of India or the Middle East.

It doesn't provide any means for "trust", which is the foundation for the entire banking system. Example: I don't care what Joe Flo says about you on Facebook; I don't care if a million of your virtual friends say you are trustworthy: I want actual data, or I won't lend you squat.

Final Red Flag (Possibly the biggest) -- Where does the money come from? It states that the amount of money in circulation is the money deposited by people, but where does the deposited money come from? What about people born after the system is created? Do they get starting cash to deposit, or are they screwed?

I think his point was "other than the one success [which might have been a lucky fluke]", what success have these guys actually done?

Nobody here finds it the least bit disturbing that these guys got a $7.7 million pay day for helping steal copyrighted works?

At a minimum, they've taken $7.7 million out of the pockets of programmers and artists.

These guys aren't heroes. They're selfish whores who discovered the secret to turning downloaders into their willing lemmings.

I wouldn't go as far as flagging every codinghorror post...I would limit it just the ones that are related to actual programming code/coding paradigms...which is admittedly almost all of them.

1) China. Enough said. 2) The box never says whether the cd-rom uses a "standard driver model."

After reviewing the facts as they exist in this world, why would anyone have trust your reasoning or logical skills ever again? Moreover, given how important logical reasoning is to the computer programming, why would anyone ever trust your computer programming skills ever again? Finally, given how important computer programming skills are to being a computer geek, why would anyone ever trust your geek cred ever again?

See what I did there?

The vast majority of them. Photoshop was designed from the beginning to work with print media -- it's called Photoshop for a reason.

Conversely, the people who just need to whip up some graphics don't need Photoshop; they have cheap alternatives like PaintShopPro, Paint.NET, or competing lesser-known commercial software.

At the very least, he's notable for taking all the competing arguments and putting them together into a single post that people have noticed, thereby becoming a potential reference point for future people who will make the exact same arguments.

Sure there is: lack of expertise. Also, unfamiliarity with the code base. For people without programming experience, there's also the opportunity cost of learning a programming language.

The reason open source hasn't taken off with the general public is b/c every time a non-programmer suggests a genuinely useful feature (to non-programmers), the response is: "it's open source, program it yourself." Most often, the easier and cheaper path is to just buy the competing commercial program.

The license clearly specifies that "reusing" is itself not allowed without permission, so that doesn't change anything...his program still uses pngout without permission, and it's his (the programmmer's) use that is at issue here, not the end user.

Microsoft is estopped by law from asserting patents on C#. That's one of the benefits of submitting specifications to a standards-granting organization.

The EFF should know this, but then again, having seen some of their legal work in the past, I'm surprised that they ever manage to win a case.

Edit Estoppel is a legal doctrine (which applies to most areas of law), which means that MS has performed certain actions (in this case, submitting the C# specification to the standards body) which would cause 3rd parties to reasonably assume that MS is waiving (patent) protections (or other legal rights in the matter at issue).

The owners of Hulu don't hate Hulu on TV. They simply don't want to sacrifice the revenue they get from live broadcasting. Not all shows on Hulu make as much as The Simpsons does.

The content is only free b/c advertising pays for it. Without the ads, that shit would be very expensive.

So is Google...it's search results are getting worse and worse over time. Google is essentially pulling a Windows ME, integrated IE and all.

Bing is the competition Google needs to light a fire under its ass and start making its algorithm good again.

That case is inapplicable; it deals with static factual data collections.

Bus times are dynamic, estimated facts. The act of estimating, via the use of proprietary means, is what gives NBIS the right to "own" bus (estimated) arrival times b/c estimations are just interpretations.

Obviously, NBIS has no ownership to historical bus arrival times, b/c those are actual, irrefutable facts.

That's actually not true, about New York. You're referring to the veil-piercing doctrine, and that only applies in very rare situations, such as where the shareholders set up a fake/shell company solely for the purposes of trying to shield themselves for legal liability for torts, taxes, or other legal shenanigans (IOW, a sham company).

State of incorporation always affects the bottom line, immediately. It determines what legal requirements you must satisfy in organization and funding your business, including who your investors can be. It determines what taxes you pay, what tax credits you may qualify for, whether you can qualify for special small business contracts that many state governments restrict to small businesses within their own state. It also plays a large role in whether banks will provide business loans: many banks will not loan money to small businesses that operate in the bank's state but which are headquartered in another.

Bing and Kayak both use the same underlying (third party) database.

Furthermore, Kayak is a clone of Fly.com's design, so Kayak really has no ground to argue about Bing allegedly copying them.

"Lawyers...[will] hate that its hosted." More accurately, lawyers will refuse to use this service b/c it's hosted and it raises unsettled issues related to the boundaries of client confidentiality. In many states, this service could even be considered unethical (read: illegal for lawyers) for use with client matters b/c it may either (1) be considered a waiver of confidentiality or (2) be considered a breach of confidentiality which the client has not waived.

However, I can imagine that students or nonprofits would love this, since those sorts of issues will not apply.

Not entirely true -- the presumption now is that the company owns the IP for stuff done on behalf of the company. Of course, this is just a presumption, so it's easily rebutted, by example, showing that you received no compensation (no one works for free).

But the legal uncertainty would discourage investment.

Civil case. Your example is not analogous. Theft is a crime. Thomas committed a tort. The difference: police get involved with crimes, and you can be arrested for a crime. You cannot be arrested for a tort (unless the tort is the "civil" counterpart of a crime allowing the victim to recover for injuries from the crime).

Punitive damages are not meant to be proportionate. They are meant to be penal, and to "send a message" to other potential tortfeasors. (Civil trial for damages = tort).

However, SCOTUS has ruled very recently that punitive damages must be proportional to the income and assets of the defendant, for example, $1M is nothing to Bill Gates but is beyond devastating to the average man.

Yes. In a recent case, SCOTUS ruled that punitive damages more than 10 times the amount of compensatory (actual) damages is per se unconstitutional except in cases of malice or fraud. Of importance, in followup cases by SCOTUS and the federal appeals courts, the courts have determined that punitive damages in excess of 2x actual damages (or $100,000), which ever is greater, is probably unconstitutional, except in cases of malice or fraud.

When malice or fraud are involved, there is no limit on punitive damages. Note that the fraud must be part of the crime itself; Thomas' perjury on the stand should play no role in punitive damages.

The award will almost certainly be reduced...however...it is likely that Thomas will settle before then. Though $200k was outrageous in the first trial, unique circumstances in this trial make it unlikely that the judge will reduce the amount to anywhere close that number, given that a separate and independent jury found such a large number.