It's not really FUD if it is a legitimate concern, which it is. There needs to be a way to store excess production for solar to be a viable base load source of power; without that it simply isn't a reliable enough source of power if you plan to meet a significant percentage of demand with solar.

It's clear a country with Germany's power demand can shift their source of power if they are willing to commit enough money to doing so; the question is "Is it sustainable over the long run and what are the fallout from such as switch on the broader economy?"

I would say the jury is still out on the impact on GDP until the real costs of solar have filtered throughout the economy. I am not saying it isn't a wise move; but the actual impact and capabilities of solar as a base laid are still uncertain.

IIRC, monetary parity is not required, equal support is. So if you pay to send the men's BB team on a trip you need to pay for the women's team trips as well; although they may cost less.

Nopt necessarily. Numeric parity is not required, availability is acceptable as well provided all other criteria are met. It could also be an attempt to increase mail participation since Title IX cuts both ways.

I know. Arizona arrests you for looking Hispanic, Alabama, so far, for driving while German. In the name of equal opportunity they may extend that welcome to the Chinese as well.

Once you factor in productivity and transportation costs, amongst others, the cost gaps narrows and possibly even closes. They're not doing a 1 for 1 replacement of workers so hiring fewer, but more expensive and more productive US workers, begins to make sense. In addition, there can be political considerations as well.

Of course, being Alabama, they will promptly arrest and jail the Chinese managers who come over to check on the plant unless they can prove they are in Alabama legally.

They aren't making the exchange of info illegal. You can still say "For $30 I'll tell you where a perking spot is.." it's the "and I'll hold it for you until you arrive ..." that is illegal. I think the city is justified in this position.

Actually, it is not that rare, it's just more expensive to extract at the current value so much is left unextracted. It's value is that people accept it as a liquid store of value; so they are willing to exchange cash for gold.

Bitcoin is reaching the cost / value crossover; its volatility and lack of liquidity raise questions about it's value and wetehr people will accept it as a store of value.

What about the cut KS takes? That could dwarf any real funds they get if they have too many fake pledges. A better approach is to keep adding early adopter deals and then unleash the fake ones at the end when you need to make your target. That limits your loses to KS' cut and still gets you the real funds.

Which is why I wonder if the model is sustainable. Either they take steps to police projects, which may open them up to liability if they miss one; or they become a sewer of cons and fade away.

Understand. I was actually making a comic reference to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=148dowDhkVY

Certainly, but that doesn't mean they will buy advertising placements instead of just using the interactive capabilities.

Should have used FedEx.

Seriously, I agree with you. The ability to learn about and fix problems can be a powerful tool to build customer good well and retention. Social media can supply a vast amount of near real time feedback on who you are perceived as well as alert you to bad (and good) customer experiences.

1.) Social media advertising isn't as effective as advertisers hoped.

2.) Social media can be mined for data about your products, what people think of them, and overall opinions about your company. It is also a tool for engaging with customers.

Point 2 is much more useful to companies that 1; which means the real money in Twitter et. al. is data mining, not advertising.

While I agree statistical think is different than computational thinking, to answer your question I think it is a better use of a students time to teach statistics. Properly taught, it teaches you to think about how to formulate a question, what data you need and how to analyze it. In short, it is as much about the problem as the answer.

Again, I concur with you comments. That's why code monkeys are cheap and those who can actually develop a solution valuable; and the skills you mention don't become obsolete when a new language comes along. Unfortunately, far to many people equate the ability to code with being a computer scientist or engineer. That's not to say we don't need good coders but focusing on coding and forgetting the how and why behind it is doing them a disservice. I've also found the ones who can really write elegant code generally also think conceptually as well. Maybe I was lucky but when I took CS in high school the teacher made us explain and diagram what we are trying to do before coding, and rewarded accomplishing tasks in as few lines of code as possible. A she put it, "anybody can write a program with 100 lines to accomplish what can be done in 2."

True, but faced with learning statical thinking or how to write code I think the former is more valuable.

First of all, this a settlement proposal, not damages.

Second, while punitive damages take into account the financial capability of the defendant they also have to have some reasonable relationships to the actual damages the defendants suffered as well. If we assume that the $325K represents actual damages, punitive damages of $1.3 billion might be considered legally acceptable. While that is a large number, divided by 4 defendants with very deep pockets it's still less than they pay for a few acquisitions.

Personally, I think punitive damage awards should go to paying legal fees (if that isn't already done) and into a fund to pay awards to plaintiffs that win but can't collect, such as when a company subsequently declares bankruptcy rather than simply enrich palliatives beyond actual damage they suffered.

It would seem to me that that is the right thing to do when it is hard to clear define the line between OK and Not OK. This allows lower courts to use the ruling as guidance and as cases work their way up to SCOTUS that can provide more definitive guidelines. If they try to be more specific for such a broad area as patentable ideas they risk going to far one way or the other and later having to correct themselves if and when a good case comes up that allows them that option.