You actually think a single person would be able to pay all the damages asked in many of today's lawsuits against corporations?

You think most people are willing to accept liability on behalf of their employer, with the potential to lose most all their property if found guilty?

Corporate personhood refers to the ability to hold a corporation liable for debts and crimes. Are you suggesting I should be able to sue chimps but not corporations?

It didn't need to, the study was on twins. Further, testing on both identical and fraternal twins allowed researchers to calculate how much genetics plays into it, because the genetic makeup for both kinds of twins is highly predictable.

Don't confuse ethical for moral.

People do A/B testing all the time, that's perfectly legitimate and therefore ethical. What's any different when Facebook does it?

That's called "dedicated". You can ask for it, but it's ridiculously expensive.

As in, two to three orders of magnitude more expensive, depending on the SLA that you want.

Failed projects are unusual enough that that's why they make the news. Do you have some data to the contrary you'd like to share?

Contributor to three successful and delivered Kickstarter projects speaking (one late by a year, but for an awesome reason), and backer to another handful, all delivered or on schedule (so they tell me).

Commerce is either interstate or intrastate.

Many of their business operations might be interstate - and thus subject to federal law - but a sale in Iowa from Iowa to Iowa is not.

The vulnerability is that a string that looks like a function definition can be constructed to be immediately executed prior to execution of the bash script. (This is to support truly ancient bash scripts back when functions were defined as VARIABLE()="() { body }".) However, a bug in that code means the entire value gets executed as a bash script, and so it's possible to append code to the function definition, and it'll get executed as bash code.

Essentially, it's lesson #1 why not to use eval() in your programs.

The danger is that user inputs in Web programs are frequently passed as environment variables to programs. This is especially true in CGI, where the request URI and HTTP headers are passed as environment variables.

This means if you use bash in your CGI, you can execute whatever command you like, as "apache" or whoever you're executing your CGI as. Remotely.

You can't say that because we're assuming ceteris paribus and we've already defined our control as the productivity of food on a given plot of land.

Our food production per plot of land has gone up; or, our required size of land to produce the same amount of food has gone down.

We can't say for sure if one person's profits will go up or down, at least not without additional information about the particularities and price elasticity stats of the market, because both their costs and their revenue have changed. But markets change all the time, people (and farmers especially) know they have to change produce from time to time, depending on what's profitable. Overall, though, lower costs are a good thing. Always. That's exactly what's happening here.

Societies where most people are in agriculture tend to be societies where most people are poor, and this is a causal effect: Their costs are so high for farming they can't afford to have industry elsewhere. Reducing costs means fewer people have to be in agriculture, and this is good.

This isn't even a feedback loop, although sometimes people will make a similar argument around other phenomenon assuming all feedback loops must be a positive feedback loop that never decays, incorrectly reaching the conclusion the economy will eventually collapse. (E.g. "Prices went up, therefore the cost of producing/refining oil/gas will go up, therefore the cost of producing many products will go up, until all products cost infinity!")

If you have literally nothing to spend, then your elasticity of demand is undefined. It's a division by zero error.

However in general, the law of diminishing marginal utility necessarily implies that as your income shrinks, your elasticity of demand becomes perfectly elastic (i.e. -infinity).

Let's backtrack to Econ 101: This is a change in supply, i.e. a movement of the supply curve on a plot of supply and demand, specifically, a movement to the right.

This causes the market price of the good (food, here) to fall.

It's possible to do quite a lot of things that we don't do, the question the economist faces is at what cost?

The demand curve for food by most people in the middle class and above is somewhat inelastic. I think it's fair to say the extra food production, to the extent there is any, is going to make for fewer hungry people, whose lower income makes their spending on food more elastic.

Stanford says it's an "internal policy": https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/...

All donors to the Center--and to Stanford more generally--agree to give their funds as unrestricted gifts, for which there is no contractual agreement and no promised products, results, or deliverables.

But this makes absolutely no sense. If all money goes into a general fund, there's no distinguishing "whose" money it is, it's Stanford's money.

UX is about more than just UI.

Most of the "weighing in" so far is about, among other things, not screwing over your customers with a bloated sysadmin nightmare of an init program. The closest you're going to get to a study is The Art of Unix Programming .

I can't find any actual instances of it happening, but this appears to mention the rumor you're talking about: http://whatis.techtarget.com/d...

HTML doesn't mention DRM. See for yourself: http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/PR-h...

There's Encrypted Media Extensions, which everyone says is "ZOMG DRM", but it's an entirely separate document, and no more insidious than EncryptedXML.

You can't "standardize" DRM, it's literally impossible.