I'm not saying the article is right. I just felt the summary was incoherent. The article is at least coherent.

The article doesn't seem to be as bad. I did just skim read it, but I think the summary attempts to abridge rather than summarise.

Giving some people a discount is not the same thing as penalizing everyone else.

How is this different?

The reviews are only diluted on Yelp. That's the idea. It makes Yelp worhless. They will have reviews on other sites. Tripadvisor has a negative review amongst 4 good ones.

The FAQ is an acquired taste. I think the idea is that if you don't like that you probably won't enjoy the restaurant. Businesses don't really like unsatisfied customers. They're more expensive to deal with and they dn't get repeat business.

The proposed Consumer Review Freedom Act bans businesses from penalising you for posting bad reviews.

Would this also bar restaurants from effectively penalising customers who want to post postive revews? Could part of this restauran't business model be made illegal?

The drones are so small they're avoiding the turbo lasers.

They'll have to destroy them ship to ship.

I'm guessing they could demand you also remove mention of whether or not X has been done

I quite agree slavery would have been abolished eventually. The US is actually unusual in that a war ended slavery. Most countries managed to eliminate it peacefully.

I don't think it was just about slavery though. While I'm sure a lot of people in the north were sympathetic, the idea that so many were sympathetic enough to actually risk death seems a little too heroic for a typical person. The southerners would have been fighting not for *their* right to own slaves, but for some rich landowner. The actual reasons must have been more complex.

There's no requirement to join the ERM II. ERM II membership is one of the requirements before joining the Euro.

Joining the ERM wasn't in the UK's interest. It probably isn't in Scotland's interest. Sweden certainly seems to be happy to hold off.

The North won. Therefore Lincoln was a good guy, and completely right. If the South had seceeded, I'm sure it would be seen as equivalent in importance to the War of Independence, with the North painted squarely as the villains.

No, adopting the Euro is a requirement for new entrants. Countries that were previously part of the EU and did not adopt were grandfathered in and don't have to change, but for new entrants it's not optional.

But the requirement is not to do so immediately. A country can effectively hold off forever.

I guess there's probably other things the UK could do. Ultimately, Scotland isn't going to get independence until an agreement that both sides will accept is reached. The UK will not budge on currency union, or allow Scotland to simply shrug off the debt, and I wonder if sanctions could be imposed.

If the independence talks do stall, presumably it will be negotiated with a third part mediator. Perhaps I'm biased, but I don't see a third party accepting Scotland's demands here as reasonable.

While it's quite reasonable that the extra pay is because these people get good jobs developing COBOL, is it perhaps possible that it's more about the mentality of the person who takes such a course?

For example, if I'm interested in making lots of money I'll go into financial software. A lot banks still use COBOL, so doing a course on that increases my options in this area. Even if I don't use it ever again, and don;t even go into banking, I'm still a lot more likely to work for a company that pays a lot because money motivates me.

Presumably this was to study the effect of certain specific algorithms in the real world, as opposed to create a robot that prevents people from walking into a hole.

If people are paying extra, and going to the hassle of signing up with netflix and dealing with the workarounds for paying and actually getting the service rather than just using your service, I think you're doing soemthing wrong.