I apologize for my lack of comprehension, and I am not trying to be a grammar Nazi, but I have a great deal of difficulty underdstanding this statement. I really did try; even to the point of doing tree graphs and venn diagrams of the sentence.

What I get is: Projects with leads who don't follow ALSA documentation are projects which don't need additional sound systems, and yet still don't work well with ALSA. (therefore maybe they DO need an additional sound system?)

or

The programs which don't work well with ALSA are the ones which don't have a sound systems on top, because the leads aren't following documentation.

Either way, I get that one needs to follow documentation and put a sound system on top. Is that what you intended?

or did you want to say that if you follow ALSA documentation, extra layers will not be required? (From context I expect the latter, but I can't get my brain to graph it that way.)

The problem which I see with comments on both sides of this thread is the assumption that one can hoard money, or that money can be put somewhere where it "just sits." The problem is that, unless Mr. Gates, et al. are taking CASH (paper) and making stacks of it in their basement/attic/wherever the money isn't just sitting anywhere.

Even if they just put it in a bank account (which is about the closest to making a pile out of it) it is then circulated through the economy via increased ability for the banks to loan, etc. (Ok, I am oversimplifying, but the point is still accurate.) More likely is that thier money has been invested somewhere. The reason that the rich can make more money in investments than the comparitively less-well-off is that you have to have a certain amount of money to be legally allowed to invest in the riskier investments, which are the ones which pay off big (or fail big). That risk of big failure is restricted to the rich exactly because they are less likely to be "hurt" by a failure, so if they get conned, they can afford it.

In any case, their accumulation of cash is still working in the economy, providing start-up loans to new businesses so that people can be hired, etc.

As to the non- or anti- productive examples given by the parent post: Just because sometimes a business has to downsize to better match the current economy, doesn't mean anything nefarious is happening. If you are making more product than you can sell, then you are making too much product. A stock buyback does affect the stock price, but it is essentially just the company becomming owned by fewer people, the people who sell the stock back have been compensated for their prior ownership, and are free to buy something else with their money. There may be a point to questioning the bubble speculation, but to fix that would be to further disallow smaller investors and only allow the richer investors to risk the bubble. Even in that case, every new industry may just be a bubble, and is a gamble, until it proves that it isn't. If you outlaw risk (overstated), then you will never have anything new (also overstated, but you get the point. I hope.).

I think a key difference is who actually owns the prior patents. If the university or a prior employer own the patent then there is no issue; even though the patent bears his name, it really isn't his. On the other hand, if he is the sole (and actual) owner of the patent, then I agree, there are potential nightmares ahead.

I wonder if there might be some way to legally separate himself from the patents, much like politicians have to do with their retirement investments. Place them in (assign them to) some sort of hands-off managed trust, which would handle any potential licencing without input from him. Essentially, his resume would read like he was involved with a patent at a prior employer. The only odd point would be when he gets requested to figure out a work-around to his own patent, in order for his employer to avoid licencing.

No disagreement here. I just get tired of "the attention getters" constantly spinning everything to make it a race issue, when in many cases race had nothing to do with it.

The comparison was to ordinal numbering

first, second, third, fourth, fifth, ...

versus

whole, half, third, fourth (or quarter), fifth.

Nobody suggested that there is a "threed" (except you), but one could validly ask why the #2 ordinal is called "second", and the #3 ordinal is "third". That is a different question however.

As others have pointed out... The less we spend treating cases here, the more we can spend on treating cases overseas. If we have a bunch of outbreaks here, we will no longer have the luxury of providing treatment in Africa because we will be expending resources at home (both money and medicine doses, etc).

Therefore it is more compassionate to be efficient.

He wasn't "turned away." He was provided anti-biotics, which is the standard fare (albeit wrong*) for someone suffering from a cold or flu. Although it was stupid of the hospital doctors/nurses not to take note of his travel, and suspect Ebola as a possibility, given the CDC's messages at the time it might be understandable. In it's early stages Ebola presents similar symtoms to a flu.

Just because you go through the Emergency enterance, doesn't mean you need to be admitted. It just means that you get seen without an appointment. I've been to the Emergency several times (metal chips in eye despite safety glasses, bleeding head wound, heart issues) and never been admitted. Usually just stitched up and sent home. Even with the heart issue, I was "observed" for a while, scheduled for a stress-test, and sent home once they determined that it was not going to kill me right-now. (they also gave me an asprin and a nitroglycerine tablet while they observed me.)

The whole "turned away" thing is being drummed up by the Jessie Jacksons, etc. who are ambulance chasing for another chance to make themselves relevant, and stir up trouble at the same time.

* I can remember several times where doctors have said to me, "I don't know if it is bacterial or viral. I could take cultures, but that would take a while to get the lab work back, so meanwhile I will give you this anti-biotic, which will either work or will do no harm if it doesn't." This was a few years ago. More recently, with the increasing prevalance of resistant diseases, this practice seems to have diminished somewhat.

We might have dozens of other cases already. We won't really know for 21 days.

DOH! I apologize for replying to myself, but I intended this to read more like:

It is entirely possible that "the people" was a sylistic term for "the citizens", rather than used to differentiate between citizens and citizens-and-non-citizens-lumped-together.

As previously written, it says the opposite of what I intended.

Article I, Section 2: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,. . .

Hmmm... Foreign residents are not supposed to be able to vote; whether or not they actually do is another discussion altogether. Interestingly, the above quote, and the preamble "We the people of the United States of America," are the only two uses of the word "people" in the text of the Constitution. Citizen is used eleven times, mostly as regards elegibility for office.

The Bill of Rights uses "the people" five times, and "citizen" exactly zero times. The two documents were authored by different people. (The individual doing the original draft, that is. Many of the same people were involved in ratifying both.) It is entirely possible that "the people" was a stylistic term rather than differentiating between citizen and non-citizen. The Tenth Ammendment reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." From this use of the word, one could argue that, as power over a country is not usually held by non-citizens, "the people" referrs to the citizenship.

Also, note the consistant use of the word "the" preceeding the word "people," which implys a specific group of people (citizens of the United States) not just any random set.

Now, where the documents use the word "a person", it is much more literally any person, citizen or not, given that several instances first mention "a person" or "no person", and then modifiy by specifying a length (or status) of citizenship. In the Bill of Rights, the word "person" appears in the fourth and fifth ammendments, and is in regard to search warrents and court procedures.

Now, before somebody starts citing supreme court cases, I am sure that the courts have probably held different interpretations. The above is mine, and I make no claim otherwise.

.begin gallows humor.

Great... Right now we have to worry whether Ebola will mutate to be airborne; at which point you wont be able to be the the room with a sick person. In a few years we may have to worry that Ebola will mutate to tranport itself... Then nowhere will be safe.

.end gallows humor.

(Yes, I know it doesn't work that way.)

and you might find your fancy autonomous car has no wheels, or battery, etc. after a few weeks. I used to work there.

True story: One of my co-workers had a flat tire on the expressway. While he was taking the flat off, another car pulls up, the driver gets out, and pops the hood of the car exclaiming "You can have the tires, Brother. I'll go for the battery." At least the (potential) battery thief left nicely when informed that the car wasn't abandoned.

There was a reason that the plant at which I worked had a fence and guard around the parking-lot.

Good point. Bags of crap have a very good use in the garden. Music files on the other hand aren't good for much of anything.

Someone correct me, but I think you have to symlink to link to another drive. (not hardlink)

I don't see this as a huge problem. Not particularly invasive. If you don't like U2, don't click on the cloud. If you have things set in a particular way, it might download automatically, but you can now "delete" things directly from your phone (as against the way that it used to be where you needed to do everything from iTunes); so again, not too big of a deal. OTOH, it shows up as an entry in your list of albums, which could become annoying if this were to become any sort of standard practice, but only because at some point it makes it harder to find the items which you want to be there.

In this way it isn't too much different from the new Amazon Prime Music app, which lists all the "free" streamed albums offered through Amazon Prime membership. It becomes hard to browse for something I am interested in because there are so many things that I am NOT interested in. That being said, I can't complain too much as I haven't paid for any of them (I paid for the prime membership for other reasons) and it is occasionally nice when I want to hear something that haven't thought to purchase outright. Search works well, just browsing not-so-much, and even then sometimes one _wants_ to browse through things unknown to find something new.