Since when does not being ignorant matter for forcing your opinion in our society ? They don't call it Democracide for nothing.

even ignoring epigenetics, behaviors are absolutely patterned and conditioned by parents.

translation: "If they were honest how much would people contribute "?

Just because ethical behavior is harder doesn't excuse unethical (immoral: deception) behavior.

I give every company a different email address and my Facebook one doesn't get spam. Just because you can dream up some crazy scenario doesn't prove it, especially in the face of conflicting evidence.

Mostly FB shows me ads for crap I've already decided not to buy at online retailers. If Big Data were any good they'd detect my "this is crap" browsing patterns and not waste their money on it.

use ZFS l2arc/zil or flashcache/dm-cache to get a happy medium.

don't worry, they'll order the NSA to stop right after a new TLA is spun up to take the program.

I'm not sure if this flies in two party consent states.

It does not - this was settled in the Gericke decision, and Glick weighs heavily as well. Technically it's only binding in the 1st Circuit (Northeast and Puerto Rico) but good luck finding a judge in the 9th Circuit or similar to try to go against it.

Essentially he has no statistics to back his claims

I don't think you need statistics in a world where Java rules as a primary language for software development.

I've said here for years that Java is a great language for the 80% of average programmers because it tells you what's wrong most of the time, makes you do things right, and generally doesn't fall down unpredictably (J2EE FactoryFactoryFactories might be a different issue).

The top 10% can argue viscously about whether Python or Ruby or Haskell is the One True Language (shut up, LISP fanatics) - but in the meantime millions of developers are cranking out order inventory code in Java.

The top 1% of developers can deftly move back and forth among all of these, to suit the task.

and a host of other legal requirements that are supposed to ensure the safety of the passengers.

Supposed to but they don't. Apparently you've never experienced an insane taxi driver.

Uber lets customers easily leave feedback on individual drivers, which is communicated out to the client base, unlike any government model.

As well, the drivers can leave feedback on the passengers, improving cabbie safety. Cabbie murder is a real problem an medallions are not bullet-proof shields.

This bill does real harm because it eliminates the real safety gains of Uber over the government regulation model. The trouble with government models is they only need to have intent, not results. A competitive market does not have that fatal flaw.

Of course if an Uber operator were to try to continue, the police would draw their guns as well - really illustrating the risk imbalance.

There are so many decent UPS / inverter-charger systems out there.

Posts should help, not just criticize. Mentioning *even one* would have been helpful. Your post is just Slashtrash as written and I know you usually do better. How about fixing that?

I heard the acute problem aptly summarized recently: "Patents are supposed to cover inventions, but what they're being issued for is mere engineering."

This is a better metric than the "obviousness test" - what is the essential and genius inspiration that led to a the idea of putting a delivery message in a SMS message? There is none - no patent.

I realize the entire system has evolved into one giant mechanism to enrich entrenched corporate interests, but it's still a good insight into how maybe the system could have been designed less-wrong from the beginning.

You are better off spending money on geothermal HVAC

Not that effective during a long power outage.

Is there a valid reason we accept studies that have not been reproduced at least one more time to truly vet them before the community?

The point of papers [in real science] is to say, "we did this, here's what we found". It's not to announce a beacon of new Revealed Truth. That's largely the fault of science "reporters" looking to sell advertising space.

The papers are themselves the invitations to replicate.

The problem is the government science-funding model is largely based on fame and popularity, and doing replication studies is felt to be beneath most researchers except for the most extraordinary of claims, or those that threaten the Orthodoxy.

None of these problems will go away until the incentives of the funding model change. To assume anything else would be economically ignorant.

Other posters have already demolished the idea that banks will do this voluntarily or by edict.

The engineering approach is to not involve them. The Finance::Bank collection is the closest you're going to find to a workable solution.

Anybody who has money to spend on a government "solution" should send it to these developers instead.

Think about it. You may love the open source movement, but how would you like it if you wrote software at your day job for a salary...and then one day the government said "Hey, we decided that all software is free now. So you can't charge for it, even if you worked hard to make it and invested tons of money in the software-making process."

That's a nonsense argument. Absent monopoly grants, software goes to the person who paid for it, and they have the choice of whether to release it or not.

It's when it's released to the public, do you have Men With Guns threaten the People for making copies of that software or not? That is the ethical question. Do predictions of purported benefit from social-engineering justify threats of murder?

You, or at least anyone reading this who fits this profile, should think carefully about the foundation of your own ethics.

*Yours* is based on threats of violence for duplication (not stealing) of information. It abolishes a portion of _real_ property rights for imaginary ones, when there is no demonstrable harm other than a postulate of diminution of earning potential.

The reduced argument is "murder for profit".