There is a substantive difference between not having the legal privileges of being married, and being lynched.

You are a nitwit.

Let them be let off the requirement to support (excepting for other contractual arrangements) when they relinquish copyright.

I like the sticks too. Hate the "media devices" limited to piping in movies. Why not the full android stack too?

I wish google would make their own full android stick. Why make crippled media devices? At least give me a full browsing experience.

Isn't there a software stack for encrypted comm?

Which is largely Google's business model anyway - choke off the profits of it's competitors.

But even this child's play get results. Lots of low hanging fruit.

" 'A lot of the technology we put [in] is to protect rights," says Fuchs.

Yeah, their right to read our data, and their right to control *who* gets to read our data.

Anyone else notice the typo in their spokesman's name, Fuchs Yu?

Did they take into account that they were engaged in an *observational* study?

The treatments students received weren't likely independent of how well the students were doing in the first place - i.e. when your kid does poorly, this prompts you to help him, so that this would increase positive correlation for receiving help from your parent and doing poorly.

The shortage is in a workforce that provides opportunity for slush funds and kickbacks.

Contract work with H1Bs maximizes the middle men, minimizes the employee's power, and makes the corporate honcho's decision of which body shop to contract with a hugely important one, with millions of dollars riding on it, going to companies that exist solely to help circumvent both the law and fiduciary obligations.

BURN THEM!

Yep, corporate scapegoat for hire.

The usual client has no understanding of what they need, demands what they don't need be created yesterday, and changes their minds 5 times before today. The account execs of the contracting firm say "yeah, we can do that, and we'll throw in free pina coladas on fridays", and they'll sign a contract with the client full of nonsensical gibberish that has nothing to do with what needs to be done, and is for the most part ambiguous bs designed to evade precise commitment on either side.

Everyone gets head count, and all the important people get raises and move on to new project before the shit hits the fan.

> I have a suspision that the process was built around the concept of give the outside contractor 100 million dollars so they can be blamed instead of us state employees.

That's just one of the reasons - contractors are corporate scapegoats for hire. But they're also hired so that they can grease the decision makers with kickbacks.

That's not just CYA, that's communicating.

It's better to do it *in the meeting*, where once you get it down where everyone can see it simultaneously, you can find out if they really agree, and correct it on the spot if they don't.

Hint - no group over 1 person ever agrees the first time it is written down.

If they don't use the trademark, selling a relox is just fine with me.

Protecting "the look and style of their products" means preventing me from throwing paint on them. *Their* products look however they look *regardless* of how any other product looks.

Yes, make a knockoff of anything. Manufacturers are should be allowed a symbol or set of symbols to identify their brand, not colors of paint that look similar.