The IP is nothing special. It's the user base that has value. They can't get the users without the restricitons.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Some parts of the Constitution refer to the rights of Citizens... presumably US Citizens. The 4th Amendment makes not such distinction. People are people and have rights regardless of where they live.

Should air be private owned? The airwaves belong to everyone.

I can't imagine any rationale for private ownership of a ubiquitous asset with no physical form. This does not conform to existing property law and would not enure to the advantage of the public.... but rather only to the benefit of a few wealthy corporate bosses. Exactly whose side are you on?

You are quite right. Which is why I should not post on /. at 2:30 AM. :)

doing. From the description above: " Ranganath and his colleagues discovered that greater interest in a question would predict not only better memory for the answer but also for the unrelated face that had preceded it." But the following sentence (and the experimental protocol) state that the face followed (not preceded) the question. So someone was not paying attention. Is it any wonder that non-scientists are confused and bored by rubbish such as this? In the words of Yoda.....

Hauling 1M bodies to Mars is not an efficient way to populate the planet. Unless and until we have a reliable and cost effective artificial womb, the limiting factor is the ability to have babies. So we should start with, say, 100 very intelligent and skilled, and physically capable women. Each of them should be inpregnated on Mars with frozen, fertilized ova from a stock representing the genetic diversity of Earth. Did I mention that the ova should all be females? So assuming that each woman can bear 7 children in her lifetime (a reasonable average based on good medical care and historic norms) and that the generation time is 20 years, it would take about 125 years to reach a population of 1 million. During that 125 year period the women would be busy building a modern civilization while also devoting a major portion of their time ot childcare. Constant resupply of food and manufactured products would have to be provided from Earth. Oh, and I guess they could have a few males around... you know... for entertainment.

I was in Seattle recently. The guys who pick up the compostable garbage were driving around listening to classical music.... turned up loud so you could hear it over the sound of the truck engine. Not your typical garbage collectors.

Yes, the headline is a pathetic attempt to ring the bell for the conservative Pavlovian dogs to make them salivate all over slashdot. The implication of the headline is that it is about people wasting edible food by throwing it in the trash. Actually it is about compostables (food or otherwise) being placed in the trash steam headed to the landfill rather than the composting station.

The usual explanation is that large, active brains use lots of energy, which in some environments is better spent gathering bananas.

... is to the A112 virus. But you knew that.

The first question that anyone interested in economics, enviornment... anything really.... should ask is, "What is the optimal populaiton for the country or the planet?" To accomplish anything of value, you at least have to know if the optimal population is higher or lower than the current population.

If our goal is the best life for human beings, the optimal number is clearly less than "standing room only" for population density. Based on resource depletion, current pollution, and the massive extinction event we are currently experiencing for other species, I would think the optimum is considerably less than the current population.

The US standard of living has, on average, not improved since the 1970s and has decreased in the last 5 years. Economic growth is not the goal. Per captta economic growth is the relevant value.

Eventually we have to come into a natural balance so that each child born is replacing a person who has died. The longer we wait to start moving to that balance, the more painful the process will be.

Google doesn't necessarily care who provides the fast internet service to it's online customers. They aren't going to make their money from selling internet infrastructure. Google is just as happy if ATT builds the cables. However, that could change if net neutrality is knocked down.

All of the references cited in the OA are about other people characterizing McCarthy's position. I have not seen any direct quote from her that indicates an opposition to the principle of vaccines or the efficacy of all vaccines. She is misguided in insisting that vaccines cause autism, but that is not the same thing as being against vaccination in general.

I think she is wrong to connect vaccines to autism. But attacking her personally is not necessary or relevant. Her general position that she is not against vaccines in general but only against un-safe vaccines is a valid position. Why bother nit-picking nuances or perceived contradictions in wording. It's all irrelevant. The only issue is: Are existing vaccines safe and could they be made safer? All else is nonsense.

He is one quater through his term. And he is through playing nice.