I wish that were true. I suppose it might be different for some departments, but no matter how many hours I work in a week, I get the same salary. If I put in 70 hours one week, I get paid for 40.

If it is done independently, then we don't need to rely on the old work. Anything done from scratch would be valid, assuming it could be replicated. And I think if there is still contention over an area of science, we should apply the principle generally.

Government attorneys are sunk costs and not paid by the hour. There are opportunity costs to suing someone, but there is negligible outlay of additional funds.

First, these guys are assholes who should never work again. That does not mean, however, that their work is incorrect. The problem is that everyone is working at two or three levels removed. Stop trying to analyze the source code. None of their theories is scientific unless we can replicate the tests. Write new source code to map whatever raw data is still around. If that comes to similar conclusions, then maybe the harm is minimal. (The harm to science as an institution is great, I think, at least in the mind of the public.). If it comes to wildly different conclusions, then we can work from there. Any work that is based on data no longer available should not be considered valid.

The injury is to the plaintiff, not Microsoft. MS is probably arguing that any harm to the plaintiff is not irreparable, and that later monetary damages will cure any harm.

Because small businesses are notorious for stuffing money into mattresses. If you want to encourage spending, there needs to be a stable tax plan. But threats of higher taxes in the short and long term, threats of new regulations and restrictions keeps people from investing. Why am I going to buy bonds when I know the government might screw with the system and limit my returns. Worse yet, why am I going to buy bonds when the gov't is going to come in and make sure I get nothing--see, GM.

I'd be willing to wager that you aren't giving people money back. I pay taxes, and am not eligible for the program. Since we are closing in on less than half the population paying taxes, I bet at least some of the people taking advantage of the program don't pay taxes, or at least pay less than $4,500. It is redistribution.

Subsidizing new cars isn't a great idea. The government is still moving money around, which is inefficient. Its like moving energy-there is some loss for administration at the least. When the government does it, they have to raise taxes, which creates disincentives on the margin. This ends up being another bailout for the auto industry as well. If the industry really needs all of the money we are giving them, we should have let them collapse and move all of that capital to places where it would actually do some good. But, if we are going to do the whole stimulus thing, and we aren't going to cut taxes like we should, then this seems like a marginally acceptable way to do it.

for making me click through to get to the actual patent. Anyway, from reading some of the patent, it looks like they were trying to patent something at least somewhat interesting and unique. However, claim 1--the only independent claim--pretty clearly covers iTunes, among other prior art. I am not sure if it was bad drafting or bad intent, but I would not bring this to Apple's attention if I were the company. I've read some patent applications were the value added was miniscule, and the only way to see it is to look at some of the prosecution history. Maybe that's the case here, but I am too lazy to dig through the history. With a filing date of 2003, I doubt this will survive much scrutiny. That sucks if this company was trying to do something interesting. That's great if they are trolling.

The problem is that the target isn't you, or the general slashdot audience. It is the advertisers, and they are interested in easily suggestible numbers. The more people, and the more suggestible, the better. Facebook also seems better targeted to guiding people to what they didn't know they needed-the advertisers' best friend. I think control of the Internet in this sense means control of advertising dollars. Like you, I'm going to stick with Google and discount anything I see on Facebook. But like you, I am in the minority. The real question is what the majority of people on the Internet will do.

You do realize that your post contains internal contradictions, in addition to misstated facts? The American car companies would love to live on high margin cars, such as pick-ups and SUV's, but they are forced by CAFE standards and two-fleet rules to make small, cheap cars in the US. That screws with profit margins. Ford is the top selling car company in England, and GM is tops in China. Until recently, Chrysler was a German company. Things aren't as clear as you imply. And, if Americans bought whatever was cheapest, then they would buy the American cars. They don't, however. Look at sales figures-the cheapest cars are never near the top.

If there isn't a new trial, what did her attorneys preserve for appeal? Anything? Was there an objection to the jury instructions?

The police seizing evidence illegally is different than a private party doing so. The case you linked to does not stand for what you are asserting it for.

When you drive, you don't pay the full price of driving. The damage you do to the environment is unaccounted for. This is an example of market failure. The government imposes a tax roughly equal to the damage you do through polluting. Then, you are paying the full cost for your activities. Since you now have better information, or better yet, are forced to take into account all of that information, you make different decisions in the market place. That is how a tax would allow the market to decide.

Stop the subsidies, tax carbon to account for externalities, and then let the market decide. The negative effects of biofuels have been on display ever since the Dutch dropped palm oil. Instead of the government pushing this obviously failed product, they should make sure that consumers bear the entire cost of their decisions and let companies develop a way to reduce fossil fuel consumption. And less biofuels means the price of my beer goes down, dammit! Won't someone think of my beer?