That eeevil corporations and government can track my phone is of course, no surprise. However, how easy would it be to fool such systems, and make them think they're tracking me, when in fact they are tracking someone else, I wonder?
Mod parent up. A point rarely made: what should matter is if there's any problem getting hired/promoted because of gender, etc.
You completely missed the point. It's not about "magic", it's about making money. If you could buy gasoline for your automobile that was 30% less expensive at gas pump A vs. gas pump B, why would you ever use pump B? Ditto for hiring.
The paper goes into some detail regarding the latest X-Men movie, where there were 7million downloads of a pre-production work copy of the movie, and, with heavy news coverage, it could be assumed that everyone seeing the movie would know it could have been downloaded for free. Even there, the small, positive bump in revenue was found. That's the smoking gun, IMHO.
That sample image is only 50 microns wide, barely as wide across as a human hair. That's one small security tag, my friend.
It's much like saying the FAA should regulate paper-plane throwing or bungee-jumping
Hey, don't give them any ideas! It's bad enough already.
the creationists are right, even partially so.
Anyone who would use "Only a godless sinner" to justify an evil action such as cutting off people's heads or driving jet planes full of fuel into office buildings is NOT a religious person, they are a political person who has hijacked religion in the name of their cause. Is the KKK a "Christian" organization? Please. There are millions of peaceable Muslims living in the US. Look around you.
Now this is making more sense. When the NSA says, "we aren't spying on all Americans", it means "WE aren't spying on all Americans, the Brits are, and then we get to see what they collected." So: technically correct, but morally bankrupt.
Is it any wonder that ordinary citizens are cynical about their representatives? Whose interests are they really representing? Not ours, that's for sure.
I've had Cox business service to my home for nearly a decade now. They have not raised the price one penny in all that time. The service is rock-solid, and the speed is exactly what they advertised; I have never experienced any bandwidth throttling that I can detect. There are no blocked ports or other shennigans, and their tech support staff answer the phone in person when you call for help.
My experience with other vendors was pretty miserable in comparison. YMMV, but Cox has earned my business.
I tried out funding a micro finance loan, but was never paid back; the borrower basically said, "Everybody in America is rich, I don't need to pay you back." A friend of mine who worked for many years in East Africa said such feelings are very widespread. Take care; if people don't pay you back, they aren't really getting the point of financing growth, and will therefore stay stuck in poverty. It's not that I lost a lot of money (a few thousands), but I lost the relationship I could have built.
When was the last time you saw a dollar -- or even a million dollars -- cast a vote?
Mod parent up.
What, they only charge $32K to have a private conversation with the country's most important public employee? *Pfft* Clinton raised $5.4 million with the Lincoln bedroom. These guys are such pikers.
"...NPG’s commitment to open access has been questioned, following our request that authors provide a formal waiver of Duke University’s open access policy. NPG is supportive of open access. We encourage self-archiving, and have done so since we implemented our policy in 2005:
'When a manuscript is accepted for publication in an NPG journal, authors are encouraged to submit the author’s version of the accepted paper (the unedited manuscript) to PubMedCentral or other appropriate funding body’s archive, for public release six months after publication. In addition, authors are encouraged to archive this version of the manuscript in their institution’s repositories and, if they wish, on their personal websites, also six months after the original publication. '
We are requesting waivers from Duke University authors, because of the grant of rights asserted in its open access policy: 'In legal terms, each Faculty member grants to Duke University a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free, worldwide license to exercise any and all rights under copyright relating to each of his or her scholarly articles, in any medium, and to authorize others to do so, provided that the articles are not sold. The Duke faculty author remains the copyright owner unless that author chooses to transfer the copyright to a publisher.'
If we do not request a waiver, the general language of this policy means that Duke University has the rights not only to archive the manuscript in Dukespace, but also to distribute and publish to the world at large the final version of a subscription article freely, in any medium, immediately on publication. We started requesting waivers recently, following an enquiry from a Duke University author." [emphasis added]
Since the issue seems to be about publishing in the open immediately vs. waiting 6 months, asking for a waiver of all moral rights seems like using a cannon to swat a fly.