1. Guy writes an article about a product.
2. Guy gets feedback, some of it far less than civil, stating that he was being irresponsible in his product recommendations.
3. Guy, rather than dismissing the issue as no doubt many would, actually does some research and writes a follow up.
I hardly think that this qualifies as "just about the most ignorant, one-sided article" on this topic, at least among those that you've read. This guy isn't a government agency or an academic group tasked with doing research into public safety concerns so it isn't his job to launch a comprehensive study into the issue.
I get that there seem to be some credible concerns, but you aren't going to win anyone over by making hyperbolic claims about anyone that fails to agree with you. Posting "ignorant, one-sided" insult laden posts on Slashdot isn't exactly helping your cause.
Those who don't remember history are doomed to buy Dr. Brush's Magic Tonsil Tonic.
Well, at least we can look forward to the fact that Dr. Brush's Magic Tonsil Tonic is likely to contain either an opiate or cocaine if not both!
I went to one of these stupid meetings and all I could say for myself is that since I worked as a stocker in office supplies, I didn't even sell anything that I could in theory have pushed a service plan on, even if I didn't think they were crap. They responded that I was mistaken because batteries were in my department and they qualified. WTF? How the hell are you supposed to sell a service plan on a pack of AA batteries? I quit before the next Saturday as I'd found another job, though I probably would have given them notice if it weren't for the crappy work environment.
It is hard to see how allowing a a company to exist solely to acquire and then license the use of said patents. To do so circumvents the intention of patents by taking what would happen after the expiration of the patent, allowing other inventors to take a crack at the invention and improve upon it, and instead turns it into an odd sort of tightly controlled rental agreement.
I'm not an economist so I'll be right out there and say that my eyes glaze over a bit when I'm trying to dig through all of the info on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website about their methodology. Basically, they conduct a survey of 60,000 workers and poll them on their employment status. They then break that info up into six measures which they label as U1-U6.
The current chart that shows the breakdown can be found here: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm
"Chronically Unemployed" is the wrong term and that's my mistake. The actual term the government uses is "discouraged workers."
The 7.2 figure is the Bureau of Labor Statistics U3 number. There are also a U4, U5, and U6 which are increasingly larger. The U6 figure includes "total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers." And that rate is currently at 13.5 percent.