did you not even read the summary let alone the article? we don't need LIVE small pox virus anymore to produce vaccines or perform research. Should someone use it as a weapon then obviously we would have an abundant supply of the live virus anyway.
hate to say it, but correlation does not equal causation. didn't east Germany also have significantly lower economic prosperity and hence people grew up with the need to take every advantage they could get. Even then it is still just correlation but I would be willing to bet economic conditions have more to do with it than political system/philosophy.
Ipad or not, you still have to pay for the text books in electronic form. Prices are dictated by the publisher, only a fraction of the price is related to the media they are delivered on.
Actually I don't watch fox news at all, but so many idiots post information published from it that it is hard to avoid it. News sites stopped doing proper investigative journalism years ago, the majority of articles even on the relatively good places are poorly researched and/or republished crap. Even on the current MH17 it amazes me some of the fake/phony stuff that has been put on news here in Australia as fact, they don't even bother to do basic research anymore.
I don't think Russian state media should be editing Wikipedia entries especially not on matters of current affairs.
But still, interpreted literally the new statement is far more factually correct and unbiased than what it replaced. Whoever shot down the plane, they were "soldiers" or fighters of some variety and almost certainly can be described as Ukrainian, given that everyone seems to agree that the fighters are actually eastern Ukrainians and at most Russia is supplying weapons to them.
The original text, on the other hand, more or less exactly sums up western/west Ukrainian line despite the obvious abuse of the word terrorist to mean "rebel fighter" and the  assertion about who did it and the source of the weapons.
I don't think Wikipedia should be used as a political tool fullstop. posting accusations that Russia was involved is for news sites not for supposedly unbiased material. If it proves to be a fact then it can be put there. The original text is more like a fox news story than an encyclopaedia reference.
nowadays anyone from a home blogger to grandma's shop owns a domain name, it doesn't require any technical know how. Most of these people have no technical knowledge at all and barely understand what a domain name even is, all they know is they were told they needed one to put their web page up.
He does seem Pro Russia, however correcting false information can hardly be called trolling.
I would sincerely hope investigation is performed by no one from Russia, Ukraine OR THE USA. all three have significant bias and the outcome from an investigation by any of them would be considered suspect. I would think the Dutch combined with some help from a few other more non-biased European countries.
They went from being a non existent player to being in dominant position going forward. They used the tactics to gain a massive foothold and now even with correct pricing they will still be benefiting from these tactics for many many years to come due to the marketshare they obtained. They will certainly have benefited exponentially more than 450 million in the long term from both hardware and ebook sales.
So basically you are saying old age people are similar to the OTHER high risk category. We know under 25's are very high risk, saying they are similar proves the point they are dangerous rather than disproving it.
You are using the wrong numbers. you can't do a direct comparison of age to accidents, you need to include distance travelled. I would be willing to bet that after 75 the distance driven is only a fraction of the average for 34-44 year olds yet they have as many accidents. but since you didn't include that data what you have is pretty meaningless.
I agree your analogy is better. And I'm going to say that under USA law the US parent company is obligated to compel the UK subsidiary to search the 2000 safety deposit boxes. If the US company can get to X, even if the UK subsidiary would prefer not get to X, they must.
NO they can't. you cannot compel someone in another country to commit a crime. saying "sorry our legal system here says you must go and commit a felony and suffer the consequences because the US system doesn't recognise foreign laws" just aint going to wash it, anyone that obeyed such a demand deserves the jail sentence that will result.
there is a LOT to see here, this is definitely not a non-issue. This inherently makes US companies a danger to do business with many countries for hosting/cloud services where many countries have laws and/or industries with regulatory requirements that demand data cannot be taken out of the country. This ruling if upheld will make US companies like Amazon, MS, Apple, Google et al a no go when it comes to hosting, the financial ramifications are rather massive.
The huge MASSIVE problem with that position is that many other countries have VERY specific laws about data, especially privacy data leaving the borders. This puts international companies in a hugely awkward position where they must break one law or the other, either of which potentially could result in huge fines or Jail time. The US doesn't get to determine what other countries laws are and they definitely do not get to override them.
Paying kids et al with barter is one thing, bartering can be a dangerous way to commit tax fraud as my brother found out. You have to place too much faith in the person you are bartering with, my brother got burnt by the person he was bartering with being a greedy prick, he wrote himself cheques for the bartered amount so he could then claim the bartered amount as tax deductible business expense while the payment to himself still kept his income low, my brother thought there was no trail until tax man came knocking. I also know of someone that got caught because he didn't realise the person he was bartering with was honest, so that person reported the amount on his tax (as he should) yet the other person had not. Once you are involving someone else in your tax fraud you really want to be 100% certain of what they are doing on their side.