Microsoft's FAT (File Allocation Table) patent, which concerns a "common name space for long and short filenames" was invalidated on Thursday, a spokeswoman for the Federal Patent Court said in an email Friday. She could not give the exact reasons for the court's decision before the written judicial decision is released, which will take a few weeks."
Link to Original Source
Nightingale, with its iTunes-like interface, would have been the obvious answer, but its file organization feature was pulled for being too buggy. What open-source audio player did you migrate to after dumping iTunes?"
The left-right spectrum has nothing to do with what you said and has everything to do with ownership of the mean of production.
You lose all credibility and also lose the debate when you refers to the Nazi party as left wing. There is a reason why fascism and communism never got along.
And speculation. Chinese property markets (such as Beijing and Shanghai) has seen multiple booms and busts in the past decade due to rampant speculation.
capitalism is extremely efficient at profiting from human misery
humans are extremely efficient at creating human misery
Solar photovoltaic generation, known as PV, like wind power before it, is coming into the mainstream — at great environmental benefit.
Based on comparative life-cycle analyses of power sources, “PV electricity contributes 96 percent to 98 percent less greenhouse gases than electricity generated from 100 percent coal and 92 percent to 96 percent less greenhouse gases than the European electricity mix,” said Carol Olson, a researcher at the Energy Research Center of the Netherlands.
Photovoltaic generation offers several additional environmental advantages, Ms. Olson said in an interview.
“Compared with electricity from coal, PV electricity over its lifetime uses 86 to 89 percent less water, occupies or transforms over 80 percent less land, presents approximately 95 percent lower toxicity to humans, contributes 92 to 97 percent less to acid rain, and 97 to 98 percent less to marine eutrophication,” she said. Eutrophication is the discharge of excess nutrients that causes algal blooms.""
Link to Original Source
Recently, I've been contacted by a company which devolves a big chunk of it's profits to a charitable cause, and proposed me to integrate it with my extension. I'm tempted because, apart from the charity, I'd also receive a little revenue based on the number of users. It won't make me rich, but since I am a student living with my family even a little extra income can come in handy.
Basically the script simply redirects the results of a Google Search to a web service of the aforementioned company, which then redirects to the clicked website. The redirection is fast and transparent, so the end user barely notices any change. The only data sent to the web-service is the destination URL, there is no tracking-id or anything else.
What I'm asking you Slashdot readers is: if you were the users of my extension, would you be outraged if one day you open the browser and a tab shows up, telling you that the extension will redirect your clicks on the Google's results through a charitable company, and that you can disable it at any time in the settings?
Thanks for your opinions!"
Link to Original Source
Then maybe your neighbor should have had fewer kids? Or maybe he should do something worth as much as it costs to feed his family?
On my! What assumptions! How about if my neighbour needed to take care of her live-in father, who has Parkinson's? Where does that leave your argument? Can I choose whether a loved one is sick or not, or whether you have someone close that you have to care for?
You seem to think naively that humans are rational economic actors and we have complete control over our situations in life. I'm not so sure.
Find a company with a large low-paid workforce. Now look at how much they pay in taxes. Now look at how much their employees receive in government benefits. You may notice that the former quantity is greater than the latter, typically much greater. What value is the government adding to this transaction, exactly?
The same companies that avoids tax by funnelling funds to overseas subsidiaries and by making complicated financial transactions to shelter income from the tax authorities? The same companies that get millions of dollars of tax breaks from the state so that they can open up a massive distribution center that brings one or two hundred minimum wage jobs?
You don't care that there are more poor people, as long as they're all equally poor?
That's the opposite of what I said. Companies should pay for workers, not the taxpayer. Not in million dollar tax breaks in exchange for low-paid jobs. Definitely not for companies that rake in huge profit while their typical front-line worker barely scraps by, with no health insurance coverage, and relying on food stamps to get by.
British, France, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, Japan and other advanced economies doesn't seem to have any problems coming up with new treatments and drugs. Just as an example, Kings College and Guys' & St. Thomas', an NHS hospital, just developed a new and affordable test to predict pre-eclampsia on pregnant women before it develops. This is really important work, done on the public purse, which most tax payers (me included) couldn't be happier to fund.
Because it doesn't make sense for us to subsidize low wages as a society.
I don't want my neighbor to be working and still not be able to feed his family. What's more, I don't want to subsize the company that is making millions off of low-paid staff which then claims benefits. I'd rather employers pay their fair share. If that mean the unemployment rate is a little bit higher, so be it. I'd rather my tax dollars be used to help people that truly need it than some company's bottom line.
All I needed to know about Obamacare was that it is a form of price control.
Well well.. so you've made up your mind and just looking for facts to support your case. However, I'm afraid to say, you are wrong.
First of all, the ACA is not what is understood in economics as price controls. It is not a price floor, nor a price ceiling.
Secondly, not all price controls are bad. Some are necessary as the market is not always optimal. Most of the time they are enacted to even out bargaining power discrepancies, and it generally makes the economy more efficient when done correctly. For example, there is a reason for the minimum wage - otherwise you have more and more working poor that rely on benefits (however, this didn't stop Wal-Mart due to deficiencies in the minimum wage), or alternatively you can cut all benefits and bring back poor laws and workhouses. There's a reason why we dumped that system.