And according to her income breakdown (http://zoekeating.tumblr.com/post/42057406771/where-does-the-filthy-lucre-come-from), music sales make up for less than 50% of her income. She seems to be doing very well.

Of course, this is a discussion about the royalties paid by streaming, which I guess is a separate issue. But, if it does help increase the reach of her music (and I guess it does), it may still be a great deal.

It's not a cost issue. Many European countries won't give you a transplant because there is a shortage of organs. They will pay for whatever treatment you need, and they will (at least mine will) even fly you to Johns Hopkins if said treatments aren't available locally... They just won't waste a precious organ on someone who'll die anyway when it could be assigned to someone who will live to enjoy it.

From watching House (I know, very reliable information), it seems a similar system is in place in the US: the nature of the condition leading to the transplant, and any related conditions (e.g. being an alcoholic, in case of a liver transplant) do influence your place on the waiting list. That makes sense, regardless of how much money you have.

And yet I often end up correcting academic/formal writing by college-level native English speakers, even though my own is far from flawless; a quick look through my carelessly written past comments will yield plenty of evidence. Just look at the sheer number of native speakers who are unable to differentiate between their and they're. Let's not even get into the would of. Do these people define English?

Of course, many others have a far better command of the language than I ever will, but nativism is overrated. I started taking English classes at the age of five, and nowadays it is my working language. Do you really think y'all in the good ol' States speak better English, just 'cause you ain't got no foreign passport?

Yes, we do mandate *minimum* manufacturer guarantees. When you buy crap, you're not just screwing yourself, you're also eating up resources and producing extra waste, often dangerous or hard to process.

No, this does not prevent secondhand sales at all? Why would it?

They honour 2 year guarantees in Portugal, as does every other company. Under EU law, everyone in the supply chain has to. You can choose to go to the store, distributor, importer or manufacturer, and they all must accept the item for repair or replacement. Nowadays, stores often just give you a new one on the spot and then bill or sort it out with the supplier later. This is actually the first time I hear of something like this, and it makes me question Belgian consumer protection.

I get 4 ms to the closest SpeedTest.net server, which is not on my ISP network, but I'm on a 100mbps FTTH connection. I'd consider up to 20 ms to a local server acceptable, but that's the limit. When I still had cable, I remember gaming on UK servers with 30ms latencies, and that's 1500 Km away.

Making a ticket proportional to wealth is just discrimination. I hate it when people just want to penalize the rich for "being" rich. It's stupid and disingenuous to the debate over traffic safety.

It's not. The GP explained it quite clearly: the value of a fine is meant to dissuade you from performing the action leading up to that fine. If the fine is irrelevant when compared to your income, it doesn't serve its purpose. Flat rate fines *are* discriminatory, since they only affect poor people. Making them proportional to your income fixes that problem. Also, someone "rich" who gets fined isn't being penalised for being rich; he's being penalised for not obeying the law.

Case in point: some guy was fined around $1M a couple of years ago for speeding in Switzerland. His income is, presumably, many times that number. If he were fined $200, do you really think that would be a deterrent against future infractions?

Now, you argue that fines are not the way to go. That's a different discussion. Where I live, you get a fine and lose your licence for up to 3 years - there's a penalty that affects all income brackets equally (*). I like your community service idea even better. But your analysis of the fairness of income-proportional fines is flawed, and typical of the "oh poor rich people, persecuted by the evil society" mindset, so unbelievably popular these days (with GOP candidates, I mean).

(*) Well, at least on the surface. In fact, those of us with drivers will be less affected, as will those that can pay to take a cab anywhere they go.

If it doesn't comply with existing IEEE basic freedom protections, the ECJ will shoot it down. They have never been afraid to go against the comission, the parliament or a member state before.

Now, why is the comission referring it to the ECJ? They may be stalling in order get people to calm down, as other commenters suggested, although that would be a very risky maneuver. If you ask me, they're folding and trying to save face, by being the ones stopping it instead of having the EP kill it in a very public manner.

I'm sure they do actually improve driver safety. I just don't see how/why audio would help much. Where I live, there's CCTV everywhere, but they're not allowed to record audio. Take that out and it becomes much less intrusive, while still serving its purpose.

Looks like it could be wronger.

Especially fanboys.

Alcohol - even in low quantities - increases your reaction time, leading to longer braking distances and impaired obstacle avoidance capability. You become an increased danger to others (and exceed the legal threshold) long before you start driving erratically.

That was not what he meant. The technology is tried and testes. Maybe half of the cars around me use it. It works, it's reliable, and it undeniably saves gas/emissions. The problem here is that it doesn't save so much gas on the EPA test track. As such, it's not worth it - no matter the environmental benefits in the real world.

Wikileaks wasn't born with Cablegate or the Iraq/Afghanistan war logs. And it's not an anti-US site; their first published leak was of an assassination order in Somalia. It's just that the US is fertile in material...

Plus, if you bother read the cables you'll see the obvious pressure, as pointed out by other posters.

I'm as trusting of politicians as the next Slashdotter but, given how the Brazilian president recently (and very publicly) voiced his strong support for Assange and Wikileaks (when there weren't that many world leaders doing the same), I'm not sure their intention is the one stated in the article. They may just want to reduce US control of the internet, which is clearly a good idea given both past and current events.