> Basing emplyment on IQ is pointless as it doesn't actually predict "real-world" performance.

IQ does correlate with job performance, especially for higher-complexity jobs.

See, for example:

http://faculty.washington.edu/mdj3/MGMT580/Readings/Week%202/Schmidt.pdf

I used to use rxvt, but I couldn't get Unicode to work in it, so I switched to puttycyg.

Heaven's Gate the 1980 box office bomb, not the religious cult.

And also not to be confused with Gates of Heaven (1978), Errol Morris's first film, a documentary about pet cemeteries--which is quite good.

It won't be long before we're able to identify all kinds of disorders and diseases with a simple genetic screening. Then we just call having a 90% chance to develop cancer a pre-existing condition, and you're screwed.

There is a law against that that just went into effect.

Also, people don't actually have that many lethal genes. There's the whole natural selection thing going on.

Congress shall accept no donations but from the People.

Corporations have been banned from donating to candidates in Federal elections since 1907. When you hear "Microsoft donated $27,000 to Jay Inslee", it actually means that individuals associated with Microsoft donated the money. (Well, corporations are allowed to give some to PACs, but it's limited.)

Something tells me that if you do the math, cutting CO2 emissions will be way cheaper and safer than any of the options listed in the article. Seeding the oceans with iron, one of the more reasonable sounding ideas... OK, but how much iron would have to be mixed into the oceans to get rid of billions of tons of atmospheric carbon? At what cost?

No. The math has been done and the geo-engineering solutions are thousands of times cheaper than reducing CO2 emissions.

Showing that someone "is up to no good" has always
been more difficult than proving they actually did something
wrong. This has been a problem for accusors since the dawn
of time. The fact that justice can be difficult is no good
excuse to take shortcuts with the process.

On the basis of the briefs, it looks like the law professors have a better case based on the language of the statute. But I have to say that I don't see this as a case of some vague "up to no good" standard. If the distribution actually took place, there was infringement. If the distribution didn't take place, there was no point in making the files available.

It would be like hiding a camera in the girls' locker room, then arguing that no invasion of privacy occurred unless someone was actually watching the monitor while the girls were in the shower. It's hard to prove when someone was watching, but there's no point in putting the camera there unless you want to watch.