Some people pay good money for that, you know?

> So in other words they used information that any intelligent facebook user / developer has access to via clever social engineering or the app itself

No, as the article points out, it's not the actual victim's details that are at issue here. It's the fact that the perpetrator used the *wrong* photo, and that the photo they used comes up in a Google search (but not in other search engines). If they had have got the photo through Facebook or social engineering, they likely would have got the right photo.

The question doesn't make sense. The vaccines you're talking about don't exist. The rule is that you need the MMR vaccine, because that's what's currently required to get immunized. I'm sure they'd consider changing the rule if/when a viable alternative were produced, tested, and shown to be effective.

Seriously? I have lived in Australia all my life, and I know exactly what "Bay Area" means.

In order to be found in violation of this patent, your violation must satisfy all the claims listed on the patent

I'm pretty sure that's not right (but see my nick).

The claims are each enforceable in their own right, but typically get chained together ("Claim 2: The method in claim 1, further ...").

If one claim is not relevant, then only those claims depending on it are irrelevant.

You're missing the point.

There's a difference between disagreeing with what someone says (throwing out the claims of prior art), and believing they believe what they're saying (agreeing the alleged infringement was not willful). They're not mutually exclusive.

I think you might be misreading it.

"their" refers to Samsung. So she's saying since Sasmsung's experts testified that there was prior art, she's assuming they genuinely believed the prior art to be valid. The jury disagreed, but without other evidence she has assumed the experts genuinely believed there to be prior art.

Most places I've worked would instantly toss resumes that explicitly mentioned anything like that - DOB, marital status, religion, even a photo.

Having a policy of rejecting anyone who volunteers information that could be used as grounds for a discrimination claim is apparently the safest approach.

Your wrong

No. ewe are.

Sure, if that actually happened, I'd fight tooth and nail to protect my family. Home invasion rape are incredibly rare - it's not something I lose any sleep over, and it's not worth culling 0.01% of your population annually "just in case".

I strongly suspect a gun owner is considerably more likely to accidentally shoot themselves or a member of their family than they are to successfully ward off a rapist.

Wait - what?

Japan's murder rate is 0.3 per 100,000.
China dominates that at 1.0.
UK comes in even higher at 1.2.

The US? No single US state comes in lower than Japan. Iowa, Vermont, and New Hapshire are the only states/territories that come in lower than the UK. The average across the US? 4.2.

Make no mistake - murder rates in the US are unacceptably high.

At that rate, you are more likely to die in an airline catastrophe.

That suggests the figures you took from the previous poster are extremely flawed. Over 30,000 americans die from gunshots every (not to mention the 75,000 who are injured). Air crash deaths are extremely rare - there have been a number of years recently with no air crash deaths in the US.

The catch-22 is that your relative value on human life makes you an incredibly inappropriate person for making those life-and-death decisions.

There are a million and one reasons why someone might be in your house (or why you might think someone's in your house).

I'm not suggesting being robbed isn't most likely explanation, but it's just stuff. Your stuff is not worth extrajudicial killing someone over.

What an absolute load of clap trap.

Why do people get modded up as insightful for spouting the same old NRA propaganda? Analysing the statistics for violent crime, suicide and accidental deaths is a complicated area of research. Finding localised peaks in violent crime figures does not negate the massive drops in gun incidents we saw in Australia following the effective banning of firearms almost 20 years ago.

And what's with this view that being able to shoot someone who wrongs you is better than the tiny risk of being robbed? Seriously? People with that view are exactly who I don't want having weapons anywhere near me.

http://investor.yahoo.net/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=724306 will work better (without the trailing slash).