Money can't buy happiness, but it correlates pretty well
No, the article says people who EARN more money are happier, and happier people EARN more money.
I know a lot of people who INHERITED, and generally I perceive them as being less happy than the norm.
Personally, I have nearly always been a pretty happy person, and I made more money than all the rest of my family combined. I didn't find it necessary for happiness, though, and I wanted my kids off to a good start, so I gave it to them, in one form or another.
I no longer have much money, but I am the happiest and healthiest (for my age) person I know.
Well, two comments, one on point, the other ...
1. There is bound to be data on the conduct of, say, mice exposed to lead and mice not so exposed. Seems to me that would be highly relevant.
2. There is bound to be data on how much lead was put into the air. That should be relevant.
3. But the big problem is, that like Techdirt's blindness to data showing a possible correlation between video games and crime, even if it is for a small segment of the population. While it is easy to believe video games are not a significant factor (we just don't know) to say it is NEVER a
factor at all is a massive stretch of "faith", or bias.
Only an idiot would stop Google from scraping their content, and the decision likely will deter less popular sites, since many idiots would stop them - sounds like a huge anti-competitive win for Google!
First Amendment - unless you don't like the message
I think the public deserves to know what is going on around them, and I applaud the paper for printing it.
Yes, I realize people will pick on them; if they don't like the message, or think the people they relate to don't, they will (obviously) state the paper should/shouldn't have done X, and it was snide to do/not do Y, etc.
COMPLETE disclosure - as Thomas Jefferson said "democracy depends on an informed electorate" (something like that).
As an IP attorney, I can tell you. the examiner was thinking that by meeting the "performance vs. revenue" goals of the USPTO, which generally mean disallowing inventions while allowing anything that is easy and makes a lot of money, the Director will be pleased.
It is really strange that Ellsberg is one of our real heroes, and Manning is a "traitor", etc.
As Einstein said, "only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe".
Manning, to me, is a hero.
As an IP (aka "patent") attorney, I have given this a great amount of thought, as well as seeing the consequences with my clients.
I think three things are appropriate:
1. NO software patents,
2. Any action on infringement should be allowed only with a showing of USE, and that showing should be supported only with considerable evidence of use. If you aren't using it, you can't protect it.
3. Unless you want to sell our souls to the wealthy, we need to be sure small inventors can avail themselves of the lower cost fees mandated by Congress, and ignored by the USPTO.
He's right. I found out the hard way, as a manager. I found that we had customers who were beginning to find excuses NOT to do business with us, because some of our salesmen were so focussed on getting a commission (then jumping to another company) that they were actually abusive.
Our best salesmen (LONG term) were on a salary, and really cared about the company - that's what we ended up with, by the way.
DEFINITELY a problem (and as an IP (aka "patent") attorney I can see it better than most. It would be worthwhile at least
considering getting rid of the USPTO (which would put me out of business, but be good for the US).
So, maybe we should whine less and do more??