1. The Supreme Court ruling on patenting genes will need to address these issues again.
I'm not sure which people at PayPal are going to take the blame for this little fiasco, but it would be interesting to know what they were thinking.
A 17-year-old German student found a significant security vulnerability on PayPal’s website, and when he revealed the issue to the company, expected to be rewarded.
But PayPal refused to pay Robert Kugler a Bug Bounty, telling him he was too young to participate in the company’s program that rewards people who find glitches in the system. TechWeek Europe reported that Paypal defended its actions in not paying the bounty because of Kugler’s age and because the bug had already been found.
First of all, they are generating bad press over a topic tangentially related to their existing PR problem of being seen as a company that refuses to pay people money they are owed. But perhaps more importantly, while the bug in this case may not have been critical PayPal is signaling to other hackers that they are not necessarily reliable in their bug bounty program when there are plenty of other people out there will to buy information on PayPal's bugs.
The Reinhart & Rogoff saga continues.
One point that hasn't been addressed: Outside of the issue about the significance of the data errors, the main complaint seems to be that Reinhart & Rogoff didn't do enough to clarify that the correlation between high levels of sovereign debt and low growth was not necessarily causal. Countries often had debt because they had low growth, the high debt isn't necessarily the cause behind low growth.
Critics of Reinhart & Rogoff then go on to point out that this paper was a major driver behind the austerity movement because politicians supporting austerity often cited this study. I'm not sure if people making these claims really think that Paul Ryan would be okay with budget deficit without being able to talk about a 90% level in debt/GDP, but it's funny that they are making the same mistake they accuse Reinhart & Rogoff of making.
The question is simple - what are the biggest ways that people in society are acting more rationally since the start of the third millenium?
Boxer's letter adds new weight to a longstanding — and unresolved — question at San Onofre. Did Edison modify the generators so extensively before they were installed that the company should have sought an amendment to its operating license, a process that can take months or even years?
Walmart's actions in Mexico that landed it in hot water for violating the foreign corrupt practices act looks like a benign version of negative corruption since it seems to have merely involved facilitating the permitting and licensing processes (assuming these permits didn't also give them rights to take or pollute onto other people's land). They were merely trying to do business and were not using the government to steal from anyone. However, the near monopoly in telecommunications that Mexico gives Carlos Slim by keeping costs high for competition is a definite example of positive corruption.The officials that are underpaid that take bribes where the payees are acting in a negatively corrupt ways are still positively corrupt themselves, since even if they are taking those payments because they are underpaid they are still acting as if the government owes them a job.When Chinese development companies have local party leaders force rural workers off their land, that is positive corruption.In the 1920's, when speakeasies bribed cops to let them serve alcohol that was negative corruption. When they bribed the cops to also shut down competing speakeasies it was an example of positive corruption.Amgen's history of payments to Congress which helped them get a paragraph put into the US fiscal-cliff deal that will cause the government to pay them half a billion more dollars over two years is a good example of positive corruption that is still legal in the US.