Tim,

Good find with the statute. However, I'm not at all convinced that Section 105 would apply in this case.

Section 105 is limited to satellites, etc., that are "under the jurisdiction or control of the United States." Without researching the statute in detail, I'm not sure if this applies. This sounds it is limited to satellites that are owned and operated by the United States government, not owned by private entities within the United States (although I could be wrong).

This also assumes that the company that owns it is a United States company. Even it it is a United States company that was subject to Section 105, it could simply sell the satellite to another company in another country (such as a subsidiary set up for this purpose), and then let the subsidiary perform the salvage operation on its own from that country. Under such circumstances, there would be a strong argument that the rescue operation would not fall within the jurisdiction of United States patent law.

If the company hasn't considered this, then it needs better lawyers. I'm with the above comments suggesting that this "patent infringement" excuse is just a big ball of FUD, and that the company would rather just collect a payout from the insurance company.

More evidence that this is legit. Elephants can definitely paint, although as Chippets notes, these particular "representational" paintings appear to be a trained behavior.

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/53264/

Or is it a matter of principle? My principal was not my pal.

Sorry, but saying that leather is just a "byproduct" is a cop-out.

The cattle industry depends on the profits from all of the parts of the cow (meat, skin and other products.) The crude saying I've heard is that only thing that a slaughterhouse doesn't use is the cow's fart.

If people did not purchase leather, the cattle industry would make less incremental profits per cow. As a matter of economics, they would find it less profitable to raise the cows, so fewer cows would be raised in factory farm conditions and killed. If you purchase leather, you are indirectly contributing to additional cows being killed.

If you believe that raising cows and killing them under these circumstances is ethically appropriate, that's a defensible position (although I disagree with it). However, saying "these are only byproducts" just dodges the question.

It's not "stylish" in the least. It's skin from a dead cow that probably didn't become a fashion accessory willingly.

Teresa, this is pretty much a word-for-word copy of the Wikipedia page. It has the same "predictions" in the same order (with a bit of reorganization). It's far more than repeating a "trope."

The article on the 2Spare website is dated 3/28/2006. Here's the version from Wikipedia as of that date for comparison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Failed_predictions&oldid=45654296

It bugs me that this is a commercial site that makes a buck through blatant plagiarism. This is a site that appears to be founded on ripping off other people's content without attribution.

For example, yesterday it posted an article on Hiroo Onada. The first paragraph is a copy/paste job from an earlier article from Damn Interesting (which gives proper credit to Wikipedia), and the second paragraph is a copy/paste job from the Wikipedia page. It doesn't provide any attribution.

http://www.2spare.com/item_91025.aspx

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=253

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroo_Onada

Kayin,

Your point is taken, but the same reasoning could be used to abdicate any personal responsibility for any form of conservation.

"Why shouldn't I drive a huge SUV when there are billions of other cars on the road? Why shouldn't I heat my home to 80 degrees in the winter when there are factories in China belching pollution and CO2 into the air? As one person I can't do anything."

Lifestyle change is hard. The problem with global warming is that it's a classic "tragedy of the commons." Individuals have little direct incentive to change their behavior when everyone else can continue to act wastefully with impunity.

At the same time, I believe that we each have a personal responsibility to act responsibility. When the ice caps do melt, I want to be able to tell my grandkids that I did what I could.

Going vegetarian is one way -- and, according to these articles, the single most effective way -- of minimizing our individual contribution to greenhouse gasses.

One thing which often gets overlooked...

The single most effective way to combat global warming is simply to adopt a vegetarian diet, or at least limit meat consumption (particularly beef). According a study last year from the United Nations, more greenhouse gasses are created by raising animals for food than by all cars and trucks in the world combined.

"Rearing Cattle Produces More Greenhouse Gases Than Driving Cars, UN Report Warns"
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=environment

According to another study from the University of Chicago, a person who enjoys a vegetarian diet saves the equivalent of 1.5 tons of carbon dioxide per year from being dumped into the atmosphere. A person can do more for the environment by switching to a vegetarian diet than by switching from an SUV to a Prius (which saves about 1.0 tons of CO2 per year).

"It's better to green your diet than your car"
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18825304.800-its-better-to-green-your-diet-than-your-car.html