Slashdot Mirror

I do knot know what GP believes or knows, but one would have to be have been living under a rock for the past one and a half years not to know that the use of defeat devices is very widespread in the industry. Some reports and articles easily found with your favourite search engine:

The emissions test defeat device problem in Europe is not about VW
Dieselgate At GM? Defeat Devices Claimed To Be Found In Opel Cars
Test of Fiat diesel model shows irregular emissions: Bild am Sonntag
Report on France’s Renault emissions probe omitted crucial details
French government ordered to hand over full details of Renault emissions study
PSA Group Raided by French Fraud Office in Emissions Probe
Nissan faces suit over alleged emission fraud
#Dieselgate continues: new cheating techniques
RDW emission test programme - Results of indicative tests for the presence of an unauthorised defeat device
VW, Daimler, Nissan, Mitsubishi, GM: Can We Finally Agree That Dieselgate Is An Industry Problem?
Revealed: nearly all new diesel cars exceed official pollution limits
Many car brands emit more pollution than Volkswagen, report finds

Defeat devices are hardly a recent phenomenon:
How Common Are EPA “Defeat Devices” In The Auto Industry?
Carmaker Cheating on Emissions Almost as Old as Pollution Tests

There are different ways to cheat, too:
`Shameful' Mitsubishi Fraud Risks Pushing Carmaker to Brink
This is the world now: Suzuki also admits to cheating on fuel-economy tests

It's not hard to find more. Pretty much every manufacturer cheats or has cheated in one way or another.

I do knot know what GP believes or knows, but one would have to be have been living under a rock for the past one and a half years not to know that the use of defeat devices is very widespread in the industry. Some reports and articles easily found with your favourite search engine:

The emissions test defeat device problem in Europe is not about VW
Dieselgate At GM? Defeat Devices Claimed To Be Found In Opel Cars
Test of Fiat diesel model shows irregular emissions: Bild am Sonntag
Report on France’s Renault emissions probe omitted crucial details
French government ordered to hand over full details of Renault emissions study
PSA Group Raided by French Fraud Office in Emissions Probe
Nissan faces suit over alleged emission fraud
#Dieselgate continues: new cheating techniques
RDW emission test programme - Results of indicative tests for the presence of an unauthorised defeat device
VW, Daimler, Nissan, Mitsubishi, GM: Can We Finally Agree That Dieselgate Is An Industry Problem?
Revealed: nearly all new diesel cars exceed official pollution limits
Many car brands emit more pollution than Volkswagen, report finds

Defeat devices are hardly a recent phenomenon:
How Common Are EPA “Defeat Devices” In The Auto Industry?
Carmaker Cheating on Emissions Almost as Old as Pollution Tests

There are different ways to cheat, too:
`Shameful' Mitsubishi Fraud Risks Pushing Carmaker to Brink
This is the world now: Suzuki also admits to cheating on fuel-economy tests

It's not hard to find more. Pretty much every manufacturer cheats or has cheated in one way or another.

Only if GP happens to be American, since the US will collect the proceed of the settlement. Taxpayers elsewhere will be paying for a large part of it, since the payment goes out of VW's profits and hence the taxes it is due. The consequences are quite serious in some places.

Love open source.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/be...

Is Redhat aspiring to be the new Microsoft?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/la...

The 100k prediction for 2016 was by a Forbes contributor, not Musk or Tesla. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ch...

They usually get their projections from the company, and don't make up their own. Either way, I was just trying to get a little historical perspective on how their projections evolve. They've gotten better as one would expect and were pretty accurate at the start of the year.

3 years ago they predicted 100,000 in 2016

http://insideevs.com/tesla-pro...

In January of 2016 they were projecting over 3,200

http://www.fool.com/investing/...

The 100k prediction for 2016 was by a Forbes contributor, not Musk or Tesla.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ch...

Yes, the image detection algorithm that flagged that, automatically, is clearly a conspiracy to control "fake news".

You are kinda dumb aren't you?

The "controlling fake news" conspiracy literally is this. You now have the option when flagging a story, to mark it as fake news. That's it. It's not even an automated process (yet) it's literally giving YOU the ability to alert THEM to fake stories.

So, unless you are an asshole spreading bullshit fake news, you should be happy. But going from your tone, I think we all know you are all up in that pizzagate... Right?

"Fake news" only became a big deal when Democrats and the media that said Hillary! would win had to excuse her loss instead.

Want to talk about "fake news"? Now half of all Democrat voters actually believe that the Russian government directly affected vote counts to allow Trump to win.

Now there's some "fake, narrative-driven news" for you - all for the Democrat's and partisan media's goal to delegitimize Trump's win.

And it's brought to you by the same folks at CBS, ABC, NBC, The New York Times, and of course the "Russians-also-hacked-the-electricity-grid-ooops-forget-we-published-that" Washington Post:

'Fake News' And How The Washington Post Rewrote Its Story On Russian Hacking Of The Power Grid

My understanding is that the glass back helps to improve radio reception. It's apparently a significant problem for the newer all-aluminum phone designs. The aluminum blocks reception, and there are various ways of coping with it, typically by compromising the solid aluminum back with other materials.

Time-line:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ka...

This is what pisses me off

Years ago it came out that the climate change scientists were almost ALL lying to get federal funding.

Although this is america and people forget history seemingly overnight. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

Heres a little food for thought, i know some of you dont like to think "it hurts" and the such. but dont be a fucking fool

What, make a ridiculous joke so you can dismiss evidence of wrongdoing and documented events?

Good job knee-jerk defending your team, though.

No he's not wrong, remember the controversy when Romney was illegally taped saying the same thing at a fund raiser? 45% of Americans pay no federal income taxes, and for the most part if you pay no Federal, you likely pay little or no State income tax as well.

he Tax Policy Center has updated its estimate of the percentage of households that will not pay federal income tax this year. We now figure it is 45.3 percent, nearly 5 percentage points higher than our 2013 estimate of 40.4 percent. But that doesn’t mean more Americans have moved off the tax rolls. Instead, the higher estimate reflects new and better estimates of the number of Americans who don’t file tax returns. Those additional non-payers were there all the time—we just failed to count them. New Estimates Of How Many Households Pay No Federal Income Tax

The Internal Revenue Service has recently released new data on individual income taxes for calendar year 2012 ... The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned their largest share of income since 2007 at 21.9 percent of total AGI and paid their largest share of the income tax burden since the same year at 38.1 percent of total income taxes. ... In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (68 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent. ... The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent). Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

The tax codes have become insanely complicated, mostly due to the codes being used for a social engineering carrot and stick, and if this doesn't get fixed, things will get ugly and it will be uglyist for those on unearned entitlements.

In reading a Forbes article on VidAngel, they make reference to the 2005 "Family Movie Act" (FMA) that vidangel is using as it's primary defense. The fact that the FMA exists at all is horrible. According to Forbes:

The FMA, as it relates to filtering technology, provides an exemption from copyright infringement for the use of technology in the home that can edit a DVD or an “on-demand’ streaming film on the fly, resulting in a temporary “censored” version of the film. From a copyright standpoint, this simply means that the companies offering the technologies are not required to obtain a license to create the “derivative” censored version of the film.

The frustrating part about this law is that Americans ALREADY had the right to do that. I bought the DVD, I have a license to it, and I can create all the derivative works I want SO LONG AS I DON'T DISTRIBUTE THEM. I am sick of laws saying "You can do X with copyrighted content" because it implies a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright. Copyright only affects distribution of a work. I can take any book I have, and cross-out words, then change character names, and insert epithets, and paint pictures in it, and rip pages out. I can take any DVD I want, and I can remove scenes and dub over it all I want. Copyright has nothing to bear on that since I'm not copying it.

The problem is that Americans have allowed organizations like the RIAA and the MPAA to reinterpret copyright law. So now, we don't own those DVDs we license them. And we don't play the video at all, instead we have a license to a key to decrypt them. The MPAA convinced the courts that transferring the video to our monitors is making a copy. Blizzard convinced the courts that loading a video game into the computers memory to play it constitutes a copy. So all of a sudden, copyright law not only says who can distribute works, but how we can enjoy them and what we can and cannot do with them.

Be careful of laws that "grant" you rights you already had. A law that says "You can now criticize the president in public" would just be a disguised way to take that right away from you, by asserting that you didn't have it in the first place and that they had the power to regulate it.

If Russia isn't invading and attacking Ukraine, as Putin has been saying for over two years now, why would Russian artillery be targeting Ukrainian artillery in Ukraine?

I guess when you've lost over 2,000 soldiers during your invasion, and the weekly shipments of cargo 200 keep crossing into your country, it becomes time to drop the facade of the charade and just admit the truth you've been denying.

You are five to ten times more likely to die from slipping off the roof by cleaning your solar panels than you would from any nuclear power accident.
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

Of all the energy sources by carbon footprint the ones with the lowest emissions per energy produced are wind, tidal, hydro, nuclear, and geothermal. Solar doesn't even make the top five.

Solar is a loser on "death footprint", carbon footprint, and cost. Since geothermal, wind, tidal, and hydro require favorable geography nuclear really wins out here. This is especially true since solar is just as dependent on favorable weather and geography as the others I listed. If you want to dispute the carbon footprint stats then that's fine, I'll concede that if you want to dispute it but only to a point. Nuclear is still a "zero carbon" energy source as defined by whatever definition that also includes wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, or tidal. If you claim that nuclear is not "zero carbon" then solar isn't either. If you want to fear monger on nuclear power then you need to do so knowing all the facts.

I'm sure thinking of dead solar power workers will make you sleep better at night. Now go sleep on that.

This.

We have so much goddam natural gas we export it.

U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports Reach A New Market And Continue To Climb In 2016. In the first six months of this year, nearly 50 Bcf of U.S. LNG was exported. We will be surging to a dominant role in less than five years, with five terminals operating on the Gulf Coast and in Maryland by 2020.

The psychopath CEO study only found that 4% of CEOs are psychopaths, vs 1% of the general population. Since publication, that study has morphed into fake news that somehow the other 96% of CEOs are also psychopaths. If I called 93% of blacks criminals because 7% of them were in prison, I'd be exhibiting prejudice, racism, and non-critical thinking. Yet an even smaller percentage of CEOs test as psychopaths, and suddenly people think it's OK to assume every CEO is a psychopath.

(And if you're trying to bring up the recent Australian study which put the figure at 21%, don't bother. That too was fake news generated by people in the media wanting to perpetuate this psychopath CEO prejudice. The study found that 21% of supply chain managers strongly exhibited at least one psychopathic trait. This was the maximum score out of many groups of business professionals tested. The overall scores of these groups ranged from 3% to 21%. Unfortunately the press has gone so wild propagating the fake news version of this story (21% of CEOs are psychopaths!) that I haven't been able to find the actual paper using a search engine.)

Justly rated "troll" right now. Kohath's "evidence" is simply doing a search using his unsupported statement, but look at the actual results of his search and his claim immediately collapses into smoking ruins. That's why he didn't post any of them.

The query will of course tend to bring up *any* similar claims, rather than tending to bring up objective rankings, but only one single source of this claim appears in the top 20 search results - an unscientific (i.e. self-selected) poll by Chief Executive magazine. That's it. No other source making this claim. (CEOs as a group, it should be noted, have a high proportion of sociopaths - or worse - a fact that should be born in mind when considering CEO opinions about things).

But of the eight or so independent state rankings that show up in this search, none of them places California at the bottom. It is 8th from the top on one, and in the middle of several others. Not even the one-note Tax Foundation, that uses only a single metric for rating everything (low taxes on businesses = heaven, high taxes on businesses = hell, nothing else matters) places California on the bottom of their list.

Trump does use mortgages and other forms of "other people's money" to build things. Heck, the owners of the Empire State Building GAVE him a 50% interest, gave him half the building, in exchange for nothing but his promise to use his knowledge and experience make it more profitable.

Forbes magazine has been doing the math on Trump's net worth (assets minus liabilities) for 35 years. As you may know, they do a list of wealthiest people very year, and they've gotten reasonably good at it. According to Forbes, Trump's net worth, the value of his assets minus what he owes, is $3.7 billion.
http://www.forbes.com/donald-t...

"uncharacteristically fast battery drainage, applications freezing, and phones crashing completely"

This has been an much under-reported problem with the latest upgrade to iOS 10.1.
Likely a bug in the upgrade is responsible at least in iOS....
It seems like there is very little posted on it.

Here is the section in apple discussions:
https://discussions.apple.com/...

Forbes reported on the issue and then has reported again about the latest 10.2 upgrade making the problem worse.
Here is a report in Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/go...

Little acknowledgement from Apple thus far.

No matter what laws you pass, the minimum wage is always zero.

That is, the effect of minimum wages is simply to keep some people from getting jobs at all. Of course historically, that was the point.

President Trump Is Likely To Boost U.S. Military Spending By $500 Billion To $1 Trillion

Trump's military will have more troops and more firepower — if he can find more money

Does he want to cut WASTEFUL spending like the Navy weapon that by supplying the projectile will cost more than the gun, or an aircraft that is considered by some as inferior such as the F-35? that a retrofit for an existing aircraft would do. Yes, then he does want to cut WASTEFUL spending.

Interestingly, this article is intended to debunk the existence of oil and gas subsidies, but then fails to actually debunk some of them.

It claims that Master Limited Partnerships affect people across the board. But in fact, to qualify as an MLP, a group has to have over 90% of its business in natural resource or real estate. So you could say this subsidy affects real estate as well as oil and gas, but it's hardly across the board.

It says that some would consider reduced royalties on Federal lands to be a subsidy, but fails to explain why it shouldn't be.

The other arguments sound reasonable. But that's still $6.1 billion-ish from their own estimate.

The reason solar is relatively inexpensive right now is because of Chinese panel manufacturing costs, or lack of them.

With the planned 45% (or short-term 15%, if he can't convince congress) tariff, solar may not be cheaper for very long. And/or if China continues to be aggravated about Taiwan.

Well, not here in the US, anyway. They'll still be cheaper everywhere else. Unless China actually stops subsidizing its manufacturers.

Forbes has a pretty good article covering Politifact's issues related to their truthiness judging.

In 2008, Politifact rated as True Obama's claim that if you like your plan you can keep it. The Forbes article notes that the author of that truth-o-meter article didn't check with any health-care skeptics.

In 2009, Politifact changed their rating for the claim to 1/2 true.

In 2013, Politifact labeled it the "lie of the year."

Politifact's 2008 rating was "widely repeated by pro-Obama reporters and pundits, and had a meaningful impact on the outcome of the election."

So, was Politifact's wrong analysis of Obama's 2008 claims "fake news?"

Were they lying or just being too lazy.

When they judge Trump's claim that Obama was the founder of ISIS in the literal sense but don't rate Hillary's comment that Trump is a recruiting sergeant for ISIS at all, either literally or metaphorically, then yes, I'll claim that Politifact is lying or at least intentionally distorting the truth.

Facebook absolutely has the right to determine what gets posted on their site and people have the right to use their product or not. The government on the other hand has no business promoting censorship of anything, including fake news. Fake news isn't new and people have a personal responsibility to explore the "truthiness" of what they read, hear and see.

If everyone is so disappointed then why are the new Macbooks selling so well?

If I had a house full of apple gear and several Macs / Macbooks I too would be buying a new Macbook Pro. But I sure as hell won't be happy about it. Why is it selling so well? Because it's so frigging overdue that at this point people will take whatever shit they can get to replace their old dying Macbooks with their soldered in batteries that don't last longer than 20min without needing to suck some juice from the wall. And these same people keep buying Mac for the same reason 2016 wasn't the year of Linux on desktop despite the turdburger that was Windows 10: People will go out of their way to avoid change.

If everyone is so disappointed then why are the new Macbooks selling so well?

I saw a story on slashdot a while ago claiming Mac users were switching to Linux as well.

It just sounds like hardware manufacturers are trying to cause doubt to get more sales, because the reality doesn't seem to show that people are switching away from Macs given they are selling so fast.

The Clintons stole nothing from the White House, and I'm sure you know that and the whole back story so I'm not going to repeat it here.

you can see the earnings breakdown at Forbes which indicates that it was all declared on their taxes.

Corruption requires a "this is for that" exchange where "this" or "that" is a government service. I have seen no indication that there was any actual evidence of any such behavior.

Conservatism seeks to conserve those things that make civilization great. If change is required to achieve that goal, conservatives will be the first to embrace change.

A good example of change that is needed is repealing and replacing the ironically-named Affordable Care Act. (The large premium increases reported a few weeks ago simply compound the large premium increases that the ACA has caused every year since its inception.)

We know this since at least September, a simple search in google gives me this for instance: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ew...

In America, unpaid internships are illegal.

No they are not. But in the USA, in order to not have to pay them minimum wage you do have to meet certain criteria:

http://smallbusiness.findlaw.c...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/th...

If AI makes people obsolete, who will those companies peddle their wares to, and obtain income from?

Here's an even better question, given the headline: If CEO's believe AI makes people irrelevant, does that imply AI will make CEOs obsolete too? (Setting aside the obvious quip that "CEO aren't really people.")

Given that there are various studies over the years showing that CEOs don't necessarily provide significant benefits to corporations (e.g., studies have shown that CEO pay does not correlate well with company performance, past CEO performance does not correlate well with future results, etc., to the point that some have wondered if it's mostly random chance whether a given CEO succeeds -- studies that attempt to quantify the chance component vs. the skill component in CEO performance seem to indicate the CEO's performance is only a few percent out of the total factors) -- then isn't that an argument for putting an AI in the CEO chair??

After all, even a lowly janitor can clearly point to clean floors at the end of the day to prove his worth to a company. CEOs seem to lead to mediocre performance or even declines about as often as they lead to successes, and those ups and downs are pretty unstable over the course of a career. (And if you get one "down" that's just too much, they give you the golden parachute, and it's off to the speaking circuit.)

By the way, I'm not at all questioning the fact that many CEOs are smart people or whatever. I'm saying that markets are volatile, and CEOs who are determining a future course are navigating uncertain "waters," just like stock pickers and fund managers -- another group who has been shown, overall, to rarely exceed chance in terms of success as a collective group (or over long enough periods of time). If anything, the critical function of a CEO is to provide "leadership" by making it look like there's a steady, clear course... but whether that course needs to be determined by somebody with a seven-figure salary vs. an AI vs. a magic 8 ball... I'm not so sure.

Yeah, exactly. Also, most shrinkage in retail is caused by employee theft. So if anything, self-checkout helps avoid that part altogether :D

That's a fair point. I did some searching and found that San Jose restricts building height, which limits density. Here's what I found:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2011/09/19/zoning-laws-are-strangling-silicon-valley/

Wrong and wrong.

Like to the Trump foundation, well not really cause the Trump foundation really did ...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ta...

But doesn't this artificially drive the demand & price of corn up? Thus improving the corn industries profits?

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/w...

... tax the rich bastards

Careful, you're revealing your ulterior motives (envy and greed).

... at a 50% tax rate

Golden rule: how would you like to be taxed at 50%?

... which would benefit everyone.

The fact that you are included in the "everyone" group did not escape my notice.

That money could be used to feed the hungry, rebuild roads and bridges ...

You're so altruistic when planning how to spend other people's money.

... pay for basic research that corporations no longer do...

Because IBM (just to name a single example) isn't filing huge numbers of patents and innovations every year, right?
Also, I like how vague and condescending your term "basic research" is.

... and help us pay off the crushing debt we are already under.

Or we could stop giving money to foreign governments, stop handing out "free" stuff to our own citizens, stop spending fortunes on cruise missiles and drones, etc. ...

The Forbes 400 for America says that they own about $2.4 trillion. So you would have to go after a much larger number of people than that if you want to really punish those evil greedy rich people whose money we wish we had.
The federal budget is about $3.95 trillion with a deficit of $616 billion and a total debt of just short of $20 trillion.
This article gives the net worth required to be in a percentile of wealth.

Please check my math: 0.01 * 338 million = 338,000 people => 338,000 * $30,644,280 gives us a guess of their net worth being about $97,448,810,400,000 (ninety seven trillion dollars assuming that they all have about a thirty million dollar net worth).

If confiscated then that would be sufficient to pay the national debt... You were saying merely that we should tax them at higher rates (50%). It really just means taking their money over time rather than all at once.

The end effect is the same. In the long term, it would produce the following problems:
1. The rich will just leave. Nobody will sit around while most or all of their wealth is confiscated. It doesn't matter how justified you think it is, they won't just sit there and be shafted. Next year you won't have anyone to confiscate the wealth from.
2. All businesses who can possibly manage to do so will flee the country. What do you think that would do to the GDP? Do you think tax revenues would go up or down?
3. You will have set the precedent that in this country we'll just take your stuff if you have it and we want it. Talk about the destruction of Western civilization. Everything is predicated upon the notion of "ownership" in our culture, society, and civilization. If you can just take someone else's stuff because you want it (individually or collectively) then what incentive is there to work, to earn and save, to do anything other than the absolute bare minimum to get through today? Would you work for free? Would you work for subsistence wages? Would you think it was fair if most of your income were taken away from you and given to others? Why do you think anyone else would or should?
4. With the evacuation of businesses (and jobs) and the ultra-rich a power vacuum and societal upheaval will leave the country vulnerable. Probably you would get a dictator in a couple years promising to make things better and to punish those responsible... read a history book or recall your history lessons in school and you'll see how such

http://www.forbes.com/sites/re...

Citation:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

If you have more recent data showing wind and solar to be safer than nuclear power then I'd appreciate it if you'd share with the rest of the class.

Call me when I can buy a lightweight headset that paints the image on my retina with a frikkin laser beam.

They're working on it.

According to Forbes, they're already building the factory lines. Also at Wired, MIT tech review,
Wearable.com, Techcrunch and The Verge.

Try to educate yourself, the tax rate inhibits growth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... http://www.forbes.com/sites/ti...

Well, Obama failed to provide for displaced workers after forcing coal mines out of business. Now stupid dems can suck fat dick in the company of their saudi terrorist cave-buddies

The best part about all of this is that it's impossible to tell if the above is parody or not.

Exactly, especially since US oil production fell under Bush and rose from 5 million barrels to 9.4 million barrels per year under Obama (source). Seems like it's the conservatives sucking Saudi dick, especially given this picture.

Okay. It doesn't matter because the baseline year they picked, 1979, was an unusually high Arctic and Antarctic ice pack. In 2014 both were 5% or more over the 1979-2016 average.

Yes, it was kind of crazy for the right wingers to be certain that any given year of the Obama administration was the one in which he would "take our guns." After all, not nearly enough groundwork was in place to make that leap. However, when the engines of the government are being employed to root out ideological impurities, it may not be all that big a leap to fear the end game.

"Operation Chokepoint," an initiative to reduce unlawful fraud by "choking" illegal players out of U.S. financial institutions, was turned against legal businesses that the Obama administration didn't like, including gun stores and other firearms-related companies, as described here http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2015/01/30/fdic-admits-to-strangling-legal-gun-stores-banking-relationships/#326dcbb327fd and here http://www.infowars.com/holders-latest-scandal-doj-now-pressuring-banks-to-refuse-service-to-gun-stores/ with results like this http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/28/operation-choke-point-forces-bank-to-dump-gun-stor/.

Trump hasn't implemented any policy decisions yet. He doesn't even have the authority to do anything yet, other than start to build his team. So although people may be looking on in trepidation for fear of what he might do, he hasn't (yet) started using the government bureaucracy to further his personal ideology in excess of the law. So let's wait and see what he really does, and judge it whether it's based in law, or based solely in personal ideology.

"... I hate the syntax of PowerShell."

Agreed. PowerShell is the Zune of syntaxes.

Microsoft needs better managers. Former Microsoft CEO Monkey Boy, was the least respected CEO of a big company. Ballmer was rated the worst CEO in the United States: Quote from an article in Forbes Magazine about Steve Ballmer: "Without a doubt, Mr. Ballmer is the worst CEO of a large publicly traded American company today." Another quote: "The reach of his bad leadership has extended far beyond Microsoft when it comes to destroying shareholder value -- and jobs." (May 12, 2012)

This story doesn't even mention the Zune: Microsoft's 10 biggest failures.

Easy solution: Give regulatory control of the nuclear power industry to the navy. No joke. The US Navy has been operating nuclear reactors... hundreds of them... for nearly as long as there's been such a thing. And they have a perfect operational safety record. That is: zero nuclear accidents in the 62 years since the USS Nautilus was launched in 1954. (They *have* lost two nuclear submarines at sea. But neither the Thresher nor Scorpion were lost due to reactor accidents.)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

They do it by standardizing on a small number of reactor designs (Generally one per ship/sub class. Though the S5W persisted from the Skipjack class until it was replaced by the S6G with the Los Angeles.), training the sweet holy hell out of their people (There are stories of standing desks at power school, so trainees don't fall asleep while sitting and studying... and of the occasional *thump* when someone standing falls asleep anyway.), and holding them strictly accountable to operations and safety standards throughout their careers.

The US does overspend, but its military spending as a proportion of GDP is actually not that far off from other developed countries. It could stand to cut down, but the US also has a huge economy in general. Moreover, military spending is closer to 16%, not 25%. No other major world power can project force the way the US can. The American navy is, practically speaking, the only real blue water navy in the world. Because American interests are everywhere, other world powers know that any conflict between them will involve America. Their economies are either too small (Russia) or they don't have an interested in a big military (Germany).

So Trump sneaks off to have a private dinner at a restaurant adorned with 33 lawn jockeys

First of all if it's Club 21 , why is it 33 lawn jockeys? Yeah, no reptilian Illuminati codes there.

Yeah, he's not racist.
I have no idea why racists seem to flock to support him.