Slashdot Mirror

It seems to me that if Apple gets into the car business, they'll do so by hiring the top automotive engineers and designers in the world. I know they can outbid anyone else for them.

Bzzt!

Tesla recently poached 150 folks from Apple. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/02/09/elon-musk-has-raided-150-people-from-apple-for-tesla/

Apple is offering crazy money to get folks to jump the other way, but not having anywhere near that kind of success. http://evobsession.com/apple-trying-poach-tesla-engineers-250000-signing-bonuses/

I'm not sure methamphetamine is a direct replacement for Sudafed. You might want to double check that.

The point isn't that Sudafed is the same as meth, but that it is restricted because it can be used to make meth, yet I can buy the meth directly easier than I can buy Sudafed.

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

Also, this war on meth has resulted in the pharmaceutical industry selling what is essentially a placebo in the form of a "meth-resistant" Sudafed PE:

http://consumer.healthday.com/...

Seven other studies, according to the authors, found that phenylephrine didn't work better than a placebo.

"It does nothing," Hendeles said. "Clearly the 10 milligram (dose) does not work."

So consumers are being guided into buying a product that doesn't work by a drug policy that also doesn't work.

US Media Blackout Of Italian Vaccine Ruling

Poor dumbed down Americans will never know the truth.

Rimini: 2012 – Italian Court Rules MMR Vaccine Caused Autism [zengardner.com]

On September 23, 2014, an Italian court in Milan award compensation to a boy for vaccine-induced autism. (See the Italian document here.) A childhood vaccine against six childhood diseases caused the boy’s permanent autism and brain damage.

While the Italian press has devoted considerable attention to this decision and its public health implications, the U.S. press has been silent.
Italy’s National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

Well. yes we've already heard of this in the USA. It's old news.
You may be surprised to learn that the media in the USA is not compelled to print every piece of bullshit that comes up. If you had been awake during the last few decades you would have known that news commentators that get caught telling stories that are later proven to be false are fired without a second chance.

From 2013, here's an article from Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/em...
And another from 2013:
http://www.skepticalraptor.com...

It appears that the courts depended upon the testimony of a single doctor who has never published in a journal, but yet who claims to have a cure for autism.

No, he doesn't. That was just some bogus analysis by people who have never directly observed him to reach a diagnosis: http://www.forbes.com/sites/fayeflam/2015/02/09/stories-claiming-putin-has-aspergers-reveal-more-about-pathology-in-media-than-in-russian-leader/

My son has Asperger's Syndrome (actually diagnosed by a medical professional who spent 6 hours directly observing my son). I deal with actual-Asperger's every day. You don't get a diagnosis from someone watching some news clips. If Putin sees a medical professional and actually obtains a diagnosis, I'll change my mind, but you can't declare he has Asperger's based on a couple of people who watched a clip or two of him and decided "that's kinda Aspy."

There are a lot of out of work lawyers out there right now. Considering that it could employ up to 14 lawyers to just fulfill the FOIA request it could be considered a jobs program but even at $100K/per it's still cheap wages for NOVA. They may have to offshore the work to China and hire about 10 middle managers and a couple of senior lawyers to oversee the project. Then the DEA can put in a funding request for FY2016 to include additional staff to deal with the FOIA request ultimately costing the taxpayers millions more than the original request cost.

Exactly how many nuclear disasters does it take before we figure out how to do what these other countries are already doing?

Nuclear energy is just about the safest form of energy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

Energy is really, really dangerous, end of story. Nuclear is somehow the "scariest," but not because it's statistically more dangerous.

funny you bring up SS, SS would be fine if the govt stopped raiding it.

Ah yes, the conservative myth about Social Security that just will not die: "Social Security is broke because government's been raiding it!"

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

http://www.dailyfinance.com/20...

http://money.cnn.com/pf/featur...

Social Security benefits are not paid out of a "trust fund". They are paid out of payroll taxes on an "as-you-go" basis. The "trust fund" represented the massive overpayments that were made in preparation for the large number of baby boomers who are now retiring. And by the way, in case you're worried, they aren't making any new baby boomers, so every year, their number shrinks.

Social Security is not only perfectly fine, but is without a doubt the most popular and successful US government program in history. It's one of the main reasons the US has had such high standards of living since WWII. And the GOP/libertarian desperation to undo Social Security is the best proof that they are too dangerous to be allowed to govern.

It points out that Louis Armstrong airport in New Orleans is almost two feet below sea level

Oh no! We've already lost one!

What's that? It's been under sea level since construction?

focuses on the increasing frequency of storms

Why would it focus on the opposite of what is occurring? If you believe we are in fact warming over the last decade or so then you must also believe warming causes a reduction in the severity of storms.

I read it was hampered by the prosecutor objecting to everything, and then they couldn't call expert witnesses.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sa...

The Forbes article linked in the summary is telling:

They point out several very important weaknesses in the study. First there is the general issue that this is just an observational study. There are a multitude of differences between the different groups in the study, and it is impossible to know with any certainty whether the jogging dose had any important causal relationship with the deaths that occurred in the study. Of course the researchers attempted to correct for many of the known differences but this is a highly imperfect science at best. And this was not a best case scenario. The mean age of the non-joggers in the study was 61.3 years while the mean age of all the joggers in the study ranged from the late 30s to the mid 40s. So this isn’t just comparing apples and oranges, it’s comparing a young juicy apple with a shriveled old lemon.

But even if it were possible to compare the groups and adjust for the differences there would still be another insuperable problem. The study simply had no statistical power to detect differences between the jogging groups. Although there were 128 deaths among the 413 non-joggers there were only 17 deaths in all the 1,098 joggers, including only 2 deaths among the 36 strenuous joggers. The authors calculated that those 2 deaths represented a two-fold increase in risk for the strenuous joggers compared to the non-joggers, but the enormous confidence interval, ranging from less than half the risk to an 8-fold increase, illustrates the futility of obtaining any sort of reasonable estimate of risk based on so few data points.

Looks like they used some questionable testing procedures and the New York AG may be a little premature:

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

Here's a typical first-hand report... taxis are neither clean, safe, nor reliable.... It would appear that the Libertarian model is better. Why is the Libertarian view on this particular narrow situation not the correct view?

My experience with taxis has been that they're almost always clean, safe and reliable. I flat out disagree with your "typical" first hand report. The chance of that report being typical and yet not repeated in any of my own many hundreds of taxi rides makes me disbelieve that it's typical.

Your "it would appear" claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I think you're looking at the available evidence through libertarian-tinted spectacles. Please repost when you have some statistically significant comparisons.

There is only one kind of systematic prejudice in today's institutions. And it is against white males. And if you happen to be heterosexual too, no one will target you for any favoritism.

Three words: Reality Distortion Field.

The white male geek starts his career from an extraordinarily privileged position.

The median household income in the US is $52,000.

College graduates in the class of 2015 with bachelor's degrees in electrical engineering can expect an average starting salary of $57,000. Computer engineering graduates are close behind, with average salaries of $56,600. Next come mechanical engineering graduates with starting salaries of $56,000.

Software design $54,000
Computer programming $54,000
Computer science $52,000

The College Degrees With The Highest Starting Salaries in 2015

A lot of economists view and post on this board, so maybe one of them could explain something to me.

The libertarian view would seem to apply here: a capitalistic system taken out of the free-market model and run by well-meaning regulation to prevent certain bad practices. Taxi rides must be regulated by government, lest the rides become unsavory, price gouging, and unsafe. Taxi rides are considered a necessary infrastructure, and thus a natural monopoly.

(And to be clear, having safe, reliable transportation in a city brings a lot of benefits: tourism, visiting businessmen, and so on.)

Despite the well-meaning reasons for all this, the taxi medallion system does not live up to it's purported goals. Taxi rides are the subject of satire, sarcasm, and mockery.

Here's a typical first-hand report.

Taxi medallions sell for multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars. The money is used to fund the regulatory system surrounding taxis, and one would *suppose* that with this much money available that there would be a lot of infrastructure keeping things clean, safe, and reliable.

And yet, taxis are neither clean, safe, nor reliable. Here's a series of articles from Boston on the situation. From those articles:

[...] Passengers hurt in accidents often run into denial and evasion by poorly insured firms

[...] fleet owners get rich, drivers are frequently fleeced, and the city does little about it

It's abundantly clear that the government-regulated, natural monopoly solution simply *doesn't work*.

So here's my question: It would seem on first reading that the Libertarian view, of "remove regulation and let the free market decide" is the better solution. We have two models both active in the same market (taxi medallions with regulation, versus app-driven Uber) and it would appear that the Libertarian model is better.

Why is the Libertarian view on this particular narrow situation not the correct view?

Libertarian, you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

It has been, as a matter of recent history the Republican position to call for smaller government, and de-regulation of businesses . The public still remembers how well that didn't work with Enron.

Sorry to burn your straw man argument to the ground Mr. Boehner..but that is what actually happens when you play with fire.

and I am not actually sorry.. deal with it!

A lot of economists view and post on this board, so maybe one of them could explain something to me.

The libertarian view would seem to apply here: a capitalistic system taken out of the free-market model and run by well-meaning regulation to prevent certain bad practices. Taxi rides must be regulated by government, lest the rides become unsavory, price gouging, and unsafe. Taxi rides are considered a necessary infrastructure, and thus a natural monopoly.

(And to be clear, having safe, reliable transportation in a city brings a lot of benefits: tourism, visiting businessmen, and so on.)

Despite the well-meaning reasons for all this, the taxi medallion system does not live up to it's purported goals. Taxi rides are the subject of satire, sarcasm, and mockery.

Here's a typical first-hand report.

Taxi medallions sell for multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars. The money is used to fund the regulatory system surrounding taxis, and one would *suppose* that with this much money available that there would be a lot of infrastructure keeping things clean, safe, and reliable.

And yet, taxis are neither clean, safe, nor reliable. Here's a series of articles from Boston on the situation. From those articles:

[...] Passengers hurt in accidents often run into denial and evasion by poorly insured firms

[...] fleet owners get rich, drivers are frequently fleeced, and the city does little about it

It's abundantly clear that the government-regulated, natural monopoly solution simply *doesn't work*.

So here's my question: It would seem on first reading that the Libertarian view, of "remove regulation and let the free market decide" is the better solution. We have two models both active in the same market (taxi medallions with regulation, versus app-driven Uber) and it would appear that the Libertarian model is better.

Why is the Libertarian view on this particular narrow situation not the correct view?

Nuclear is currently the safest energy source (measure in deaths per KWh http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja... ). Even in the worst combination of things going wrong, the harm to people is small, while there are hundreds of fatal accidents in the fossil fuel industry each year (search for something like 'gas explosion' on google news).

Imagine if cars were held to the same standards as nuclear power plants. You'd need to get crash rates below 1 in 100 million user years. Make sure that even in the worst crash imaginable (e.g. car at max speed hitting a crowd of people) nobody (except maybe the driver) was exposed to a harmful level of force. All fuel would need to be transported in something that could survive being hit by a plane. All emissions would have to be captured and stored until they were safe. You could get road deaths down from the 1.2 million per year ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) (not including deaths from pollution) but I think cars would not be cheap.

Well, colleges and the healthcare industry, since you're asking. :)

Good examples both! Although their hold on the respective markets aren't quite as monopolistic, their pay-structures is just as divorced from the immediate consumers of their services as that of public schools.

If today we upped school-loans to $1 million per year, the colleges would've upped their fees up to $1 million by September. And they would've found reasons...

Likewise, if insurers today agreed to pay twice more for a particular procedure, the price of it would've doubled overnight.

At least the schools don't cause too many deaths

Not sure, what you mean by "causing deaths", but schools definitely are places, where children are in high danger of sexual predators (far more so than churches, for example).

and the first 12 years are free

If it were free, I would've not have been talking about quadrupling of the costs, would we have?

To put us back on topic, at least, you can switch your doctor or transfer to a different college. Public school? You are stuck with it...

hell, don't be too shocked if your own legal team files the petition against you - it's been known to happen:

http://www.yorkshireridingsmag...

Even solicitors can be declared bankrupt without judgement:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/36...

(not that that stops them from practising):

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/busi...

They probably went to the Donald Trump School of Hiding Wealth:

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

(which was kinda handy for Ivana, who took half his assets - and none of the joint liabilities - in the divorce settlement)

The proposal was to make containment of radioactive material and avoiding off-site contamination in an accident a legally binding agreement
http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloa... (bottom of page 15)

The actual wording includes the term 'shall', which in a regulatory sense is a pretty absolute statement, it ends with the statement, "these objectives also shall be applied at existing plants"

So, any nuclear operator in the planet would be out of legal compliance if they have any existing nuclear plant that 'may' present a risk of losing containment... Yeah, that would cost a shit-ton of money for the industry to just tread water and would greatly INCREASE the dependence of coal energy in the short to mid term

Everybody seems to ignore that coal also releases Uranium into the atmosphere due to fly ash, this author estimates that annual release to be 1.069 PBq/yr
http://nuclearaustralia.blogsp...

This is far beyond estimates that "40 trillion becquerels released into Pacific ocean" had escaped from Fukushima
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ti...

Where is the shouting for coal to clean up its act?
Nuclear has become the whipping boy for the Green political party and Greenpeace, who in turn seem to be operating well in favor of the coal industry over the interests of the general population

"most movies don't make back their initial investment in first release."

Correction. Most Hollywood movies that have spent hundreds of millions of dollars don't make back their investment. Solution: Cut down production costs.

Actors demanding 40M bucks for their role? Yeah, that will fade, sooner or later.

Look, it's market economics 101. If your product/service/whatever don't make enough money it is time to trim the fat. Why should hollywood business be any different?

It's about as contested as the validity of the Theory of Evolution and the effectiveness of childhood vaccines in that there are people who claim it not to be true in spite of massive amount of empirical evidence.

First, is nuclear power safer than other methods of power generation? Yes, by orders of magnitude.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/...

Second, Chernobyl (which is included in the evidence presented above). Chernobyl was a reactor that served two purposes for the Soviets. First, it was used to experiment on the capabilities and the limitations of the RBMK-1000 reactor series (this is what caused the disaster there). Second, it was used to produce weaponized materials for nuclear weapons for the Soviet military. As it produced power and that power needed to go somewhere, it was connected to the grid and added supply to nearby communities. Now I could get into the fact that the RBMK-1000 was one of the only reactor designs ever constructed that used a high positive void coefficient and that since that disaster, every single nuclear reactor in the world has been either designed or modified to not do that. I could get into the fact that the disaster that happened there (runaway reaction) isn't possible anywhere else without breaking the laws of physics due to the design of the plants (regardless of any safety features - it's a physical limitation of the design itself). But I think you should do your own research on those things.

Suffice it to say that Chernobyl is included in the numbers proving that nuclear power is the safest form of power production ever utilized by mankind and that it's arguable that it shouldn't be (which would only improve the numbers above for nuclear). Whichever way you stand on that point of contention (whether or not an experimental military facility operating a reactor design known to be unstable and dangerous in such a way that it was regularly pushed to its design tolerances should be included in a list of civilian nuclear power plant accidents), nuclear still comes out way ahead in the basic math. It's merely a matter of how many orders of magnitude its safety record exceeds that of other power production methods.

There's nothing unclear about over half a century of safety record that demonstrates an exceedingly safe technology. There's nothing unclear about the fact that if you care about human life, nuclear is the only option and that if you care about the environment, nuclear is the only good option that can handle base load. You can contest whether gravity exists all day long, but if you jump off a desk, you're going to fall to the floor every time.

Reality is that which is still there regardless of how much you wish it weren't so.

Page 99. Carson vividly describes the death of a bird that she thought may have been poisoned by a pesticide, but nowhere in the book does she describes the deaths of any of the people who were dying of malaria, yellow fever, plague, sleeping sickness, or other diseases that are transmitted by insects. Her propaganda in Silent Spring contributed greatly to the banning of insecticides that were capable of preventing human deaths. Carson shares the responsibility for literally millions of deaths among the poor people in underdeveloped nations. Dr. William Bowers, head of the Entomology Department at the University of Arizona, said in 1986 that DDT is the most significant discovery of all time, and “in malaria control alone it saved almost 3 billion lives.”

Rachel Carson’s lack of concern for human lives endangered by diseases transmitted by insects is revealed on page 187, where she writes: “Only yesterday mankind lived in fear of the scourges of smallpox, cholera and plague that once swept nations before them. Now our major concern is no longer with the disease organisms that once were omnipresent; sanitation, better living conditions, and new drugs have given us a high degree of control over infectious disease. Today we are concerned with a different kind of hazard that lurks in our environment—a hazard we ourselves have introduced into our world as our modern way of life has evolved.”

Surely Carson was aware that the greatest threats to humans are diseases such as malaria, typhus, yellow fever, Chagas’s disease, African sleeping sickness, and a number of types of Leishmaniasis and tick-borne bacterial and rickettsial diseases. She deliberately avoids mentioning any of these, because they could be controlled only by the appropriate use of insecticides, especially DDT. Carson evidently preferred to sacrifice those millions of lives rather than advocate any usage of such chemicals.

SNIP

The dead birds Wallace sent out for subsequent study were analyzed by a method that detected only “total chlorine content” and could not determine what kind of chlorine was present; none was analyzed for mercury contamination). It was obviously highly irresponsible for Wallace and Carson to jump to the conclusion that the Michigan State University robins were being killed by DDT, and especially for Carson to highlight the false theory in her book long after the truth was evident.

In many feeding experiments birds, including robins, were forced to ingest great quantities of DDT (and its breakdown product, DDE). Wallace did not provide any evidence that indicated the Michigan State University robins may have been killed by those chemicals. Researcher Joseph Hickey at the University of Wisconsin had testified before the Environmental Protection Agency hearings on DDT specifically that he could not kill any robins by overdosing them with DDT because the birds simply passed it through their digestive tract and eliminated it in their feces. Many other feeding experiments by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and various university researchers repeatedly showed that DDT and DDE in the diet could not have killed wild birds under field conditions. If Carson had mentioned these pertinent details it would have devastated her major theme, which continued to be the awful threats posed by DDT to all nonhuman creatures on the face of the Earth. Instead of providing the facts that would clarify such conditions, she spent several more pages

"Scientist" is a woefully ambiguous term. As I scientist, I think GMO food is perfectly safe. I am a nuclear scientist and know little about the GMO process, but that doesn't matter. My opinion does.

Good point. The glaring assertion that the sanctity of scientific authority would carry forth across disciplines, and that those in different branches of science carry more weight than say --- a layman who has put effort to research a specific subject --- is dubious.

One might even say this tabloid appeal to authority is religious... but I would not grace it like that. I have too much respect for my religious friends. I may not share their faith but I can easily see that they deliberately and carefully choose their sources of information (such as the Bible, ancient text and modern sermons) and consider the messenger with each message. They would not inherently revere a reverend with 'priest' rubber-stamped on the forehead any more than we should defer to the results of a poll whose categories are drawn from the presence or absence of a University degree in fields the pollsters considered to be 'sciency'.

Whatever the criteria for being one, scientists are part of the demographic 'public' in the real world.

There is also the fact that people who have read a fair amount in certain fields may understand the questions in a poll but because of their background they may have different perceptions as to the meaning. For example, when I saw the article "Americans Support Mandatory Labeling of Food That Contains DNA"... I did NOT spot it a mile off as a malicious trip-wire question to expose duh-idiots (which it apparently was). I recalled the recent scientific controversy over whether microRNA uptake in digestion might change gene expression in a harmful way, and whether any specific GMO food (by virtue of its narrow genetic origins) might, as an unintended consequence, be able to deliver such a payload. It was all over the news in the US a few years ago and the 'public' had every right to be concerned. Though the science is pretty well settled (see this excellent article) it turns out that the hysteria was fed partly by a failure of the scientific process, among other things. Years ago when the microRNA article was published it was refuted, too casually, even though its implications if true may be dire. Our DNA mechanisms are well-adapted to deal with these fragments and they are indeed very prevalent. This was never explained well enough to the public, who were thinking in terms of a new type of man-made 'contaminant' that had suddenly appeared in the food supply.

It is the "4 out of 5 dentists surveyed recommend Trident Sugarless Gum for their patients who chew gum" phenomenon, where the fifth dentist's opinion does not fit the message and is not even revealed. Could the fifth dentist have known or glimpsed something that would have blown all the others away, convinced them or shamed them? (the survey was actually 1,700 dentists).

If you show most anyone -- including 'scientists' --- a list of major Yellowstone eruptions over time and point out that it has been ~640,000 years since the last, and asked the question "Would you say that an eruption is overdue?" they will tend to say YES. They may even sense it is a trick question. But a geologist would shout "NO!!" and if another Geologist says yes, they would form a mob with pitchforks-mob and march to the door. Geologists are aware of the fuzziness of geologic time scales but above all, their too-casual answers have been used to dupe-scare people.

These polls have been taken before. And the tendency is to perceive them as a sort of exposé of how stupid the 'public' is. But for a few of

It looks to me like you've got this wrong.

According to this Forbes article from 2013, Apple routes all non-US sales revenue through Ireland. That's sketchy on the part of both Ireland and Apple, and offensive to all the other countries that get no cut from Apple's sales within their borders.

According to this financial statement, Apple paid $9.48b in current US income tax in 2014, $2.15b in current foreign income tax.

Pooling everything, in 2014 Apple had pre-tax income of $53.48b, $13.97b total income tax, for a net income of $39.51b.

I don't know how those numbers compare to other large corporations, or "socially responsible corporations", or whatever you want to compare to. But claiming that Apple routes US sales revenues through Ireland, or that Apple doesn't pay tax on its profits, appears to be completely false.

If I'm misinterpreting these numbers, please post corrections.

The purpose of all these regulations Uber and Lyft have been running into isn't safety or liability or anything like that

No, not anything like that.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/06/03/uber-driver-with-felony-conviction-charged-with-battery-for-allegedly-hitting-passenger/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-09/uber-driver-charged-in-san-francisco-girl-s-death-in-crosswalk.html
http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-driver-charged-for-bashing-a-passenger-in-the-head-1639711808

Its all a conspiracy by "the man" to keep everyone "inside the box". Not like anyone's been hurt or killed, no nothing like that.

A huge problem at Microsoft seems to me to be that people there, or maybe just the leaders, seem socially unsophisticated. In fact, neither of the articles quoted below explains the underlying reason that Microsoft is buying Revolution Analytics. That needs to be explained. (All quotes retrieved Sunday, January 25, 2015, around 07:00 PST.)

In The Official Microsoft Blog there is a lot of corporate-speak, of the kind used by people with no actual interest in a subject who nevertheless want to be considered knowledgeable:
"find ... value"
"data-driven decisions"
"reduce the ... skills gap"
"enterprise-class platform"
"analytic solutions"
"advanced analytics within ... platforms on-premises"
"we are at the threshold"

From another article linked from that article, Revolution Analytics joins Microsoft, by "David Smith, Chief Community Officer":

"Microsoft might seem like a strange bedfellow for an open-source company..."

It was not a good idea to use the word "bedfellow". That word is more appropriate for a novel. The primary meaning of "bedfellow" is "a person who shares a bed with another".

'CEO Satya Nadella proclaimed "Microsoft loves Linux" '

On the surface, that makes no sense. Below the surface, is Microsoft trying to say, "We want Microsoft to be popular"?

"We're excited the work..."

That should have been "We're excited [that] the work...".

I'm not the only person who feels uncomfortable with those statements. One of the comments to that story is this one:

"What a joke. You're really working hard to try and convince readers that this is a good match, going on and on about how supportive Microsoft is of open-source. You were probably sweating while trying to come up with excuses as to why this is good, knowing that you were typing bullshit. I would suggest growing a pair of balls and just being honest, but I'm sure you've never had to do that in your career. -- Posted by: Anonymous | January 23, 2015 at 11:22"

David Smith replied to that comment: "Anonymous, I've never been anything but frank on this blog and this is no exception. I'm truly excited for the future, and I'm sure I speak for the rest of the team as well. -- Posted by: David Smith | January 23, 2015 at 11:25"

Sometimes the lack of social ability at Microsoft is shocking. The cover of the January 16, 2013 issue of BusinessWeek magazine has a large photo of Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer with the headline calling him "Monkey Boy". See the BusinessWeek cover in this article: Steve Ballmer Is No Longer A Monkey Boy, Says Bloomberg BusinessWeek. The BusinessWeek cover says "No More" and "Mr.", but that doesn't take much away from the fact that the magazine called him Monkey Boy -- on its cover.

In many years of following such things I have never seen such disrespect of a CEO. Of course, whoever wrote the cover headline was merely repeating a common phrase applied to Steve Ballmer by people in the computer industry.

Worst CEO: 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

Apparently apart from these people http://www.forbes.com/sites/pa... or these people http://www.theguardian.com/uk-... but hey believe what ever you want to believe. I think the word you were looking for was LulzSec rather than 'Anonymous' but then those members of LulzSec choose to temporarily associate themselves with the idea of 'Anonymous' and choose their own approach, including the decision by the masters FBI to commit crimes in others countries by molesting children ie grooming minors to commit crimes, supplying the tools, the knowledge and the targets and those agents should have been extradited and prosecuted for their criminal actions.

"Technically accurate predictions" from "futurists," eh gameboyrmh@gmail.com ? Allow me to introduce you to prominent futurist Ray Kurzweil and how his "technically accurate predictions" have panned out:

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

http://www.startup-book.com/20...

Of course, Ray Kurzweil rates his predictions as being at least 86% accurate, so hey, there's that. I guess.

Speaking of political posturing, that's precisely what the "OMG, the debt is skyrocketing!" crowd is doing. As most good economists will tell you, it's not about the absolute value of the debt, it's about the debt in relation to the GNP, or some other measure of economic health -- which by most standards, means we're doing just fine.

The federal unfunded liabilities are catastrophic for future taxpayers and economic growth. At usdebtclock.org, federal unfunded liabilities are estimated at near $127 trillion, which is roughly $1.1 million per taxpayer and nearly double 2012’s total world output.

IOW, you're fucking moron.

You first.

Obama Administration REFUSES To Release Documents About White House Role in IRS Scandal

THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS: IRS Gave Taxpayer Information To White House

In 'Lost' Trove Of IRS Emails, 2,500 May Link White House To Confidential Taxpayer Data

There is plenty more digging to do, especially given the stalling by the administration.

a technical problem to solve:

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

Just to clarify, it's not just the nutty Hollywood liberal types like Jenny McCarthy spewing this nonsense. Conservative Christian churches have been railing against vaccination too. This has directly lead to outbreaks of measles:

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

They're talking about the Heritage Foundation's 1989 proposal, later supported by Orrin Hatch in 1993, revised again in 1994.

Also available at less truthy sources in more detail.

I'm not the original AC, but here are a couple links. Make up your own mind if she's just blissfully unaware of her actions or if she's malicious.

Dave Pakman interview with TFYC - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Forbs article discussing the event - http://www.forbes.com/sites/er...

You forgot cheapest! More proof that nuclear power is the cheapest low-carbon power source, not a tech more popular on K street than Wall Street that gets by via being absolved of all potential liability for major accidents, getting huge loan guarantees, and being allowed to pass off cost overruns to consumers at-will and even still has trouble finding investors. Nuclear power has always been more popular on K-Street than Wall Street.

How did that "nuclear renaissance" work out for you all? Yeah, that sure bombed out fast. Gotta love an industry with a negative learning curve, where costs continually rise with time and scale rather than dropping (aka, learning of new potential problems and risks faster than refining the technology to lower costs).

Nuclear scares the public a lot more than it actually poses a risk to their health or life. But you know who it scares even more? Investors. Given the race out the door today, can you imagine what it'd be like if the industry wasn't let off the hook for potential damages over a maximum in the event of a major accident? No insurance company would touch the industry with a 10 foot pole. Nuclear accidents may not be good at killing people, but there's one thing that they're damned good at and that's costing a bloody fortune to remedy.

http://www.verisi.com/resource...

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04...

Chattanooga lost their credit rating did to overwhelming debt from their government broadband attempt

No. This, at least, is unsubstantiated FUD.

From Forbes.com:

In fact, contrary to Stephenson’s claims that municipal broadband hurt municipal credit ratings, S&P just upgraded the Chattanooga public utility’s bond rating, stating, “The system is providing reliable information to the electric utility on outages, losses and usage, which helps reduce the electric system’s costs.”

A quick google search of Chattanooga and broadband turned up multiple articles agreeing that their local internet deployment has been a roaring success, particularly in bringing a new wave of business and revenue to the city.

Not every city is successful, but that's no reason for states to prohibit them from trying, if nothing else to give the monopolists an incentive to improve their crappy race-to-the-bottom service.

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

The Myth of Tamiflu: 5 Things You Should Know

Influenza-like-illness is sweeping the country with the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention reporting that most areas of the country experiencing high rates. I should know, my family is in the midst of it despite having been vaccinated. This year may rival some of the worst years in recent history.

These illnesses are more than uncomfortable Ãfff" they can cause life-threatening complications. Worries about complications lead many people to want to be prepared with a treatment. I have a friend who once stockpiled Tamiflu, an antiviral agent sold by Roche, wanting to be prepared to protect his friends and family. He was not alone. The US actually reportedly stockpiled $1.5 billion of the drug prior to the global outbreak of H1N1 influenza and while the vaccine was being prepared.

The problem is that we actually know little about the effectiveness and safety of Tamiflu Ãfff" and Roche is not willing to share all the relevant data they have. Last year the Cochrane group, the worldÃfff(TM)s most respected organization devoted to synthesizing evidence and providing assessments on medical interventions, updated their review of the Tamiflu studies. If you are enamored by the idea of Tamiflu, then here are 5 things you should know from their report.

1. The manufacturer of the drug sponsored all the trials and the reviewers found evidence of publication and reporting biases. With so much at stake I was surprised that there had been no prospective, placebo-controlled trials conducted that were funded by an independent source. Industry trials can be well conducted, but there are many situations where a lack of independence has had an influence on the way the study was designed and the results that are released. At the very least, it is worth noting that they were probably designed to have the best chance of showing benefit. And that the reviewers had concerned about whether all the information was released. In addition the experts found evidence of reporting bias. According to Tom Jefferson, one of the authors of the Cochrane study: 60% of randomized data from the Tamiflu treatment trials (i.e. in people with influenza-like-illness symptoms) have never been published including the biggest trial ever conducted (which was done in the US, so itÃfff(TM)s of great relevance to you).Ãfff

2. The studies did not show that Tamiflu reduced the risk of hospitalization. One of the reasons people might take an antiviral is to prevent the illness progressing to the point where they would need to be hospitalized. Unfortunately there was no evidence that the drug produced that benefit.

3. The studies were inadequate to determine the effect of Tamiflu on complications. Even though the drug did not reduce hospitalizations, some people may think it would prevent less severe complications. Unfortunately, the reviewers found that limitations in the design of the trials, their conduct, and the way they were reported precluded any conclusions about the effect of the drug on complications. To expect that Tamiflu can reduce complications would be a leap of faith currently unsupported by the available evidence. You should also know that the FDA requires Roche to print on the label: ÃfffoeTamiflu has not been shown to prevent such complications [serious bacterial infections].Ãfff

4. The studies were inadequate to determine if Tamiflu reduced transmission of the virus. Same story. Some people might prescribe the drug to prevent the spread of the virus. The expert reviewers simply said that with what information they had available; they could not assess the effect of the drug on transmission. I asked Peter Doshi, one of the authors of the Cochrane report about this issue of transmission and here is what he wrote me: ÃfffoeRocheÃfff(TM)s prophylaxis trials were not de

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

The Myth of Tamiflu: 5 Things You Should Know

Influenza-like-illness is sweeping the country with the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention reporting that most areas of the country experiencing high rates. I should know, my family is in the midst of it despite having been vaccinated. This year may rival some of the worst years in recent history.

These illnesses are more than uncomfortable Ãff" they can cause life-threatening complications. Worries about complications lead many people to want to be prepared with a treatment. I have a friend who once stockpiled Tamiflu, an antiviral agent sold by Roche, wanting to be prepared to protect his friends and family. He was not alone. The US actually reportedly stockpiled $1.5 billion of the drug prior to the global outbreak of H1N1 influenza and while the vaccine was being prepared.

The problem is that we actually know little about the effectiveness and safety of Tamiflu Ãff" and Roche is not willing to share all the relevant data they have. Last year the Cochrane group, the worldÃff(TM)s most respected organization devoted to synthesizing evidence and providing assessments on medical interventions, updated their review of the Tamiflu studies. If you are enamored by the idea of Tamiflu, then here are 5 things you should know from their report.

1. The manufacturer of the drug sponsored all the trials and the reviewers found evidence of publication and reporting biases. With so much at stake I was surprised that there had been no prospective, placebo-controlled trials conducted that were funded by an independent source. Industry trials can be well conducted, but there are many situations where a lack of independence has had an influence on the way the study was designed and the results that are released. At the very least, it is worth noting that they were probably designed to have the best chance of showing benefit. And that the reviewers had concerned about whether all the information was released. In addition the experts found evidence of reporting bias. According to Tom Jefferson, one of the authors of the Cochrane study: 60% of randomized data from the Tamiflu treatment trials (i.e. in people with influenza-like-illness symptoms) have never been published including the biggest trial ever conducted (which was done in the US, so itÃff(TM)s of great relevance to you).Ãff

2. The studies did not show that Tamiflu reduced the risk of hospitalization. One of the reasons people might take an antiviral is to prevent the illness progressing to the point where they would need to be hospitalized. Unfortunately there was no evidence that the drug produced that benefit.

3. The studies were inadequate to determine the effect of Tamiflu on complications. Even though the drug did not reduce hospitalizations, some people may think it would prevent less severe complications. Unfortunately, the reviewers found that limitations in the design of the trials, their conduct, and the way they were reported precluded any conclusions about the effect of the drug on complications. To expect that Tamiflu can reduce complications would be a leap of faith currently unsupported by the available evidence. You should also know that the FDA requires Roche to print on the label: ÃffoeTamiflu has not been shown to prevent such complications [serious bacterial infections].Ãff

4. The studies were inadequate to determine if Tamiflu reduced transmission of the virus. Same story. Some people might prescribe the drug to prevent the spread of the virus. The expert reviewers simply said that with what information they had available; they could not assess the effect of the drug on transmission. I asked Peter Doshi, one of the authors of the Cochrane report about this issue of transmission and here is what he wrote me: ÃffoeRocheÃff(TM)s prophylaxis trials were not designed to

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

The Myth of Tamiflu: 5 Things You Should Know

Influenza-like-illness is sweeping the country with the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention reporting that most areas of the country experiencing high rates. I should know, my family is in the midst of it despite having been vaccinated. This year may rival some of the worst years in recent history.

These illnesses are more than uncomfortable Ãf" they can cause life-threatening complications. Worries about complications lead many people to want to be prepared with a treatment. I have a friend who once stockpiled Tamiflu, an antiviral agent sold by Roche, wanting to be prepared to protect his friends and family. He was not alone. The US actually reportedly stockpiled $1.5 billion of the drug prior to the global outbreak of H1N1 influenza and while the vaccine was being prepared.

The problem is that we actually know little about the effectiveness and safety of Tamiflu Ãf" and Roche is not willing to share all the relevant data they have. Last year the Cochrane group, the worldÃf(TM)s most respected organization devoted to synthesizing evidence and providing assessments on medical interventions, updated their review of the Tamiflu studies. If you are enamored by the idea of Tamiflu, then here are 5 things you should know from their report.

1. The manufacturer of the drug sponsored all the trials and the reviewers found evidence of publication and reporting biases. With so much at stake I was surprised that there had been no prospective, placebo-controlled trials conducted that were funded by an independent source. Industry trials can be well conducted, but there are many situations where a lack of independence has had an influence on the way the study was designed and the results that are released. At the very least, it is worth noting that they were probably designed to have the best chance of showing benefit. And that the reviewers had concerned about whether all the information was released. In addition the experts found evidence of reporting bias. According to Tom Jefferson, one of the authors of the Cochrane study: 60% of randomized data from the Tamiflu treatment trials (i.e. in people with influenza-like-illness symptoms) have never been published including the biggest trial ever conducted (which was done in the US, so itÃf(TM)s of great relevance to you).Ãf

2. The studies did not show that Tamiflu reduced the risk of hospitalization. One of the reasons people might take an antiviral is to prevent the illness progressing to the point where they would need to be hospitalized. Unfortunately there was no evidence that the drug produced that benefit.

3. The studies were inadequate to determine the effect of Tamiflu on complications. Even though the drug did not reduce hospitalizations, some people may think it would prevent less severe complications. Unfortunately, the reviewers found that limitations in the design of the trials, their conduct, and the way they were reported precluded any conclusions about the effect of the drug on complications. To expect that Tamiflu can reduce complications would be a leap of faith currently unsupported by the available evidence. You should also know that the FDA requires Roche to print on the label: ÃfoeTamiflu has not been shown to prevent such complications [serious bacterial infections].Ãf

4. The studies were inadequate to determine if Tamiflu reduced transmission of the virus. Same story. Some people might prescribe the drug to prevent the spread of the virus. The expert reviewers simply said that with what information they had available; they could not assess the effect of the drug on transmission. I asked Peter Doshi, one of the authors of the Cochrane report about this issue of transmission and here is what he wrote me: ÃfoeRocheÃf(TM)s prophylaxis trials were not designed to answer t

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

The Myth of Tamiflu: 5 Things You Should Know

Influenza-like-illness is sweeping the country with the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention reporting that most areas of the country experiencing high rates. I should know, my family is in the midst of it despite having been vaccinated. This year may rival some of the worst years in recent history.

These illnesses are more than uncomfortable Ã" they can cause life-threatening complications. Worries about complications lead many people to want to be prepared with a treatment. I have a friend who once stockpiled Tamiflu, an antiviral agent sold by Roche, wanting to be prepared to protect his friends and family. He was not alone. The US actually reportedly stockpiled $1.5 billion of the drug prior to the global outbreak of H1N1 influenza and while the vaccine was being prepared.

The problem is that we actually know little about the effectiveness and safety of Tamiflu Ã" and Roche is not willing to share all the relevant data they have. Last year the Cochrane group, the worldÃ(TM)s most respected organization devoted to synthesizing evidence and providing assessments on medical interventions, updated their review of the Tamiflu studies. If you are enamored by the idea of Tamiflu, then here are 5 things you should know from their report.

1. The manufacturer of the drug sponsored all the trials and the reviewers found evidence of publication and reporting biases. With so much at stake I was surprised that there had been no prospective, placebo-controlled trials conducted that were funded by an independent source. Industry trials can be well conducted, but there are many situations where a lack of independence has had an influence on the way the study was designed and the results that are released. At the very least, it is worth noting that they were probably designed to have the best chance of showing benefit. And that the reviewers had concerned about whether all the information was released. In addition the experts found evidence of reporting bias. According to Tom Jefferson, one of the authors of the Cochrane study: 60% of randomized data from the Tamiflu treatment trials (i.e. in people with influenza-like-illness symptoms) have never been published including the biggest trial ever conducted (which was done in the US, so itÃ(TM)s of great relevance to you).Ã

2. The studies did not show that Tamiflu reduced the risk of hospitalization. One of the reasons people might take an antiviral is to prevent the illness progressing to the point where they would need to be hospitalized. Unfortunately there was no evidence that the drug produced that benefit.

3. The studies were inadequate to determine the effect of Tamiflu on complications. Even though the drug did not reduce hospitalizations, some people may think it would prevent less severe complications. Unfortunately, the reviewers found that limitations in the design of the trials, their conduct, and the way they were reported precluded any conclusions about the effect of the drug on complications. To expect that Tamiflu can reduce complications would be a leap of faith currently unsupported by the available evidence. You should also know that the FDA requires Roche to print on the label: ÃoeTamiflu has not been shown to prevent such complications [serious bacterial infections].Ã

4. The studies were inadequate to determine if Tamiflu reduced transmission of the virus. Same story. Some people might prescribe the drug to prevent the spread of the virus. The expert reviewers simply said that with what information they had available; they could not assess the effect of the drug on transmission. I asked Peter Doshi, one of the authors of the Cochrane report about this issue of transmission and here is what he wrote me: ÃoeRocheÃ(TM)s prophylaxis trials were not designed to answer the questi

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

The Myth of Tamiflu: 5 Things You Should Know

Influenza-like-illness is sweeping the country with the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention reporting that most areas of the country experiencing high rates. I should know, my family is in the midst of it despite having been vaccinated. This year may rival some of the worst years in recent history.

These illnesses are more than uncomfortable â" they can cause life-threatening complications. Worries about complications lead many people to want to be prepared with a treatment. I have a friend who once stockpiled Tamiflu, an antiviral agent sold by Roche, wanting to be prepared to protect his friends and family. He was not alone. The US actually reportedly stockpiled $1.5 billion of the drug prior to the global outbreak of H1N1 influenza and while the vaccine was being prepared.

The problem is that we actually know little about the effectiveness and safety of Tamiflu â" and Roche is not willing to share all the relevant data they have. Last year the Cochrane group, the worldâ(TM)s most respected organization devoted to synthesizing evidence and providing assessments on medical interventions, updated their review of the Tamiflu studies. If you are enamored by the idea of Tamiflu, then here are 5 things you should know from their report.

1. The manufacturer of the drug sponsored all the trials and the reviewers found evidence of publication and reporting biases. With so much at stake I was surprised that there had been no prospective, placebo-controlled trials conducted that were funded by an independent source. Industry trials can be well conducted, but there are many situations where a lack of independence has had an influence on the way the study was designed and the results that are released. At the very least, it is worth noting that they were probably designed to have the best chance of showing benefit. And that the reviewers had concerned about whether all the information was released. In addition the experts found evidence of reporting bias. According to Tom Jefferson, one of the authors of the Cochrane study: 60% of randomized data from the Tamiflu treatment trials (i.e. in people with influenza-like-illness symptoms) have never been published including the biggest trial ever conducted (which was done in the US, so itâ(TM)s of great relevance to you).â

2. The studies did not show that Tamiflu reduced the risk of hospitalization. One of the reasons people might take an antiviral is to prevent the illness progressing to the point where they would need to be hospitalized. Unfortunately there was no evidence that the drug produced that benefit.

3. The studies were inadequate to determine the effect of Tamiflu on complications. Even though the drug did not reduce hospitalizations, some people may think it would prevent less severe complications. Unfortunately, the reviewers found that limitations in the design of the trials, their conduct, and the way they were reported precluded any conclusions about the effect of the drug on complications. To expect that Tamiflu can reduce complications would be a leap of faith currently unsupported by the available evidence. You should also know that the FDA requires Roche to print on the label: âoeTamiflu has not been shown to prevent such complications [serious bacterial infections].â

4. The studies were inadequate to determine if Tamiflu reduced transmission of the virus. Same story. Some people might prescribe the drug to prevent the spread of the virus. The expert reviewers simply said that with what information they had available; they could not assess the effect of the drug on transmission. I asked Peter Doshi, one of the authors of the Cochrane report about this issue of transmission and here is what he wrote me: âoeRocheâ(TM)s prophylaxis trials were not designed to answer the questi

We all need to realize that Mitt Romney is an old politician. He's not a computer guy. 'Binders' of candidates I can easily see. Again, not something to get uptight over.

I do get a bit irked with Van Vlack though - 20% goal for women? That low? In addition, it implies that women can't even make 20% without being chosen simply for the fact that she's a woman. More women are going to and graduating college today than men, and it's by a substantial fraction 43.6% male vs 56.4% female in public universities alone. Private universities the average is closer to 40-60. Her third statement amounts to a repeat of the first, implying that you can't simply have a policy of hiring the best employees - you have to hire looking to diversify. Does diversification even improve outcomes if you're a business? Please note that diversity of talent and experience is still a positive factor, hiring somebody with experience different than what's already in the group is generally beneficial. I'm talking about hiring somebody for a position substantially because the color of their skin is under-represented in your workcenter.

If women are still under-represented in some fields despite being the majority of college students, I think we need to look closer at social traditions and policies, because I think they might be the bigger factor at this point. Not much point at looking to hire women in a certain field if they're not even entering it due to 'reasons'.

Questioning my assumptions about the leadership skills of women, I can't really say. I don't really think I have any.

It's a statistical fact that many women make career choices that will or do give them time to take care of a family.

That has been my experience in the workplace. It sits with career/life choices. There are also men who make similar choices. But largely since we cannot get away from the physical apparatus of sex, the female has a larger share for good or evil.

This results in them earning lower pay and avoiding highly technical fields.

This is really two things in my judgement. Yes indeed, if you choose to take a lot of time off to have a family, then stay at home for the max time allowed, you simply are not at work as much.

The case I like to use is a woman at work, a staff assistant, who had 3 children. Okay, that is her right of course, but over the course of 7 or more years, IIRC, she wasn't at work much.

The great irony is that they had to give her job back. Now that would only seem fair, right? But that meant that three other women who filled in while she was on leave lost their jobs whenever she returned for a while. DId they deserve it?

Furthermore it's well known that a good portion of brilliance is dedication. To women considering a career knowing that "brilliance" is necessary is the same as knowing dedication and willingness to devote time to it is necessary -- to the exclusion of having a family that makes demands on one's time. Some women make that choice. Some don't.

Pretty much this. The best women engineers and scientists I worked with were very dedicated. We worked a lot of hours, went out of town often for work, and wanted to get the work done. There were a few for were not as dedicated - one suddenly decided to leave and become a full time mother. Hardly dedicated. Wouldn't work more than 40 hours a week, 8 to 5 with an hour lunch break.

And that's okay. No one has to make their work be a major part of their life. I did, and if someone wanted to do what I did, they needed to do the same. You just were not going to change that workflow without tripling the workforce.

As long as the choice is there; as long as the trade-off for women is the same as for men there's no sexism in this. And if a woman has a hard time finding a man willing to stay at home and support her, well, that's the choice men have and make and should be free to make.

And I have seen it much more lately. There are a number of Stay-at Home dads on my street, and the woman is the breadwinner. Isn't gender parity and choices the goal? I've seen many couples where it is obvious who is acting which part. The major difference is that the men I've seen who have elected to stay at home tend a little toward playfulness.

In fact to distort these fields by making it harder for men to enter, that's sexism.

Yes it is. What we have to do is listen to voices of reason. Are STEM men the sexist pigs, the testosterone crazed wanna be rapists that some will have us believe they are, so women end up going into law and business, bdecause as we all know, in the business world, which often actually employs female escorts for visiting businessmen is completely free of sexism, where a woman is always recognized for her acumen, and the upward mobility is endless? Yeah - right.

Sorry, but that toilet don't flush. We can listen to Dworkinettes who hate men in general, or we can try to make sense out of the world. Because for oppressors, men are pretty lame any more. We are now at a roughly 60/40 female to male college enrollment:

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

Women now make up almost 80 percent of Veterinary students

http://scienceblogs.com/aetiol...

Plenty of other careers that are shifting towards an imbalance in favor of wo

Stop the 97% nonsense http://www.forbes.com/sites/al...

"Judge Katherine Forrest .. was unhappy with its "mumbo-jumbo" explanation of the anonymizing service Tor.

More like her Honor doesn't get BITCOIN, TOR or the Internet. She should have the jury read these documents, assuming they can work out how to use the 'Internet' ..

Guide to the Silk Road Part #1

Infographic - A Comprehensive Guide to Buying Drugs Using Silk Road 2.0

Follow The Bitcoins: How We Got Busted Buying Drugs On Silk Road's Black Market

Blackberry denies this.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2015/01/14/blackberry-surge-reversed-after-company-denies-samsung-acquisition-talks

Re " .... tell about me?"
Its a bit like the people who use cryptography or have an interest privacy services?
People Lacking Facebook Accounts Viewed As Suspicious (August 8, 2012)
http://www.dailytech.com/Peopl...
Beware, Tech Abandoners. People Without Facebook Accounts Are 'Suspicious.' (8/06/2012)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ka...
It really depends on who is doing the tracking and the number of hops to friends and shared likes?

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

...growing problem of BadWare (see http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...) from Redmond!

Just another slip down the old rabbit hole for Microsoft, once-great company now driving by non-technical management who don't understand their business!