Slashdot Mirror

The original Honda Insight got 70 mpg (EPA estimate of course) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/automobiles/27HONDA.html, and hypermilers could get higher than those estimates.

I think is says a lot when the journalists from several news http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html are putting the FBI seal as the image for their published articles.

So uh, what exactly is their legal standing for keeping it up there? There must be more to it, but I can see how the FBI could read this and decide to sue them. :)

What basis for Wikipedia to keep it up? Really?

As the lawyer for Wikipedia points out in his reply to the FBI:

I broadly hinted that ejusdem generis, a standard accepted canon of statutory
construction, demonstrates that this statute is inapposite to the use of an image of the seal on an
encyclopedia.

If you're making a factual statement like "This is the FBI seal", you're not exactly saying "I'm the FBI, fear me". Basically the lawyer thinks the FBI are willfully misreading/misrepresenting a statute to try to get wikipedia to pull something down which they are using as purely a reporting of facts.

He also points out that they're selectively ignoring the words in the statute that circumscribe the applicability of the statute as cited by the FBI.

Assuming that with "BBC" you mean the British Broadcasting Corporation, I don't think American laws matter a lot for them (except for material they sell there).

Because the US government never pursues what it perceived to be criminal violations of US law if they are committed by people outside the borders of the US at the time of the offense. Just ask Manuel Noriega.

At any rate, other media outlets covering the story also display the seal, including Vanity Fair and The New York Times, which presumably are more exposed to US criminal laws than the BBC.

Initial letter from FBI and response by Wikimedia Foundation
  Wikipedia article in question, image in question.
  New York Times story (login). Britannica uses the logo

Initial letter from FBI and response by Wikimedia Foundation
  Wikipedia article in question, image in question.
  New York Times story (login). Britannica uses the logo

Initial letter from FBI and response by Wikimedia Foundation
  Wikipedia article in question, image in question.
  New York Times story (login). Britannica uses the logo

NY Times has more. Including links to PDF's of the response. Parts of which are also quite funny: “While we appreciate your desire to revise the statute to reflect your expansive vision of it, the fact is that we must work with the actual language of the statute, not the aspirational version” that the F.B.I. had provided.

Arkell v. Pressdram (1971) [unreported]

Solicitor (Goodman Derrick & Co.):

We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd. His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory. We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter. Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.

Private Eye:

We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.

[No further reply]

(Mike Godwin's response isn't quite that terse, but it's pretty close in tone. Read the letter (PDF) he sent the FBI.)

It's getting harder and harder for Steve Ballmer to point to his resume and be able to justify his work over the past decade. While Microsoft has pushed out upgrades to all its software, the big picture is gloomy enough to make him sweat at upcoming board meetings

You want the big picture:

MEASURED by profits, Microsoft trounces Apple and Google. In the most recent three months, Microsoft earned $4.52 billion, versus Apple's $3.25 billion and Google's $1.8 billion. Lost from view is what arguably is Microsoft's very best story -- its transformation into a powerhouse supplier of the specialized software that meets the complex needs of large corporations, what the trade calls selling to "the enterprise."

Microsoft's enterprise software business alone is approaching the size of Oracle. But despite that astounding growth, Microsoft must accept that, fair or not, victories on the enterprise side draw about as much attention as being the No. 1 wholesale seller of plumbing supplies. Microsoft won't receive the adoring attention that its chief rival draws with products like the iPad.

"Tech investors pay for growth," says Sarah Friar, an analyst at Goldman Sachs, who believes that those investors do not appreciate the durability of Microsoft's cash cows, Windows and Office. She has many positive things to say about Microsoft's ability to innovate, pointing in particular to the robust sales of server and database software, which are now almost equal in size to Windows revenue.

BRENDAN BARNICLE, a software analyst at Pacific Crest Securities...praised its enterprise software business, formally labeled "Server and Tools," as "an incredible business," accounting, he said, for about 24 percent of the company's revenue and with an operating margin of 40 percent. Even With All Its Profits, Microsoft Has a Popularity Problem

Twelve of the Top 100 Software Bestsellers at Amazon.com are editions of MS Office 2010 or the Win 7 OS retail boxed. MS Office Home & Student for the PC and the Mac are currently - and typically - #1 and #3.

There is not a single PC or console video game in the top 100 list.

These numbers are astonishing.

MS Office Professional 2010 is $10 if your employer participates in Microsoft's Home Use Program. $80 with student ID. Office Professional Academic 2010

"No, real journalists aren't breaking the law by publishing classified information."

That's odd. I could have sworn that the NY Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel were covering this story.

And even publishing some of the documents:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/26warlogs.html

I guess it's not as illegal as you think it is.

Recently I was doing some research for a paper and ended up looking up a bunch of news stories about counterfeiting. Not all of the Times' coverage of counterfeiting has been so negative. This one in particular is worth a read.

it's all right to change the Microsoft icon. It was funny twelve years ago. It's kind of retarded now. Especially since the company now looks to be run by the three stooges after a weekend bender.

The geek is easily distracted by glitz:

In the most recent three months, Microsoft earned $4.52 billion in profits, versus Apple's $3.25 billion and Google's $1.8 billion. Lost from view is Microsoft's very best story -- its transformation into a powerhouse supplier of the specialized software that meets the complex needs of large corporations. Microsoft's enterprise software business alone is approaching the size of Oracle. Even With All Its Profits, Microsoft Has a Popularity Problem

Considering that Slashdot didn't even bother to report on this New York Times story about Slashdot (even though it appeared in the Firehose twice (at least), but they DID report on The Science of Caddyshack (in Idle), are you surprised?

(oh, BTW mods - I really don't give a shit about karma anymore - that's how big a "joke" Slashdot has become. Prove me right about this place swirling the drain....)

Supporting my own post with a quote from the New York Times today:

Publishers have started de-emphasizing the textbook in favor of selling a package of supporting materials like teaching aids and training. And companies like Houghton Mifflin have created internal start-ups to embrace technology and capture for themselves some of the emerging online business.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/technology/01ping.html?_r=1

I wish they'd lock you up in Gitmo for the rest of your life, or shoot you for treason, but unfortunately the US gov't is a little (ok a lot) too sensitive about civil liberties and its image right now.

We are fighting a WAR, can't make an omlete without breaking some eggs, and civilians do die. They struck first, how can you forget 9/11. NEVER FORGET and NEVER STOP FIGHTING UNTIL VICTORY!

Most of the enemy civilians would do a 9/11 or worse on us if given the chance.

Just whose side are you on?

Move to Iran, and enjoy the "freedom". Talk about the gov't bad, and your head will be free from your neck!

P.S. People were recently trying to blow up a gas pipeline though JFK airport, attempting to kill more than 9/11

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/nyregion/03kennedy.html

Some good recent opinions on the situation over there...

NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01friedman.htm

Cato
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/08/02/are-our-goals-in-afghanistan-fairly-modest/

Do you know what proportion of the population payed the federal income tax when it was reintroduced in 1913? Or a couple of years after that? It has moderated a lot over the years, early on only the very rich had to pay the tax.

In fact, when it was first passed they didn't even consider having everyone pay the same rate (or pay at all). One of the more extreme senators I could find (quickly) who supported your position (having everyone pay) would only go this far:

(Senator) Lodge did not attack the essential idea of the income tax. Such a tax, he said, was well fitted to distribute equally the burdens of Government upon those best able to bear them. The viciousness of the Democratic bill, he said, lay in its exemptions from all burdens of the great middle class. Instead of exempting all incomes of less than $4,000, he said, he would rather see an impost like that suggested by Mr. McCumber of North Dakota, which proposed a tax of one-tenth of 1 per cent. on incomes of $1,000, with gradual increases of rates as the income increased. In that way, said Mr. Lodge, practically every citizen would feel that he had a share in the Government, as well as a personal interest in its economic administration.

That was in August, 1913 (from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A02E7DC113CE633A2575AC2A96E9C946296D6CF&scp=3&sq=income+tax&st=p). At that time the average annual income rate was a little over $700 (in 1913 dollars, which is obviously what he was referring to in the quote). So even this senator was only proposing to include the middle class rather than relying solely on the rich, and only adding a very slight tax on the middle class. He didn't even consider levying the tax on the poor.

And obviously, interactions with informants on an enemy that kills without regard to human rights, or even basic decency, are secret.

Bradley Manning would have to disagree with you. He should be pulled out of the brig and given a medal.

--Ethanol-fueled

I know it's popular to repeat the talking points, but your statement is not quite incorrect. I had a long rambling comment with lots of links, but then I found this article which addresses most of the points I wanted to mention rather nicely. Basically, he didn't meet his original campaign promise of 16 months, but even during his campaign he had softened his stance since it became apparent that withdrawing that quickly might be too dangerous for the troops. That said, he did meet the goal he set near the beginning of his presidency.

Ironically, this plan, with the troops mostly being out by the end of August but with 50,000 staying through the end of 2011, rather closely resembles Bush's timetable, which called for troops to be out of cities and villages by June 30th, 2010, and out of the country entirely by the end of 2011. I think it's funny how governments can take the same package, but wrap it up with a nice new face on it and then sell it to us as a new product. In the end, it's basically the same plan as before.

As everyone knows, before Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he was a real sweetheart. Gassing Kurds, brutally oppressing any competing political parties, fighting the Iranians. And just how did he hold on to power for so long?

Back in the 60s, the Iraqi government was getting real friendly with the Soviet Union, which was bad news. Our installed dictator in Iran was keeping the oil flowing, but Iraq had a lot more of it and was right next door. So we supported a young man named Saddam Hussein and has Ba'athist Socialist party when the former government was coincidentally overthrown (wink wink). We liked Saddam, because he was a secular lawyer who liked Western culture, and in his 1970 Iraqi Constitution even mentioned things like equality for all religions, races, and genders. Even if it was an empty promise, that was some pretty radical stuff for an Arab state. But he also had stuff like, "Iraqi resources belong to the People," so we continued to favor the Shah in Iran. That is until 1979, when after decades of secret police torturing and killing Iranians so they could sell their oil more cheaply to Western powers, they overthrew their government and the Ayatollah came to power. From then on, Saddam became our primary political tool in the region, mostly for fighting the proxy war against Iran.

My favorite moment in US-Iraqi relations is when Reagan removed him from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list in 1982 so American firms and other international corporations could sell him biological agents and weapons. I'm sorry, I meant "dual use technology" and "farming equipment."

Or maybe it was when Ambassador Gillespie told Saddam that the US didn't care about Arab-Arab border conflicts just days before he sent his troops in to take over Kuwait.

Or maybe it was when the Kuwaiti Ambassador's daughter got up in front of Congress and lied about Saddam's troops placing babies on the floors so they would die - which was an amazing piece of propaganda, and a total fabrication.

When he was following orders, we ignored his crimes. When he stopped following orders, we suddenly remembered them. Unfortunately for us, the rest of the world doesn't stop and start history at our whim. An Iraqi will not forget that Americans were training Saddam's men to torture in the 1980s. They won't forget being left to die after the first Gulf War when we decided taking Saddam out would cause too much instability, and our choice to let Saddam mow people down with helicopters while we were still in control of their airspace. They will not forget starving in the 90s due to our embargo. They also won't forget that Saddam was our man until 2003. They won't forget our choice to use American companies to rebuild their infrastructure instead of Iraqi companies, or our choice to let Western oil companies get their pick of the oil field contracts without any input from their own government. They also won't forget that "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" can be the same person, depending on our political strategy that day.

They will never forget that the Americans cannot be trusted to act on any set of principles, because we simply don't have any. And the moment the Iraqi people try to kick out our corporations, we won't be too shy about reminding them.

You know, you're not doing anyone any favors when you start bringing up 9/11 conspiracy theories. Just stick to the stuff you can prove--it's more than damning enough as it is.

The tl;dr of the above:
In February 8, 1963 (yes, under Kennedy), amidst fears of spreading Communist influence with the Qassim government of Iraq (and possibly losing control of the country's oil industry), the CIA and British government aided in the Ba'athist coup that put Saddam in power.

Well, India is in good company. It appears that the United Arab Emirates will ban Blackberries starting in October because the government can't eavesdrop through the encryption, and Saudi Arabia may do the same.

PowerPoint leads to reducing complex issues to bulleted points and that is detrimental to the decision making and learning process.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/world/27powerpoint.html
http://www.afji.com/2009/07/4061641

Exactly which liberals told anyone except the very rich to make any sacrifices?

Barack Obama is just the latest.

Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

Damn, not only is Obama taxing us like crazy, he downright LIED about it.

Imagine that.

Obama's a liar.

You trash wiki articles, yet you linked a Wikipedia article in your other post. You're really bad at this.

Is the New York Times a good enough source for you? Here's another news source detailing Microsoft's theft of Apple code. Here's info on the Microsoft company that stole Quicktime code, leading to the settlement where Microsoft was forced to buy non-voting stocks and continue development of Office for Mac.

Your entire premise has been decimated, so you've been forced to to cite Wikipedia links on citations (contradicting your own criticisms of wikis) to try to distract the argument. It won't work. You got caught putting your foot in your mouth and talking about something you hadn't researched, and now you're mad that I called you out on it.

You're not informed enough to be arguing with me about this. Next.

You'd better be nice to your kids, and foster a good relationship. You might think such a thing in mandatory on their part but let me assure you it is not. When they turn 18 (and at any time after) they can sever any and all ties with you. You have no legal claim to force them to care for you. If they want to leave you to fend for yourself, they can.

Actually, many U.S. states and Canadian provinces do have laws that force children to provide support for their parents. Although, they are archaic and rarely enforced, they do exist. See this NY Times article for a list of 28 U.S. states that still have such laws and how they are applied.

Also, see this Vancouver Sun article for an ongoing Canadian court case that invokes such a law.

"How can there possibly be "not enough money"?!?"

Quite easily.

" If trillions of dollars were infused into the economy then by definition inflation has already happened. If prices go up or not is irrelevant"

Sorry. That's not the definition of the word 'inflation'. Let me quote Wiki for you: "In economics, inflation is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time.".

And no, there's almost no inflation by any measure. We probably even have a slight deflation by now according to several ways to measure the inflation.

"If there is a shortage of money, that means that prices are too low, causing a surplus of goods i.e. a shortage of money. "

Nope. You're confusing cause and effect, during the 'shortage of money' prices HAVE to fall. Otherwise people just won't buy your products. This in turn causes other prices to fall, reducing profits (and incentives to invest money), so a vicious cycle is formed. And it's not a hypothesis, you just need to look at Japan.

And what's quite scary, it's really hard to terminate a deflationary cycle. Even with large infusions of cash.

You see, economy is counterintuitive. During the crises the _amount_ of money in the economy does not diminish. So everything should be OK, according to Austrians.

The only way to get a crisis according to Austrians is if your economy has skewed markets (for example, skewed towards construction industry) and once you fix this skew everything should be OK.

However, this argument is stupid: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/the-work-of-depressions/

What happens in reality is quite simple. During a crisis economic agents do not want to spend/re-invest money. This reduces availability of credit, which further reinforces the crisis. So the total amount of money remains the same as before the crisis, but money spends more time as 'dead weight'. So the _effective_ amount of money decreases.

PS: Your link is mostly filled with incoherent blabber. Which is the usual state of things from 'Austrian' School. Please, read something better: Keynes and Friedman (they nicely complement each other), Krugman and others.

Actually, what you're saying is crap. Advanced degrees in the US [...] are for the most part free.

That's funny, because somehow the people graduating with these "free" degrees are ending up with over $20,000 in debt. Perhaps phrases like "most part" and "free" don't mean what one of us thinks they mean.

"Some economists from MIT state that FDR extended the great depression by using our current monetary policy of bailouts and socialism to hire people where the private did not."

Or "ome economists are idiots". It's rather easy to falsify their assumption: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/modified-goldbugism-at-the-wsj/

Also, look closely at 1937 when FDR had cut fiscal support.

"1. Use the $700 billion as lines of credits for businesses instead of banks (let them fail)"

Bad idea. It would have, essentially, created a big government-run bank, while destroying 401k investments of millions of people.

"2. Use what Eisenhower did when he authorized the highway act. Every penny invested returned more in private sector dollars. It enhanced commerce. Obama's plan does the opposite."

And this is a GOOD idea. Obama's plan tried to do the same, actually, but half-heartedly.

"People are too much in debt and letting the banks which hold the debt collapse would be beautiful leaving the small credit unions left and businesses could still borrow." :) You have a very naive idea about the way economy works. Dissolving the debt would mean dissolving the economy.

"This is not a recession. Its a whole depression. Look at the economic news today? Chicago and Atlanta are going back into recession and during the 1930s the stock market and GDP went up and down many times before it finally ended."

That's because the stimulus was not big enough. We're repeating 1937 now. And this WAS predicted by commonly used economy models.

"I love when people leave out the September 11th attacks, as if the economic impact of that disaster and the and subsequent military response against the Taliban didn't have any impact on the deficit whatsoever."

I love when people leave out the Iraq war as if the economic impact of that disaster (which had nothing to do with 9/11) didn't have any impact on the deficit whatsoever.

"People's voices are amplified because we're in a recession, and Obama's stimulus packages haven't worked to address the high unemployment rate or low consumer confidence."

Obama's package HAD worked. We're out of depression now (i.e. the economy grows). It hadn't worked well enough because it was _small_.

Read here: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/how-did-we-know-the-stimulus-was-too-small/

"if he weren't a big-spending, Chicago-style-deal-making Liberal. Which, unfortunately, he is."

Obama has NOT spent much enough. Read Krugman's excellent analysis: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/how-did-we-know-the-stimulus-was-too-small/

"Liberals Arts Majors = Not worth $50k." See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/business/economy/28leonhardt.html?_r=1&
"Mr. Chetty and his colleagues -- one of whom, Emmanuel Saez, recently won the prize for the top research economist under the age of 40 -- estimate that a standout kindergarten teacher is worth about $320,000 a year. That's the present value of the additional money that a full class of students can expect to earn over their careers. This estimate doesn't take into account social gains, like better health and less crime."

Is kindergarten teacher a liberal arts major?

Of course, if you just give the money directly to the families, they'll probably have even better results:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/towards-a-post-scarcity-new-york-state-of-mind.html
"New York State current spends roughly 20,000 US dollars per schooled child per year to support the public school system. This essay suggests that the same amount of money be given directly to the family of each homeschooled child. Further, it suggests that eventually all parents would get this amount, as more and more families decide to homeschool because it is suddenly easier financially. It suggests why ultimately this will be a win/win situation for everyone involved (including parents, children, teachers, school staff, other people in the community, and even school administrators :-) because ultimately local schools will grow into larger vibrant community learning centers open to anyone in the community and looking more like college campuses. New York State could try this plan incrementally in a few different school districts across the state as pilot programs to see how it works out."

I feel I should also point out that "computer people" have Federal Law against them. From The Wall Street Journal: The law, known as Section 1706 of the 1986 Tax Reform Act, made it extremely difficult for information technology professionals to work as self-employed individuals, forcing most to become company employees.

"Computer people" have all manner of hurdles placed in their way by large government and large companies working to increase profits. The pay of IT professionals would be significantly higher if the labor market was truly free.

There are other forms of compensation other than just how much $$ one makes a year.

Yeah! His boss could be buying him hookers.

We need to learn to better respect the blue collar jobs. Without people doing those jobs our world doesn't work, yet people are taught from a young age that doing blue-collar work is something you should work to avoid.

Just throwing a relevant article recommendation, based on a book which is also a good read: Matthew Crawford's The Case for Working With Your Hands, based on the book Shop Class as Soulcraft. There is a puzzling bias against any blue-collar work in this country, regardless of how challenging or well-paying it may be. Ever look at the hourly rate your plumber charges? Or how much fun it might be to, say, work on cars or motorcycles for a living as compared to banging out TPS Reports?

"Well, at least this President isn't having people tortured."

He just gave the people who sanctioned the torture a free pass, instead.

I've said it before, Obama is the New Bush!

Here's two sources for you, though you could have seen them posted for the other AC with the same complaint.

Feel free to do a little googling next time you have doubts.

Here's two for you:

http://www.policecrimes.com/

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/22/us/new-york-police-often-lie-under-oath-report-says.html?pagewanted=1?pagewanted=1

Here's two for you:

http://www.policecrimes.com/

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/22/us/new-york-police-often-lie-under-oath-report-says.html?pagewanted=1?pagewanted=1

Microsoft has a long and illustrious history of operating system sales. The model has served the company well on the PC, but if it wants to make money in the phone market, it needs to start thinking like a consumer electronics company and start making its own phones.

But they recently tried doing just that. And it was an epic failure.

I know giant STOP signs in their native language with army men pointing guns at you are far too ambiguous.

They are when 26% of the population can't read or write...

"We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat... We really ask a lot of our young service people out on the checkpoints because there's danger, they're asked to make very rapid decisions in often very unclear situations. However, to my knowledge, in the nine-plus months I've been here, not a single case where we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it and, in many cases, had families in it." - General McChrystal (transcript)

The numbers don't actually support that. While there is certainly corruption and bribery associated with prison and prison labour, it's not enough to cause wide scale incarceration. For example, it's estimated that CA will spend $15.4 billion in 2012 on prisons - roughly $47,000 prisoner/year. It would take an extraordinary amount of bribery to justify that. In fact, they're already starting to release prisoners early in an attempt to bring their budget under control.

What causes the gross incarceration is the criminalization of drugs which remains something that virtually no politician can go against, a culture that places an emphasis on punishing inmates rather than rehabilitating them, and the fact that politicians get more benefit from selling themselves as "tough on crime" than trying to create structures to break the cycle of poverty that causes high crime rates in the inner city (which their opponents would spin as throwing money at welfare queens).

Plame was exposed not in the course of whistle-blowing but because her husband exposed the 'African Yellowcake' thing (Saddam supposedly acquiring nuclear capability, used by Bush to muster support for his war) as bogus.
The point of the exposure was to harm the Wilson/Plames. It was revenge by people in power - quite a bit different than what wikileaks is doing.

What I Didn't Find in Africa
By Joseph C. Wilson
July 6, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/what-i-didn-t-find-in-africa.html

In fact we don't have regional threats, unless when we follow blindly the Americans (that's unfortunately what happened to UK and Spain because they took USA side in an armed conflict when invading Iraq and got bombed because of that)

Yes, it was all because of Iraq. The fact that you treat your Muslim community like second class citizens has nothing to do with their resentment or radicalization. Why don't you look at your own backyard before you throw stones into mine?

Microsoft's revenue total of $16.04 billion surpassed the $15.27 billion predicted by analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters and arrived on 22 percent sales growth.

In addition, Microsoft posted a 48 percent rise in net income to $4.52 billion, or 51 cents a share, from the $3.05 billion, or 34 cents a share in the comparable period last year. Analysts had expected earnings of 46 cents a share.

For the full year, Microsoft reported a 29 percent rise in net income to $18.76 billion and a 7 percent rise in revenue to $62.48 billion.

All told, Microsoft's sales achieved a company record and reflected a healthy technology industry that has benefited from a recent increase in corporate spending.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/technology/23soft.html?src=busln

A.O. Scott had an interesting article about the polarization, including the fact that a lot of the people flaming critics hadn't even seen the movie yet.

This to cover up the fact that they'd been giving mortgages with no sound financial reasoning for most of a decade, and were holding a lot of worthless debt and mostly wanted to offload that onto someone else.

Well, maybe that's because the guy in charge of the Financial Services committee said nothing was wrong with subprime lending and resisted reform of Fannie and Freddie. Then he tried to rewrite history and claim that it was W who opposed reform all along. Naturally, Congress turned to this genius and his morally outstanding colleague to create the recently passed financial reform bill-- another 2,000+ page monstrosity of which we're just learning the horrors of now. Basically, the federal government will be able to liquidate whatever firms they deem a "systemic risk". That's enough to frighten anyone who owns a business-- or has a job, frankly.

Microsoft's fourth quarter profits were $4.52 billion dollars, up 48% from the same period last year.

This, in most circles, would be considered good news.

Lost from view is what arguably is Microsoft's very best story -- its transformation into a powerhouse supplier of the specialized software that meets the complex needs of large corporations, what the trade calls selling to "the enterprise."

Microsoft's enterprise software business alone is approaching the size of Oracle. But despite that astounding growth, Microsoft must accept that, fair or not, victories on the enterprise side draw about as much attention as being the No. 1 wholesale seller of plumbing supplies. Microsoft won't receive the adoring attention that its chief rival draws with products like the iPad. Even With All Its Profits, Microsoft Has a Popularity Problem

You missed some US flaws:

1. Paid huge amounts of money to the taliban, allowing them to do what they are currently doing

It's worse. The U.S. *created* the Taliban, when it supported the Mujahadeen against the Soviets in the 1980s, by supplying them with anti-helicopter missiles.

The Soviets were doing a pretty good job. They created collective farms, with modern machinery and agricultural technology, build housing, medical clinics -- and schools that educated boys *and* girls with a secular education. The Soviets successfully encouraged equality of the sexes, which everyone is so worried about.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/world/asia/11afghan.html

We're dealing with lesser evils here.

The worst consequence of our actions was that we destroyed a secular universal education system and replaced it with an extremist Islamist education system. The Soviets taught kids that Communism was better than U.S. capitalism (a proposition easily subject to verification). The Taliban taught kids -- boys -- to destroy the U.S.

If the Communists had managed to keep control of Afghanistan, they would have thrown Osama bin Laden in jail (yes, they would have violated his rights) and we wouldn't be having this problem.

There was a good article in the New York Times about this a week or so ago. It's actually a bit of an issue for the site. Turns out they do have a way of handling it, but it's far from perfect.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/technology/18death.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=facebook%20dead&st=cse