Slashdot Mirror

WHAT? That article is from 8 days ago!!! It's still talking about the Andamaan sea!! It says NOTHING about the search off Australia.

The diagram I saw two days ago showed all seven pings and their exact times (11 minutes past each hour), and that is how they have come up with these small slices of the arc. This article specifically states that:

http://online.wsj.com/news/art...

Here is the image I'm talking about:

http://i1.minus.com/iPcccu2MDL...

What the NTSB has done is very simple. Assume it's most likely the plane is travelling at a steady speed, not too fast, not too slow, and mathematically match that to the available ping locations. BAM, you have the smalls slices shown there. All of the other areas would require the plane to do wierd things like turn around after the last ping, or slow down excessively, or speed up excessively.

OP's story/article is a pile of baloney, just like most media coverage. ALL of the pings have been used to create the new search areas, the ones that they've been carefully searching SINCE TUESDAY.

They're not labeling it or branding it as a Fluke. How does this harm Fluke's IP?

The same way if some one opened a fast-food restaurant that had "golden arcs" instead of golden arches...

"What severance package?"

$14 million, apparently. See this WSJ article: Symantec Fires CEO Steve Bennett. How will he live? Should we donate some money to keep him off the street?

Have you called Symantec in the last 2 years? Or gotten emails from Symantec support? My experience was that everyone with whom I talked was amazingly disfunctional. That's what the Symantec CEO meant when he said, "Our system is just broken".

Symantec has contracts with the U.S. government. People in the U.S. government don't seem to me to understand much about the technology. I'm guessing the contracts are a waste of tax money.

Seriously, I was sick of his guilt-peddling bullshit decades ago.

It isn't a question of guilt. It is a question of demographics.

In the future the biggest demographic change in the U.S. is the rise of the majority-minority, an odd concept that shows that we still haven't gotten over the ides that white males are the norm and everyone else is a stranger.
To thrive domestically as well as globally, being multicultural is essential.

How Will Changing Demographics in the U.S, Influence Business In the Coming Decade?

The geek would probably agree that the Republican Party is slowly losing ground as a national force because it is too white, male, inbred and insular. He probably knows that the conflict between the poor and middle class of San Francisco runs deeper than gentrification,

But he refuses to draw any larger conclusions from the evidence which surrounds him.

How can they say with a straight face that the Crimea can't secede, when they themselves set a precedent for a local population to secede from a country?

Milosevic gave Kosovars the reason — and need — to secede, when he commenced ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. The same sort of atrocities are being constantly alleged by Russian propaganda to be happening in Ukraine, except — unlike in Kosovo — they aren't real. Putin is playing your kind like a violin.

One of the mistakes of today's "golden billion" (that's you and me) is that the days of the Big Lie are over...

This article does not give a lot of details but it suggests to me that the gap between the arcs is not owing to the way the satellite works but rather from calculations based on trying to make sense of information from the earlier pings. So, the argument about getting from one arc to the next would not be helpful. http://online.wsj.com/news/art...

They're the foot in the door for Big Pharma, in which both the foundation and Gates are heavily invested.

Actually, he sold his big pharma investments in 2009: http://online.wsj.com/news/art...

Maybe you should try reading the ingredients on the Kool-Aid before you drink it. >.>

Well, it's nice to hope, but Putin's rating is at its highest in the last 3 years, somewhat about 71%. There is no realistic hope for any "push back" anytime soon. Its not like some crazy dictator and small group of his henchmen took over the country - no, its like the majority of population is winding up some sort of mass psychosis. Which is a much more terrifying thought, really.

Is it not possible that a regulated organ market could actually reduce organ theft? It would certainly save many lives: http://online.wsj.com/news/art...

Current:
* http://online.wsj.com/news/art...

Older (after AirFrance disaster)
* http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
* http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07...

The hypocritical Senator's own word, for our enjoyment. Pass the popcorn.

The NSA's Watchfulness Protects America
By Dianne Feinstein
Oct. 13, 2013 6:59 p.m. ET

Since it was exposed in June by leaker Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency's call-records program has become controversial and many have questioned whether its benefits are worth the costs. My answer: The program—which collects phone numbers and the duration and times of calls, but not the content of any conversations, names or locations—is necessary and must be preserved if we are to prevent terrorist attacks.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein: Continue NSA call-records program
By Dianne Feinstein
Oct. 20, 2013 6:22 p.m. EDT

The NSA call-records program is legal and subject to extensive congressional and judicial oversight. Above all, the program has been effective in helping to prevent terrorist plots against the U.S. and our allies. Congress should adopt reforms to improve transparency and privacy protections, but I believe the program should continue.

The call-records program is not surveillance. It does not collect the content of any communication, nor do the records include names or locations. The NSA only collects the type of information found on a telephone bill: phone numbers of calls placed and received, the time of the calls and duration. The Supreme Court has held this "metadata" is not protected under the Fourth Amendment.

More B.S. California's problem with water shortages is mostly due to Man Made Regulations! Read about how they are restricting water flow to 'protect' some little minnow. http://online.wsj.com/news/art... and http://westernfarmpress.com/bl...

The Wall Street Journal just ran an article about why shipping oil by rail is more profitable than shipping by pipeline:

In Dakota Oil Patch, Trains Trump Pipelines - Flexibility of Shifting Crude to Higher Priced Markets Strands Proposed Projects (March 3, 2014)

Basically, shipping the oil by rail costs more, but using a train gives the oil producer the flexibility to ship to the refinery that will pay them them most for the oil. Shipping by pipeline only allows the producer to ship the oil to the refinery at the end of that pipeline.... and the oil producer has to commit to use the pipeline for a very long time.

Apparently, Warren Buffet figured this out years ago because he bought the BNSF Railway back in 2009. A BNSF train is shown in the picture attached to the Bloomberg article.

They've been trying to build one for years (Keystone XL) but have been stonewalled at every turn by Obama.

The WSJ points out that the proposed Keystone pipeline runs north-south, while the oil producers want to ship their oil east-west because the demand for oil is greater on the coasts than in Texas.

You Commit Three Felonies a Day.

If I look closely at you and your life, I will find something to incriminate you.

I have NO doubt what-so-ever.

So, about this being a "slippery-slope absolutist"?

Unfortunately it's an open question as to whether information held in accounts under password are part of an estate or not.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/...

If she didn't explicitly mention it in her will, and the Apple's security terms of service don't otherwise allow it, it seems quite reasonable for Apple to defer the decision to a court of law.

The possibility that she held the information under a password because she wanted it to go to the grave with her needs exploring.

1. GRE != SAT

2. How much (useful) practice can you do in a 'late-night' cram session?

3. You're wrong, suck it.

http://online.wsj.com/news/art...

"It found that SAT coaching resulted in about 30 points in score improvement on the SAT, out of a possible 1600, and less than one point out of a possible 36 on the ACT, the other main college-entrance exam"

"But illegally removed from office. Ukraine's constitution requires a 2/3 vote to impeach a president, but a 3/4 vote to remove him from office. 328 votes is well short of that 3/4 majority."

Well short? did you actually fail maths as well as politics or something? 73.3% is about as far from well short as you can get, especially given the law was put in place by him in the first place. It's also a firm democratic mandate, but again, you apparently don't get what democracy is either because you seem to think it's a thing where only your personal opinion matters in spite of the view of the majority of the Ukranian population.

"Oh, and installed the founder of a neo-nazi party as head of the country's security."

Oh I see, so instead it's better they all just submit to the neo-nazi Russian leadership, yes, neo-nazi, or did you miss all that stuff about using homosexuals and foreigners as scapegoats in Russia. In case you missed it it was kind of a big thing in the run up to Sochi. There are nazis on both sides of the equation.

"By supporting this coup, you are opposing democracy."

You really really need to learn how democracy works, again, I'll make it clear to you, it's not a thing where a minority gets to dictate to the majority. What you're asking for is dictatorship. It simply doesn't matter how you try and spin, whilst yes, there are some ethnic minorities in the Ukraine who support Russia, Putin and Yanukovych, the vast manjority are against them. What is it you find so utterly hard to understand about this?

"Like the right wing in Venezuela, they are trying to do by force what they failed to do at the ballot box."

Unlike the Ukraine, Venezuela can't even claim it's elections were free and fair, they were deemed not to be. I guess you're just one of those fools who loves to support dictatorships, the sort of person that was the reason the likes of Hitler, Mao, and Stalin could get away with what they did. You must be very proud of yourself and your support for dictatorship.

I'll make it abundantly clear to you that you're completely wrong if you think there is anything whatsoever undemocratic going on in the Ukraine (apart from Russia's occupation of Crimea):

Pre protests, support for EU is by far the biggest block vote, 45% vs. 14%:
http://online.wsj.com/news/art...

Not a single area, including the Russian majority Crimea support reunification with Russia with a total of only 13% supporting the Russian cause overall:
http://www.ukrinform.ua/rus/ne...

51% of Ukrainians support democracy, post protest 58% now support a union with the EU instead of Russia:
http://www.kyivpost.com/opinio...

The facts are there, this whole situation has the support of the majority, again, if you do not like this that's fine, but you're saying you do not like democracy. You can't pretend you're for democracy and against what's happened in the Ukraine because the two viewpoints are diametrically opposed - you must accept you're either for Russian dictatorship and against democracy, or for democracy and against Russian dictatorship. The numbers, the facts, just do not back any kind of assertion that what's occurred in the Ukraine is not a popular uprising by a majority against Russian interests.

You obviously hate cold fjord, christ, I do, I think he's wrong on almost everything, but everyone's right sometimes. This is one of those rare times, you're letting your personal hatred for someone put you on completely the wrong side of the argument. You may hate US imperialism, but in the Ukraine they've been victim of the equal and opposite Russian imperialism for a long time. Since 2004 we've seen events like this

Er, not really. The real reason is not 'shit happens' but the cozy arrangements that boards and management have put in place; traditions solidified by mutually-beneficial remuneration contracts. Members of the board used to be 'management' in their previous life, and management aim to be board members in the next.

> Here's the thing: dollar-for-dollar, most senior executives are better off quitting ("retiring"),
> unless some divorce, gambling addition or coke habit has eaten away all their savings.

How true, I am not sure. Maybe you are right about older CEOs. But most CEOs are not willing to retire. MBA schools meanwhile, pump out dozens of whippersnappers. With pay differences being huge between CEO and 'CEO-2' levels , there are ample alternatives to highly paid CEOs -- 'cheaper' CEOs (as in the past), governing councils instead of CEOs, co-CEOs, even rotating CEOs. Now to be sure, not all these are good ideas for all companies. But one - 'cheaper CEOs' - for certain is an idea that worked quite well in the decades past.

But you can still disprove AGW by showing a low sensitivity.

I'm just asking for a specific definition of "low climate sensitivity" that you would assert falsifies AGW. 2C per doubling? 1.5C per doubling? .8C per doubling?

Frankly, I'd be surprised if the change in climate sensitivity would be met with surrender rather than an ad hoc special pleading - but that's the problem here, nobody has actually written out the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement that would explain why 1.5C per doubling supports AGW, but 1.49C per doubling doesn't.

The estimated sensitivity hasn't changed much in 100 years.

Please, check your references:
http://object.cato.org/sites/c...

http://online.wsj.com/news/art...

If you had intellectual integrity, you would now admit that CAGW and AGW are both falsifiable theses, since they make predictions, and rely on theories that can be disproven

If you had any intellectual integrity, you'd admit that by any judgment of CAGW and AGW theses, their predictions *have* been falsified, but ad hoc special pleadings to account for "the pause" and other deviations from observation have been put in place to protect the central conceit here. Hell, so much froth has come out of CAGW and AGW, sometimes asserting *the complete opposite result*, that it's almost trivial to take a look at any observation and say, "see, our AGW paper said so" - that kind of shotgun prediction and cherry picking isn't science by any stretch of the imagination :)

So, if one CAGW paper says that warming will cause more cyclonic activity, and another CAGW paper says that warming will cause less cyclonic activity, isn't there a real problem with the CAGW hypothesis? Where is the canonical list of CAGW papers, that don't contradict each other, and if a single one is refuted, the whole palace falls? :)

Relying on theories that can be disproven is one thing - but being a hypothesis that can be disproven by observation is what really counts. Of course astrology could be disproven if it was shown that the north star was actually in a completely different position than previously observed - but just because the position of the north star is *necessary*, doesn't make it *sufficient*.

Regarding the liberal/conservative thing: I am a scientist.

There are many scientists who don't think scientifically, and I'll assert that the test is whether or not they understand the importance of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement :)

Ok, take it easy now. It's not like they have a choice in the matter.

Wall Street Journal did it best:
http://online.wsj.com/news/art...

Or, if you just want it in simple graphic form:
http://si.wsj.net/public/resou...

They sell it for profit. Almost as good as the LEO money confiscation laws: "You have more than $X on you? We can seize that permanently on suspicion that it's drug money. You have no recourse for return of the money as it's not evidence, it's just ours." http://blogs.wsj.com/middlesea...

"I'm sorry it's 110 degrees outside today, officer. I'd invite you in, but I can't trust you not to see something innocuous and turn it into a prison sentence."

Long story short, the cops searched my in-laws (VERY long story but they were victims) and upon seeing one of those deodorant rocks, confiscated it. We're in Georgia and the cops were white Southern stereotypes. I don't think it would have been a problem in California.

The other thing is that everyone in the US of A commits three felenies a day on average. So, yes it IS quite probable that if the cops search your home they WILL find something - I don't care who you are.

In America there is no system in place today that forces people to remain separate or keeps one Class subservient to another. If you were born the son of a street sweeper, but excelled, you would be fully accepted by your peers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... Not so in India. The Caste system freezes everyone in place for their life time. For someone to move from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... is denied. A Lower caste would never be allowed to marry Forward caste. http://blogs.wsj.com/indiareal... And https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... opening a restaurant or become a priest in a temple or become a member of high society in India is very rare indeed.

“A new image of urban America is in the making,” HuffPo quotes William H. Frey, a demographer at Brookings who co-wrote the report, as saying. “What used to be white flight to the suburbs is turning into ‘bright flight’ to cities that have become magnets for aspiring young adults who see access to knowledge-based jobs, public transportation and a new city ambiance as an attraction.”

And recently, it has started to become the norm, not just a trend amongst young.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/23/18441345-urban-renewal-census-figures-show-cities-surging?lite

Big cities surpassed the rate of growth of their surrounding suburbs at an even faster clip, a sign of America's continuing preference for urban living after the economic downturn quelled enthusiasm for less-crowded expanses.

And, the trend lines up with the younger crowd driving & buying cars less.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/why-dont-young-americans-buy-cars/255001/
http://cars.chicagotribune.com/fuel-efficient/news/chi-cars-get-older-young-people-drive-less-20130807

The Times notes that less than half of potential drivers age 19 or younger had a license in 2008, down from nearly two-thirds in 1998. The fraction of 20-to-24-year-olds with a license has also dropped. And according to CNW research, adults between the ages of 21 and 34 buy just 27 percent of all new vehicles sold in America, a far cry from the peak of 38 percent in 1985.

Second, nowhere in the article does he mention New York. He is an urban planner from New York, yes, but he was specifically talking about the tech companies in the Bay Area bussing employees from the city to the suburbs. He's not pushing anything for New York. He's an urban planner talking about planning in an urban area other than the one he is in.

Hopefully this will help reduce the divorce rate.

Divorcé's Guide to Marriage - Study Reveals Five Common Themes Underlie Most Divorces

Money was the No. 1 point of conflict in the majority of marriages, good or bad, that Dr. Orbuch studied. And 49% of divorced people from her study said they fought so much over money with their spouse—whether it was different spending styles, lies about spending, one person making more money and trying to control the other—that they anticipate money will be a problem in their next relationship, too.

Many marriages today are 'til debt do us part

Sorry to break your David vs. Goliath outlook, but despite the crap that comes out of a few loud-mouthed Congressmen, the US sure as shit doesn't want him.

http://online.wsj.com/news/art...

Senator Feinstein is the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee (What? there's intelligence in the US Senate?). Hardly a loudmouth.

Here is a copy of the complaint: http://online.wsj.com/public/r...
It is a municipal zoning issue, which mentions fracking in passing in paragraph 6.04. As far as I can tell, the main objection is to the height of the water tower and the fact that it does not comply with zoning ordinances.

You can't be prosecuted from inadmissable evidence, but hohoho, you're also not as good at crime as you think. The alternative to completely eliminating parallel construction and surveillance exchange is a situation where NSA analysts happen across evidence of a crime (like the above example) and then can notify no one at all. Is that really an improvement?

That is a huge improvement. The reason you're allowed to see the prosecutors evidence, and the reason you are given the right to face your accusers is to prevent the justice system from being abused. If you have no idea how they obtained evidence, you have no way of trying to discredit the evidence to begin with. The NSA could drop a tip to the DEA that you're smuggling drugs. Only if the NSA planted the drugs in your vehicle before the DEA got that tip and they used a "routine traffic stop" to suggest that they found the drugs by chance then you're screwed. At least if you KNOW that the NSA told the DEA to stop you, then perhaps you have some chance to determine whether someone at the NSA is behaving inappropriately, or may have some sort of grudge or bias that would cause them to seek to harm you through the criminal justice system.

And I don't think you know what "inadmissable" means.

It is evidence which cannot be used to prosecute you. If the only evidence of a crime is inadmissable in court, then you can't be prosecuted much less convicted. The only evidence you have to defend against is the evidence admitted in court.

Any evidence that is generated from inadmissible evidence is then, by its very nature inadmissible. It doesn't matter if they WOULD have found it anyway (there are exceptions, but its up to a judge to decide whether one should be granted, not law enforcement). If they only found it because they had been giving you illegal scrutiny already, then it's not fair. Think about it. Do you realize how many felonies you've committed today? If you've been outside you probably have already commited some. I'll give you a hint: the national average for a US citizen is Three felonies per day. So if you're so confident that this is a good idea, do you want to volunteer to be one of the people convicted of a bullshit felony because someone at the NSA has decided that you're doing something shady that they cannot prove in court?

And I know what inadmissible means - the issue here is using parallel construction to try and make inadmissible evidence admissable.

You can't be prosecuted from inadmissable evidence, but hohoho, you're also not as good at crime as you think. The alternative to completely eliminating parallel construction and surveillance exchange is a situation where NSA analysts happen across evidence of a crime (like the above example) and then can notify no one at all. Is that really an improvement?

That is a huge improvement. The reason you're allowed to see the prosecutors evidence, and the reason you are given the right to face your accusers is to prevent the justice system from being abused. If you have no idea how they obtained evidence, you have no way of trying to discredit the evidence to begin with. The NSA could drop a tip to the DEA that you're smuggling drugs. Only if the NSA planted the drugs in your vehicle before the DEA got that tip and they used a "routine traffic stop" to suggest that they found the drugs by chance then you're screwed. At least if you KNOW that the NSA told the DEA to stop you, then perhaps you have some chance to determine whether someone at the NSA is behaving inappropriately, or may have some sort of grudge or bias that would cause them to seek to harm you through the criminal justice system.

And I don't think you know what "inadmissable" means.

It is evidence which cannot be used to prosecute you. If the only evidence of a crime is inadmissable in court, then you can't be prosecuted much less convicted. The only evidence you have to defend against is the evidence admitted in court.

Any evidence that is generated from inadmissible evidence is then, by its very nature inadmissible. It doesn't matter if they WOULD have found it anyway (there are exceptions, but its up to a judge to decide whether one should be granted, not law enforcement). If they only found it because they had been giving you illegal scrutiny already, then it's not fair. Think about it. Do you realize how many felonies you've committed today? If you've been outside you probably have already commited some. I'll give you a hint: the national average for a US citizen is Three felonies per day. So if you're so confident that this is a good idea, do you want to volunteer to be one of the people convicted of a bullshit felony because someone at the NSA has decided that you're doing something shady that they cannot prove in court?

...Joseph Kennedy sings his praises

Look we had a "finger print" expert for which the case had to be revisited when it turned out she made it up on the spot, and we had a "fire" expert without any clue which condemned somebody to death. I am in serious doubt of locally taken "experts" for prosecution or for the defense in a legal case. The facts remain that this problem was mostly 1) old person and untrained folk 2) pretty much only in the USA.

Maybe they had a software version specific to the US, but otherwise it does not make sense that this did not happen *at all* in europe where toyota are sold by the truckload in europe, roughly 6 time the number of toyota sold in the USA (usa 150K roughly http://online.wsj.com/mdc/publ... europe 850K roughly http://newsroom.toyota.eu/news...).

Even this WSJ http://online.wsj.com/news/art...

Here we go again with the thinly veiled "They make too much" argument which masks the real intent, to re-introduce more progressive taxation on the wealthy. You see the theory goes that the rich should be taxed more to pay for all those social services and government programs since we all know bureaucrats are much better at distributing wealth than say companies with payrolls. If you start introducing say, 90% tax rates on the super rich, not only do you fatten up the coffers but you also make the unwashed masses happier because they're getting taxed less and create less disposable income for the rich, evening things out. We all want people to be the same, wear the same clothes and drive the same uninspiring cars. We know taxing them at 100% won't work and France's 75% millionaire tax is forcing companies to look elsewhere and the rich to move out of their country. Yeah, popular move. If a guy has a few million in the bank, he'll just move somewhere else. It happened in Maryland a few years ago too, so the rich move. What a bunch dumb shits in Maryland!

So, our Obama has been coming out more and more arguing that executive pay is out of line and to a point I agree. The problem is this retard and his cronies have spent us into a huge hole, can I point out his compensation is too much and he and Congress should not get paid until the economy rebounds? No? Shit, well I tried.

We all know Jamie Dimon is a scumbag and should have been fired for all the shit going on at Chase but since Directors aren't independent and are usually loyal to the CEO/Chairman they'll just hire some retarded bubble-head executive compensation consultant and then say "this is what you get." That means you creep upward because peers get a bump so you should get a bump. It's just like pro athletes. Who here thinks a pitcher is worth $15 million a year, or another player $20 million? They get that money because they have the same peer pressure on pay, shit a guy batting .200 can make a killing in a big market. That's why fans have to spend hundreds of dollars for a couple of seats a few beers and a few hot dogs in big markets. Is anybody yelling about that? No, nobody is.

Shit, nobody yelled recently when the f-wad who left American Airlines, Tom Horton, received a bonus of $20 million for taking his airline into bankruptcy, flushing his existing shareholder equity into the tank and merging it (at the point of a gun by his unions) with another airline and leaving. $20 million to take your company into the Shitter? The judge in the bankruptcy case said "whoa there" but afterward he got his parachute and left... come on.

So yes, there's not a lot of parity when it comes to executive pay vs. the front line staff, many of which make orders of magnitude less. Let's not forget all those benefits though, the "total" compensation in benefits, 401K etc... .... yeah bullshit. The problem is boards of directors need to be independent and compensation consultants need to be kicked to the curb. This also means shareholders need to be aggressive with their proxies and I think that all publicly held companies should have a vote amongst shareholders on approving compensation of anybody with a C in their title. That's right, before the money is spent, ask the shareholders to approve what's being proposed in terms of compensation. Sure, institutional investors will dictate that outcome but they'll be more likely to be conservative vs. boards who seem to spend it like drunken sailors on liberty. That way if the shareholders of Chase are given a Yes/No vote on Dimon's compensation they can truly say "Fuck no" then, maybe he'd get off his ass and actually do something instead of lose money and get fined for violations of law.

http://online.wsj.com/news/art...

Meanwhile billions of gallons of water from California are, essentially, being exported to China.

NB: I apologize if the article is paywalled. The first look is free.

Even Californians know this is a dangerous item - they are even signing petitions to BAN it!

They are, as fast as they can. Dumping it into the ocean so people can't drink it - http://online.wsj.com/news/art... .

Stupidity of people who donate to the likes of the Sierra Club, Green Peace and such. I'm actually an environmentalist. They give good environmentalists a bad name. Like when they oppose logging, ever. Never mind that Ponderosa pine trees should be 50' apart. They restrict it so they grow up thin and spindly, causing forest fires. They don't care, they stopped logging. Could go on and on with examples. Trying to classify certain animals as endangered when those animals are not at that altitude naturally and they clearly knew it and so on.

Why is anyone surprised? The more stuff you have online, the more targets you have on your back. This reminds me of the arguments after Stuxnet when people were asking why equipment was online that had no business being online. People are trying to set up their house like the Jetson's with everything automated and controllable from their smart phone. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should! http://www.businessinsider.com... http://online.wsj.com/news/art...

Your information is a bit out of date about aviators.

http://online.wsj.com/news/art...

It'd be a lot less ominous without the news that music services are able to predict your political party based on the music you listen to.

What's the max temperature ramp rate before the frog jumps out of the water, anyway?

Well, good news -- the only "not a good sign" you're seeing is from these idiot analysts who, collectively, are wrong about 90% of the time when it comes to Apple. If you care to hear what Apple themselves have to say...

WSJ: Apple has never made a billion-dollar acquisition. Google is snapping up everyone including your old friends at Nest. Does this alter how you think about bigger deals?

Cook: We've looked at big companies. We don't have a predisposition not to buy big companies. The money is also not burning a hole in our pocket where we say let's make a list of 10 and pick the best one. We're not doing that. We have no problem spending ten figures for the right company that's the right and that's in the best interest of Apple in the long-term. None. Zero.

But we're not going to go out and buy something for the purposes of just being big. Something that makes more fantastic products, something that's very strategic -- all these things are of interest and we're always looking regardless of size.

WSJ interview with Tim Cook, 2/14/2014

If you've been paying attention to Apple for the last 15 years, you know they aren't usually stupid, panicky, or reactionary. Remember when everyone was saying the *had* to make a netbook? And then they didn't, and then that market segment dissolved? And instead they made the iPad and took over the world? Good times.

Or how about RIGHT NOW, when everyone is saying they *have* to make a bigger and/or cheaper phone, and they aren't, and they're STILL taking 87% of the market's profits -- almost THREEE TIMES as much as their next-closest competitor? (Samsung, 32%)

Believe it or not, there are some smart people still in that place. The brains and vision didn't disappear with Jobs. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to get pageviews or sell you something. I'm not saying they'll be the leader forever, but they're not going away anytime soon.

"The Apple rumor mill is alive and well."

And, you can stop reading right there. Analysts are idiots, and rumors usually turn out to be wrong.

As for growth... "Last year, we grew (revenue) by $14 billion to $15 billion. Yes, those percentages are smaller compared to a year earlier and two years earlier and so forth. But that doesn't mean that you're not a growth company. We were in hyper-growth, or whatever is above growth. We went from $65 billion to over $100 billion to $150 billion to $170 billion. These are historic, unprecedented numbers. I don't know any companies adding growth at that level. So when you say $14 billion to $15 billion compared to those numbers, it's clearly smaller and a smaller percentage, but, to put it in some context, that's like adding three Fortune 500 companies in a year. [emphasis mine] I think that's hard to say that's not a growth company."

--Tim Cook to the WSJ Feb 7, 2014

If you think that US foreign policy has anything to do with al Qaida's existence then you are wholly ignorant of their motivation.

What has NSA spying achieved? Here are some hints:

NSA helped foil terror plot in Belgium, documents, officials say

In a New History of NSA, Its Spies' Successes Are [Redacted]

Or how about we fix the problem by cutting out all the bloat in our education costs?

http://articles.latimes.com/20...
http://online.wsj.com/news/art...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/pa...

Here's the citation, for anyone interested: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324103504578372342066362234

That said, the Motorola purchase seems particularly insane, the only logical reason for Google to make that purchase was to build their own phone which is something they didn't even try.

"Patents"..

That's a relief.

Nobel Committee Rebukes Michael Mann for falsely claiming he was ‘awarded the Nobel Peace Prize’

At least the Climategate emails are simple skullduggery whitened by a whitewash.

he's into politically motivated demagoguery, court actions and making a public circus of it.

You may recall that it is Mann that is suing Steyn, not the other way around, and Mr. Mann isn't above politics himself.

Climategate 2.0

Consider an email written by Mr. Mann in August 2007. "I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thus far unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests. Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy." Doug Keenan is a skeptic and gadfly of the climate-change establishment. Steve McIntyre is the tenacious Canadian ex-mining engineer whose dogged research helped expose flaws in Mr. Mann's "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures.

One can understand Mr. Mann's irritation. His hockey stick, which purported to demonstrate the link between man-made carbon emissions and catastrophic global warming, was the central pillar of the IPCC's 2001 Third Assessment Report, and it brought him near-legendary status in his community. Naturally he wanted to put Mr. McIntyre in his place.

The sensible way to do so is to prove Mr. McIntyre wrong using facts and evidence and improved data. Instead the email reveals Mr. Mann casting about for a way to smear him. If the case for man-made global warming is really as strong as the so-called consensus claims it is, why do the climategate emails show scientists attempting to stamp out dissenting points of view? Why must they manipulate data, such as Mr. Jones's infamous effort (revealed in the first batch of climategate emails) to "hide the decline," deliberately concealing an inconvenient divergence, post-1960, between real-world, observed temperature data and scientists' preferred proxies derived from analyzing tree rings?

This is the real significance of the climategate emails. They show that major scientists who inform the IPCC can't be trusted to stick to the science and avoid political activism. This, in turn, has very worrying implications for the major international policy decisions adopted on the basis of their research.

Nobel Committee Rebukes Michael Mann for falsely claiming he was ‘awarded the Nobel Peace Prize’

Michael Mann And The ClimateGate Whitewash: Part One

You are misreading the chart. That is nowhere close to 2%, even after the signing bonus.

See the bar on the far right for "$250,000 and over"? It's about 2.3% high. There's even a note about the first 4 percent being incomes greater than 200k. That 140K does not come close. Also it's not really reasonable to add the one-time 30k signing bonus.

Have a look at this: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics...

You are misreading the chart... that is a chart for households. Yes, a single googler is only in the top 10%ish of households (if she lives alone). Put a second person in that household, and you're in the 1%. Or look at the percentiles for singles.

You are misreading the chart. That is nowhere close to 2%, even after the signing bonus.

See the bar on the far right for "$250,000 and over"? It's about 2.3% high. There's even a note about the first 4 percent being incomes greater than 200k. That 140K does not come close. Also it's not really reasonable to add the one-time 30k signing bonus.

Have a look at this: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics...