Slashdot Mirror

Fire up Rocky Flats and Hanford again to start building the next generation of nukes! That way we can get enough Pu-238 to power our deep space ambitions! I read on "The Onion" that the North Koreans are already building their deep space probe Kim Il Wang 1 which will reach out and spread communism to our neighboring galaxies! We can't afford to have a deep space probe power gap! We must contain the Red Menace!

Frankly with all the carcinogens in our air, amoebas in our water and a third of us with Toxoplasmosis, what's a little radiation folks?

Actual statistics contradict your bogus claims about abortion deaths.

As to taxes, since you take the maximum deductions that you can, what you really mean is that you think other people should pay more taxes and you will take the risk that you will have to as well. Basically, you think that you, through the government, can make better use of my money than I can. I do not favor higher taxes because I believe that I can make better use of my money to help others than the government can. The fact of the matter is that I think that you can as well. Whether you choose to do so or not I will leave as up to you. I do not think that I have any right to force you to help others and since I think I, and you, can do a better job of helping those in need with our resources than the government can, I see no benefit to giving my money to the government in order for the bureaucrats to take a cut of money I would rather see help those in need.

I get to state my own argument. You don't get to make it for me. Much like I said above, how one person happens to allocate their funds means precisely jack. What I am saying is that this is everyone's responsibility. That includes yours and mine, but it is not, as you imply, limited to you and me.

Also, while we're making assumptions about how other people use their money, I assume that, since you seen to believe so much in private charity, you donate a significant portion of your money to charity in order to help people in need? What portion? Who knows, really. It's just like arbitrarily saying that because I take tax deductions, I'm a hypocrite.

When taxes on the wealthy go down and assistance programs are cut, charitable donations never go up enough to make up the difference, so honestly, your whole point is complete bullshit, even on the off chance that you do donate a significant portion of your money to charity as you imply. Yes, I believe that tax funded government assistance programs are more effective than private ones, precisely because they have an adequate budget to make a difference.

I disagree. The wikipedia page's description of the concept talks about the suspension of normal citizen liberties.
That certainly has been happening in the last twenty years*. After the Iraq war, there was relative commercial prosperity until 9/11. What is weird is that the state of emergency started years before even the dot-com boom.

The public is just seeing their liberties are fake (at least much deflated from the dream of American nationalism) and that accepting this reality is like checking into a prison that spans the perimeter of a whole country. Reminds me of the exploding collars from Wedlock. Everyone is afraid that government will go full retard in response to some upcoming imagined threat and our own necks will start blowing up. That is why other countries are beginning to steer clear of our services, knowing they're collateral

* With Room 641A in 2003 and various laws like the Patriot act of October 2001, you could argue this was a low-key suspension bordering on covert.

"Looking at my e-mail archives, I've had an account on BountySource since September 2006. It isn't new."

The news is the $1.1 million investment.

The actual piece about this was published by Yahoo! Finance on July 16:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bountysource-raises-1-1-million-130000440.html
(Which was mentioned in a blog post that was mentioned by opensource.com that was mentioned by /.)

And what happens if those people really were more capable of helping than the government which is threatening arrest? After all, trying to rescue someone is not quite the same as actually rescuing someone.

A little bit of context. Rescue operations were then ongoing, in fact what is now deemed the largest aerial rescue operation since Hurricane Katrina in 2005. More than 700 people were evacuated by air.

The rescue operations also included the town of Lyons, Colorado which is the same location where the UAVs were operating.

It is not inconceivable given the scale of the rescue operations that the UAVs were impeding the helicopters. And to use your analogy, the helicopters were actively 'rescuing someone' compared to UAVs which were... mapping. You can draw your own conclusions which is more important.

"Another preemptive accusation of dishonesty. Okay, I honestly admit that you very frequently quote inaccurate misinformation."

Nonsense. If you want to talk about "another", this is another distortion of what I actually wrote. I accused nobody of anything.

Fact, not opinion or accusation: the idea that muscle is 3 x as dense as fat is commonly quoted. If you are honest (and not mentally disabled), you WILL admit that.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080715161832AASDWuj



http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=35908

http://forum.t-tapp.com/showthread.php?16220-YOU-BET-MUSCLE-WEIGHS-MORE-THAN-FAT!

(I could find hundreds more if I wanted to.) So I wasn't accusing anyone of dishonesty. If anything, I was accusing them of NOT being mentally disabled. I'm wondering a bit about you, though.

"But none of this makes the analogy that "calories in > calories spent = weight gain" false as long as you're in a constant gravitational field."

Which is completely irrelevant to MY comment, which was about consuming more calories but losing inches.

The only accusation I'm making is that you're being an ass and deliberately picking on me, again. Go away. Your comments continue to add nothing to the actual discussion and I don't particularly like being harassed.

Perhaps Artists will appear on stage with boat load of synthesizers and stacks of keyboards, and (hopefully) not a real instrument anywhere in sight. You won't be able to tell if you are hearing a recording or they are playing any of it live, and you probably won't care. Tangerine Dream made a lot of money in appearances with seldom a real instrument appearing on the stage.

lol...im guessing that you don't know anything about the electronic music scene...artists in this genre have been performing with laptops, synths and turntables/cds (called decks) for, oh, about 25 years now.

in case you haven't heard, electronic music is quite huge these days, and in progressive, entertainment-based cities like las vegas and ibiza, DJs are making $250,000 A NIGHT and are being credited with saving the city

Depends on revenue. If revenue is $5 billion, then no. If revenue is $200 billion, then yes that is scraping the bottom of the barrel. BTW, Western Digitals net profits were just under $1 billion. That's about a 6.6% profit margin. It's respectable, but nowhere near, for example, Apple's 26% or Intel's 20%.

I am a disabled veteran who is pretty computer savvy. But not everyone who used Yahoo Groups understands or cares to understand how/why computers work the way they do. They just want to post and exchange ideas. I personally hate Facebook and twitter. Don't use them unless I have to. What Yahoo doesn't seem to understand is that not everyone wants or needs Facebook. And the sooner Yahoo realizes that, the sooner they'll fix things. If Yahoo thinks we're going down without a fight they're wrong. http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/modsandmembers/

Nice straw man Billy, might want to watch out for matches...WHOOSH! Why are you not driving your car with bike handlebars? Bikes are the #1 vehicle, are YOU afraid of innovation? Because that is exactly how retarded you sound because a SHITTY UI IS A SHITTY UI and just for the record, time it took me to "embrace innovation" with Android? About 3 minutes. OSX? Less than 10, iOS? About 4 minutes...Win 8? THREE FUCKING HOURS LATER AND THE BITCH IS STILL FIGHT ME because "herpa de derp we think a fucking touchpad and a touchscreen are the same thing, they both say touch right? herpa derpa".

I have used everything from DOS to OS/2 to BeOS, how many OSes have YOU used Billy? I have ALWAYS been on the bleeding edge, when your ass was dragging behind on XP? I was running a beta of 2K3 stripped down into a desktop and the SECOND that XP X64 hit beta my ass was on it. I know innovation sir, I'm friends with innovation and Windows 8 is NOT innovation!

But don't take MY word for it, how about some citations? here is a good one and this shows how they cocked up even the shutdown process and reviewers agree with me its THAT bad and the OEMs also know its a turkey., Face it win 8 is a joke and you can say having Ballmer take a steaming dump on your PC is "innovative" all you want Billy, its still a big pile of feces lying there.

OMG perfect! Download apps to keep track of your apps. Apps for getting apps. Apps for watching apps. Apps to launch apps. Apps to search for launching apps that launch other apps to watch other apps for all my apps to simpy get cell phone apps!

Sign me up today. I will take that Atom and my new Cryris 3 app to run inside my VMWare workstation app with emulated OpenGL/Direct X. According to www.tomshardware.com all the x87 fpu benchmarks show it can cream the hell out of AMD piledriver 8 core anyday and represents real world performance according to the fan boys on here and over at that site ... with the all so loving Metro UI on a non touchscreen.

Nice straw man Billy, might want to watch out for matches...WHOOSH! Why are you not driving your car with bike handlebars? Bikes are the #1 vehicle, are YOU afraid of innovation? Because that is exactly how retarded you sound because a SHITTY UI IS A SHITTY UI and just for the record, time it took me to "embrace innovation" with Android? About 3 minutes. OSX? Less than 10, iOS? About 4 minutes...Win 8? THREE FUCKING HOURS LATER AND THE BITCH IS STILL FIGHT ME because "herpa de derp we think a fucking touchpad and a touchscreen are the same thing, they both say touch right? herpa derpa".

I have used everything from DOS to OS/2 to BeOS, how many OSes have YOU used Billy? I have ALWAYS been on the bleeding edge, when your ass was dragging behind on XP? I was running a beta of 2K3 stripped down into a desktop and the SECOND that XP X64 hit beta my ass was on it. I know innovation sir, I'm friends with innovation and Windows 8 is NOT innovation!

But don't take MY word for it, how about some citations? here is a good one and this shows how they cocked up even the shutdown process and reviewers agree with me its THAT bad and the OEMs also know its a turkey., Face it win 8 is a joke and you can say having Ballmer take a steaming dump on your PC is "innovative" all you want Billy, its still a big pile of feces lying there.

This is not really an accurate statement. The ACLU has claimed there is such a thing but the government has never said anything about a 100 mile zone in which no warrants are required. They have said "border and functional equivalent" (ie it includes airports as points of entry). The "100 miles" in Title 8 refers to illegal immigration boder control, as in searches of airplanes that cross the border or limits of border patrol areas; the maximum "reasonable" limit is 100 miles but reasonabe also takes into account topography and population density. This has nothing to do from reading that law about being constitution free. Instead that law was conflated with the DHS announcement of warrantless searches at the border and functional borders (with no mention of extended border). So this 100 miles of warrantless searches looks very strongly like hype by the ACLU (and I support its general aims but strong disagree with use of fear mongering and outright distortions to get its message across).

See: http://news.yahoo.com/does-constitution-free-zone-really-exist-america-195813138.html

The "border search exception" has been well vetted legally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception (Note that the ACLU's implication that this exception extends to 100 miles from the border is incorrect: http://news.yahoo.com/does-constitution-free-zone-really-exist-america-195813138.html) But I would guess this search exercise does more harm than good. It can be easily circumvented (encrypted data over networks), so the question is empirical: Have criminals adapted to the law yet, in which case it becomes useless, and detrimental to the innocent (mostly for psychological reasons, but also for practical reasons if the government were to abuse the info it obtains).

If completely safe, I wouldn't mind this coming into general use for people who wish to smoke.

It's probably not completely safe for the smoker. A recent (just last month) study found that e-cigarettes do indeed contain carcinogens, in some cases showing similar levels of formaldehyde and acrolein as regular cigarettes.

Article about the study.

Yes you see the news like : http://in.news.yahoo.com/google-beefs-user-data-encryption-amidst-nsa-snoop-043521614.html
The backhaul to the data centers will be more encrypted... read on for the hint ...."no effect on legal requirements for any tech company to furnish data when demanded"
I wonder what the spying output will be like from the backdoored closed source products over the years? A lot of attempts at misinformation, past time/joke/junk use and drop in actionable gossip.

Isn't it time we start boycotting government a bit?

Yes. Stop driving on public roads

You have me on this one.

using your tap for water, sewage pipes for drains/toilet,

I get both of these from a private company.

and purchasing inspected food.

You have me on this one too, though I would argue that the FDA is invasive and possibly unconstitutional.

The city will be by shortly to remove your streetlight and disconnect your electricity, water and sewage connections.

Whatever city you're referring to had better not step out of its jurisdiction. All of those connections I have are from private companies, and there's no city here.

Don't try to cheat by "camping" in one of our public parks.

Wouldn't dream of it.

When your house catches on fire, make sure you have lots of buckets of rain water (no tap, remember?) to put it out, because the fire department will only come by to make sure your neighbors' houses are safe.

My fire service is also provided by a private company. And I'm free to not contract with them; if I don't, and the house catches fire, they'll put it out, but I'll get a nice big bill.

If you get robbed, then I hope you are home, armed and a better shot than your robber, because the police won't stop to help.

Police is one of the very few parts of government that should exist. But yes, being allowed to gun that guy down is a Constitutional right, and those things come with responsibilities.

Better yet, instead of inconveniencing us, why don't you just move to your own Ayn Rand/Libertardian paradise of Somalia, DRC, Sudan or Chad? There's no government to speak of, so you'll get everything that's coming to you.

It seems you missed the end of the sentence, the part with "a bit."

Isn't it time we start boycotting government a bit?

Yes. Stop driving on public roads, using your tap for water, sewage pipes for drains/toilet, and purchasing inspected food. The city will be by shortly to remove your streetlight and disconnect your electricity, water and sewage connections.

Don't try to cheat by "camping" in one of our public parks.

When your house catches on fire, make sure you have lots of buckets of rain water (no tap, remember?) to put it out, because the fire department will only come by to make sure your neighbors' houses are safe. If you get robbed, then I hope you are home, armed and a better shot than your robber, because the police won't stop to help.

Better yet, instead of inconveniencing us, why don't you just move to your own Ayn Rand/Libertardian paradise of Somalia, DRC, Sudan or Chad? There's no government to speak of, so you'll get everything that's coming to you.

1) No criminal history - if your from a good family...the computer says your ok...
2) No heavy debt or credit issues - some seem to be very over extended...
3) No skeletons in the closet to feed blackmail - you would really think that one would be vital...
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/pentagon-declined-investigate-hundreds-purchases-child-pornography.html
4) No drug and only light alcohol use - always good to test for.
5) No relationships with foreign nationals - but you sooooo need that regional dialect, language, cultural insight.
6) US citizen goes without saying, foreign born may disqualify you. - some nations are more equal than others and the US really has risked/lost so much on the dual citizen aspect.

Yes, but some airlines/airports lose luggage more often than others. And some airlines are more helpful than others when they do lose the luggage.

And some customers are real douchebags who take affront at everything and are unreasonable no matter how hard the agent is trying to help.

Bottom line is - we don't know where the line is in this case. This guy may have a completely legitimate grievance, or he could be raising hell because BA wouldn't compensate him $500 a bag or give him 10,000 free travel miles. We just don't know.

I find it difficult to argue with success; they were apparently able to find his father's lost bag.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/furious-british-airways-passenger-uses-promoted-tweet-to-complain-to-world-about--lost-luggage--104029390.html#PTH3eTh

One has to wonder if they would have found it had he gone through normal channels; it certainly took more than 20 minutes (it was 4 hours before they contacted him back over the initial complaint).

Next versions: Lollypop, M&M/Mars, Nougat, , . Seems that Google's marketing department has already posted this question disguised as a mother.

[People said]: we've been doing this for generations and the birds aren't coming like they used to. The Egyptians have mist nets along the Mediterranean coast line. Five hundred miles of continuous nets without a break catching every quail that comes in. The populations of quail are just nose-diving in Europe and they would say, you know, we're not getting anywhere near the number of quail that we used to. I wonder why. Maybe it has to do with more city lights, or development, maybe they are hunting more in Europe. It has to do with a lot of things, but I didn't hear anyone take responsibility and say I wonder if it has to do with the fact that I, personally, took nearly a thousand quail on my 300-foot stretch of net this season.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-18/japan-unit-4-pool-s-heat-exceeded-three-times-normal-iaea-says.html
http://news.yahoo.com/fukushima-plant-steps-closer-fuel-rod-removal-010447411.html
Empty the pool of fuel bundles .... 1,533 fuel rods ~1,300 used fuel rod assemblies? ~ 400 tons ~18 meters above the ground :)

You forgot the dash!

Yeah, that's right. I check my spelling with Yahoo! Answers before posting. Brilliant!!

is in the stratosphere.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=TSLA+Interactive#symbol=tsla;range=1y;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

Come on now, the nice congressman deserves a shout out for his extraordinary courage. To wit;

Georgia Rep. Paul Broun said in videotaped remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell" meant to convince people that they do not need a savior. http://news.yahoo.com/congressman-calls-evolution-lie-pit-hell-175514039.html

It's worth repeating; he believes that (the theory of) evolution, embryology, and (the theory of) the Big Bang are LIES MADE UP BY THE DEVIL.

Look for the video on YouTube. He says these things in front of a wall covered with creepy mounted deer heads.

Or readers of Yahoo! News. They redesigned it a few months ago to be more stupid. I had to switch to Google News, which isn't ideal but it is less stupid.

Didn't Turkey ask for NATO to get involved?
Ambassadors from the alliance's 28 member nations held an emergency late-night meeting at NATO headquarters, at Turkey's request, to discuss the strike.

And again:
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said on Tuesday a poison gas attack in Syria last week which killed hundreds of people constituted a "crime against humanity" and poses a test for the international community.
[...]
Turkey, a NATO member bordering Syria, has emerged as one of Assad's most vocal critics during the two-and-a-half year conflict, sheltering half a million refugees and allowing Syrian rebels to organise on its soil.

I'm not sure how you consider that "staying out of it"...?

Some Mexican-ish places have recently opened (and become a bit trendy) in London. I bought some kind of wrap thing for about £6 (only a little more than what a McDonald's meal costs, I think), and it was like trying to eat a whole newborn baby.

Mexico is even more overweight than the US though, so it's not that surprising. They do seem to have more fresh fruit and vegetables in Mexican meals, so that could be a plus...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/america-fattest-obese-un-144341236.html

I met a group of Americans from NYC at lunchtime at a conference in London. It was a nice meal -- probably would cost £15-20 from a restaurant, except there were only two choices (meat / vegan). All the Americans in the group agreed that although the portion was smaller than they were used to, the quantity of food was adequate. Several of them also said they felt overweight in London, but didn't at home as they were "average". (London is significantly below average for obesity in the UK.)

There's probably research on why, but in the UK being given far too much food in a restaurant isn't really seen as a good thing; it's wasteful. It may go back to memories of rationing from WWII being in the culture.

Your limited world view is not fact

I was searching for Archer quotes, but I accidentally found this:
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/hindenburg-omen-very-ominous-high-technical-warning-sign-163004190.html
I wonder if there is a relation?

Cite:
http://my.news.yahoo.com/half-americans-eat-fast-food-every-week-080408947.html

And your opinion that EVERYONE eats at McDonalds all the time is completely baseless. Many people eat there, but a big chunk of the population almost never do.

You want full control? You can't handle full control! Nobody can. Self driving cars will save thousands of lives. It will be that much safer. The proof is in the airline industry. Operator error is by far the most important factor in all accidents.

You mean, the same airline industry that is now questioning whether pilots rely too much on automation technology?

Hindsight - it's always 20-20.

The Cubans don't want them there, and they haven't cashed any of the checks for the 'rental'.

The previous Cuban government was content to cash the checks, and Castro's government did cash the first check they received. They haven't cashed more as a protest against the US by the communist Cuban government.

Since there were Cubans that crossed the fence from Cuba proper to Guantanamo and back to work on a daily basis until 9 months ago, there are do doubt some Cubans that were content to see them there. Most likely there would be well over a thousand Cubans working there as there were in the past, but the communist government won't allow retiring Cuban workers to be replaced by other Cubans. As a result, the very good wages by local standards are not being paid to Cubans, but to workers imported from the Dominican Republic and the Philippines. Given Cuba's anemic economy the communist Cuban government is harming Cuban workers to spite the US.

Since many Cubans have tried to escape Cuba over the years to get to the US, it seems likely that there are more fans of the US than you let on.

1994 Cuban Exodus Remembered

When Fidel Castro announced that his government would not stand in the way of Cubans who wanted to flee the island, Domingo Perera saw the chance he had been waiting for.

A carpenter, Perera already had made rafts and tried to leave, only to be thwarted and imprisoned four times. After Cuba opened the door in August 1994, Perera, his daughter and nine others launched a raft toward the United States....

Today, Perera, 55, is a published author who owns a tile business on Florida's Gulf Coast. He said he is glad he risked fleeing his homeland.

"I never complain about this country," he said. "I tell people, `You have to thank God that this country opened its doors to you.' "

During a month in 1994, more than 35,000 rafters, or balseros, left Cuba for the United States, many aboard flimsy homemade rafts.

Marielitos' Stories, 30 Years After The Boatlift

In April of 1980, Cuban leader Fidel Castro declared the Port of Mariel open, permitting Cubans to freely depart for the U.S. In the next six months, an estimated 125,000 Cubans arrived in a massive wave on American shores. "Marielitos" remember their journeys on the 30th anniversary of the Mariel Boatlift.

I suspect that most of the Cuban people are bigger fans of the US than you. Maybe you have had a chance to wave a "Castro Si!" banner enough?

Oh look, it says the same fucking thing!

11. INDEMNITY
You agree to indemnify and hold Yahoo! and its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, employees, partners and licensors harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys' fees, made by any third party due to or arising out of Content you submit, post, transmit, modify or otherwise make available through the Yahoo! Services, your use of the Yahoo! Services, your connection to the Yahoo! Services, your violation of the TOS, or your violation of any rights of another.

Wow. My comment gets modded down, but the one I replied to is just as wrong, yet no down-mod.

It does seem that the original post is based on pretty thin evidence so I'll post this to give your post a little more attention (I get a Karma bonus and you would too if you logged in and posted coherently)

Thank you. I'm not on my normal PC right now, and don't feel like figuring out or resetting my password.

As for my style, I wanted to be as ridiculous as the AC I responded to.

And people say this site is full of righty conservatives rather than lefty liberals.

There is a huge range of views here. Most of the mods seem to leave alone stuff they disagree with and mod up good comments.

Yes, I know there is a range of views. I just think it's funny that certain partisans on the left act like they are the lone liberal voice, when they obviously are not.

This is what you are told to do in the moderation guidelines. If you post anon, it only takes the first person to be annoyed by your comment and it's gone. In this context you haven't said at all what you meant. "One of his books" is about the most annoying way of saying it possible. Even if I look up accusations against Obama's treatment of the constitution I can't find any such thing. It would really help if you gave an actual quote and said what you think is wrong with it.

No, I was making up the "in one of his books" line, to go with the original false claim of Bush saying it. I have read one of his books, by the way. It gives great insight into his current actions and policies.

Wow. My comment gets modded down, but the one I replied to is just as wrong, yet no down-mod.

It does seem that the original post is based on pretty thin evidence so I'll post this to give your post a little more attention (I get a Karma bonus and you would too if you logged in and posted coherently)

And people say this site is full of righty conservatives rather than lefty liberals.

There is a huge range of views here. Most of the mods seem to leave alone stuff they disagree with and mod up good comments. This is what you are told to do in the moderation guidelines. If you post anon, it only takes the first person to be annoyed by your comment and it's gone. In this context you haven't said at all what you meant. "One of his books" is about the most annoying way of saying it possible. Even if I look up accusations against Obama's treatment of the constitution I can't find any such thing. It would really help if you gave an actual quote and said what you think is wrong with it.

Linked from the first paragraph of the index page is the following text (copied from a mirror of the site): "I, Martin Manley, being the creator and owner of all information on the site "MartinManleyLifeAndDeath.com", neither hold nor retain any claim or copyright on any part of this web-site. I do not grant these rights to any individual person or entity either in life or upon death. Rather I release all rights to this work -ï making it public domain. Anyone can do with it whatever they wish. Martin Allen Manley August 15, 2013"

From the general Yahoo terms of service: "You agree that your Yahoo! account is non-transferable and any rights to your Yahoo! ID or contents within your account terminate upon your death."

From the Yahoo web hosting terms of service: "You agree that you will not: [...] promote physical harm or injury against any group or individual".

There are laws and rules that require publicly traded companies to maximize stockholder profit.

No no no no!

It's not really true. It's not completely false to talk about the need of public companies to take into consideration , but there are significant problems with the argument most of the time you see someone trot out that line. Shareholder wealth maximization is a consideration, but is by far need not be be-all, end-all goal from a legal perspective. This is particularly true in this scenario of 20% time, because if the board thought that 20% time was a good thing to have from the company's perspective, they would be completely allowed to implement it.

"While the duty to maximize shareholder value may be a useful shorthand for a corporate manager to think about how to act on a day to day basis, this is not legally required or enforceable. The only constraint on board decision making is a pair of duties â" the âoeduty of careâ and the âoeduty of loyalty.â The duty of care requires boards to be well informed and to make deliberate decisions after careful consideration of the issues. Importantly, board members are entitled to rely on experts and corporate officers for their information, can easily comply with duty of care obligations by spending shareholder money on lawyers and process, and, in any event, are routinely indemnified against damages for any breaches of this duty. The duty of loyalty self evidently requires board members to put the interests of the corporation ahead of their own personal interest."

"But if shareholder value thinking is counterproductive, how did it become so prevalent? Non-experts often assume the approach is rooted in law, and that public companies are legally required to maximize profits and shareholder returns. This is pure myth. Thanks to a legal doctrine called the business judgment rule, corporate directors who refrain from using corporate funds to line their own pockets remain legally free to pursue almost any other objective, including providing secure jobs to employees, quality products for consumers and research and tax revenues to benefit society."

"[Dodge vs. Ford Motor Company] is frequently cited as support for the idea that "corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth." The following articles attempt to refute that interpretation. ... In that context, the Dodge decision is viewed as a mixed result for both sides of the dispute. Ford was denied the ability to arbitrarily undermine the profitability of the firm, and thereby eliminate future dividends. Under the upheld business judgment rule, however, Ford was given considerable leeway via control of his board about what investments he could make. That left him with considerable influence over dividends, but not as complete control as he wished."

"Many of us have heard that corporations are legally required to maximize shareholder value. Guess what, they are not. The law in the United States does not require management to maximize shareholder value (except under rare circumstances such as when the company gets put up for sale). This may surprise you because you've also probably also heard that shareholders own the corporation. That's not true either."

And finally, to make things ever more interesting:

"In case law speak, judicial commentary articulating an opinion and not decisive to the case is known as "dicta" and is not binding in the court of law. The comments that have made Dodge v. Ford the si

"You agree to indemnify and hold Yahoo! and its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, co-branders and other partners, and employees, harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys' fees, made by any third party due to or arising out of Content you submit, post to or transmit through the Services, your use of the Services, your connection to the Services, your violation of the TOS, or your violation of any rights of another." - http://info.yahoo.com/legal/uk/yahoo/utos/en-gb/details.html Or, to put it another way, no they don't.

I was gonna rant about refunding the estate for the residual value of his contract, and for the 5 year domain registration.. or at least transfer it to his estate.. BUT.. Yahoo's TOS specifically deals with death.
"No Right of Survivorship and Non-Transferability. You agree that your Yahoo! account is non-transferable and any rights to your Yahoo! ID or contents within your account terminate upon your death. Upon receipt of a copy of a death certificate, your account may be terminated and all contents therein permanently deleted."

Allegedly, this was in effect for a while.. the page
http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/utos-173.html
says it was last updated March 16, 2012.
For a man who made a living with his words, maybe he should have read the TOS ( short by some comparison). Or, maybe like the false 'treasure hunt', he knew Yahoo would cancel his account, and through both methods he gains some post-mortem notoriety. Either way.. I hope he gets some pleasure out of all this attention to his life being generated today.

The death penalty was already taken off the table--solely with the intent of taking away a major incentive for countries to grant Snowden asylum, and in hopes of improving the chances of getting him extradited.

http://news.yahoo.com/no-death-penalty-snowden-convicted-us-says-213552147.html

And you believed it? You got to be incredibly naive to believe ANY promise from the US Govt after the number of lies they have told related to this by now.

I don't think Putin is THAT stupid. Of course, whether he cared if Snowden will die in the hands of the US is another thing entirely.

The death penalty was already taken off the table--solely with the intent of taking away a major incentive for countries to grant Snowden asylum, and in hopes of improving the chances of getting him extradited. http://news.yahoo.com/no-death-penalty-snowden-convicted-us-says-213552147.html

These dramatic price hikes look like Microsoft is working to stem the tide of massive losses with increased revenue in their core product domains.

Microsft is still an extremely profitable company - Profit margins of over 28%.

But their stock price hasn't done much in over a year - It's about where it's at in March of '12.

Wall Street doesn't like that. They want growth.

MS, I think, is hoping that this will give a revenue and profit boost to help the stock price.

In meantime, I just see MS throwing ideas at the wall and seeing what sticks.

I don't necessarily see cuts - although that is a quick way to boost profits short terms - I do see possible acquisitions.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/americans-giving-passports-jump-sixfold-105958873.html Americans renouncing U.S. citizenship surged sixfold in the second quarter from a year earlier as the government prepares to introduce tougher asset-disclosure rules. Time for Lulzsec and other convicted freedom fighters who get slapped with million dollar fines to defect to China, the bastion of human rights.

Where are you from, the 18th century? He was convicted in California, "debtor's prisons" are illegal in every US jurisdiction.

Are you sure?

How did breast cancer survivor Lisa Lindsay end up behind bars? She didn't pay a medical bill -- one the Herrin, Ill., teaching assistant was told she didn't owe. "She got a $280 medical bill in error and was told she didn't have to pay it," The Associated Press reports. "But the bill was turned over to a collection agency, and eventually state troopers showed up at her home and took her to jail in handcuffs."

Although the U.S. abolished debtors' prisons in the 1830s, more than a third of U.S. states allow the police to haul people in who don't pay all manner of debts, from bills for health care services to credit card and auto loans. In parts of Illinois, debt collectors commonly use publicly funded courts, sheriff's deputies, and country jails to pressure people who owe even small amounts to pay up, according to the AP.

Under the law, debtors aren't arrested for nonpayment, but rather for failing to respond to court hearings, pay legal fines, or otherwise showing "contempt of court" in connection with a creditor lawsuit. That loophole has lawmakers in the Illinois House of Representatives concerned enough to pass a bill in March that would make it illegal to send residents of the state to jail if they can't pay a debt. The measure awaits action in the senate.

"Creditors have been manipulating the court system to extract money from the unemployed, veterans, even seniors who rely solely on their benefits to get by each month," Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan said last month in a statement voicing support for the legislation. "Too many people have been thrown in jail simply because they're too poor to pay their debts. We cannot allow these illegal abuses to continue."

[...] I have to disagree with your view [...] that only corporations are amoral

Such is not my view, so I would welcome you to reject it. In our age, however, the amoral quality of modern corporations has profound consequences because of their prominence--hence my focus on them. But perhaps my position will be clearer in light of one of your statements.

It would not be unreasonable, then, to say that the product morality of a corporation is derived from the collective morals of its shareholders, individually weighted by the number of shares each owns.

I do not think we can say that the product morality of a given corporation is derived from the collective morals of its shareholders. The purpose (telos, if you will) of a corporation is to create wealth. The distinctive means by which it accomplishes this end is by securing investment through reducing an investor's risk by limiting liability and pooling resources. In theory, as you indicate, an individual shareholder given proportional control over the company (i.e. over its board of directors, depending on how the company is structured) would exercise a proportional degree of moral agency over the company. Therefore, a high proportion of moral shareholders voting conscientiously would lead a corporation to engage primarily in moral actions, or at least to attempt the same. If that were the end of the story, I would agree with you.

In practice, however, corporations are not owned directly by individual, conscientious shareholders who act as moral agents by making discrete moral decisions with regard to the companies direction. In practice, there are intermediate institutions between individual shareholders and corporations which calculate investment in corporations on a strictly monetary basis--the kind of calculations that computers can--and with a little help from human expertise aimed at the same end--do make. These intermediate institutions include mutual funds, pension funds, IRAs, banks, venture capital and other investment firms. These, not individual shareholders, own directly the bulk of most major corporations. Take as an example the following numbers from the American Petroleum Institute (a pro-fossil fuel lobby). If you take their stats, individual ownership of the fossil fuel industry is about 23.9% of the total. The majority is owned by mediating institutions: pension funds (31.2%), mutual funds (20.6%), IRAs (17.7%), "other" institutional investors (6.6%). To offer another example, a cursory glance at the major holders of GM will show that the overwhelming majority of shares are held by institutional investors. You'll find a similar tale with most major corporations.

There are important consequences to this fact. When you get a job, be it as a teacher, policeman, professor, factory worker, or in lower level management in retail, you may be offered one or more plans for retirement benefits. Regardless of whether you choose the pension (if you're lucky enough to have that option), the 401k, or something else, you are indirectly becoming a shareholder in a great many major corporations. Your ownership of any individual corporation is not direct, it is managed by other people, and it is vanishingly small. With your ownership so small, even if on your two weeks vacation from your factory job you traced precisely through whom you owned what and how, you could not exercise any effective control in the corporation. With ownership so heavily mediated, there is no direct means of exercising agency with regard to that little you might theoretically claim as yours. Your retirement fund managers will try to do well by you, calculating what investments are most likely to yield returns and adjusting investments accordingly--sometimes at lightning speeds. But with such a responsibility, they're even less likely than you to evaluate purchases based upon the morality of a given corporation's actions. It is a

Because they don't look as nice when in the shop next to a transmissive screen - they can't really show black very well. They're also more expensive.

You also didn't look very hard
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110630125130AAmTSQP
There are several laptops mentioned there.

It was the 5th result when I Googled "transflective latop".

And as we all knew would inevitably be the case, the DEA has been GETTING data from NSA intercepts and laundering it.

The DEA is getting the data and then falsifying the source of the data. And not telling the court or anyone about it. To protect national security is one thing, but to conduct non-national security operations using the data seems to me to be a blatant violation of the constitution.

http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-u-directs-agents-cover-program-used-investigate-091643729.html