Slashdot Mirror

Fairly healthy, you can read more about them here: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=MSI+Profile

Sure, here you go:

Google indefinitely withholds Android source from non-privileged partners

Google tries to suppress "highly confidential" Android source code in court case

Google memo admits they "use compatibility to make [Android vendors] do what we want"

Shall I go on, or are you and other fans going to robotically repeat the term "FUD" as if that somehow dismisses all facts?

Google is effectively paying an amount roughly equal to their 2010 profits.

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Google agreed to pay $12.5 billion for Motorola Mobility. Google's 2010 net income was $8.5 billion. Unlike you I didn't pull that figure out of my ass. That's according to Google's own financial statement.

And MMI's financial information indicates they have $3.05 billion cash on hand (and $98 million debt). So Google is only paying about $9.5 billion in effect.

Botanically tomatoes are fruits - I have never argued this, and it is in fact part of the point that I initially raised - but here are just a few sources that back me up. As you can see, legally and culinarily speaking, there are a whole hell of a lot of people who consider a tomato a vegetable. This is a fact. This is inarguable. All of your "technically"s aren't going to change this. This is the point that I initially made, this is the point that I have continued to make, and this is the point that you have continued to deny in the face of overwhelming evidence. My ego is not particularly connected to what people think of tomatoes. Maybe you, on the other hand, should consider why yours is so connected to putting on blinders and denying simple facts as they are.

Who said anything about "unbounded" liquidity? I merely pointed out that if dickweed up there wants to offload his dog-shit shares, who's going to buy them? Either a speculator or someone with more shit between his ears than an elephant with ears for ass-cheeks.

Hell, I'm not defending the out-and-out gamblers and, in fact, you are the one who seems to be white-knighting on behalf of shit-for-brains up there who bought 10 shares in Circuit City. Who else would spend 2 cents on 10 shares but a gambler, because that sure as fuck isn't an investment where I'm from. Even if it magically jumps back up to $5 a share, then he's made a whopping ~$49.97! Is that even enough to buy a printer cartridge in the U.S.? It certainly doesn't make for a long comfortable retirement.

What do you mean about volatility? Aside from Steve Jobs announcing his first medical leave to get a liver transplant in January 2008 and the economic recession hitting later that year, there haven't been any major drops in Apple's stock price. With the exception of the two cases I mentioned, you could have bought Apple stock at any point in the last five years, sold it a year later, and come out well ahead (and in those two cases, holding it for two years would have meant a major profit). It hasn't been a monotonic increase, but it's certainly on an upward trend at the moment, so even if there are fluctuations on a day-to-day basis, holding onto it for even a month or two is almost always enough to see a return on your investment.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL&t=5y&l=off&z=l&q=l&c=

>>I hate to go all wikipedia on you, but [citation needed].
>>You have no proof of how the police would act, or that they would treat you any differently to the way they treated Apple other than your baseless ranting.

"Microsoft and Adobe are members of REACTâ(TM)s steering committee, a group of 25 companies that includes Apple Inc., Symantec Corp., KLA-Tencor Inc., Applied Materials Inc. and Cisco Systems Inc., and acts as a liaison between industry and law enforcement."
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2009/05/18/story2.html

"The steering committee shall, at a minimum, meet quarterly to review task force activities, and provide advice, recommendations, strategic input and direction for task force consideration."
http://publicintelligence.net/rapid-enforcement-allied-computer-team-react-task-force/

"The federal Privacy Protection Act prohibits the government from seizing materials from journalists and others who possess material for the purpose of communicating to the public. The government cannot seize material from the journalist even if itâ(TM)s investigating whether the person who possesses the material committed a crime by receiving or possessing the material"

Yet they broke down his front door and "Among the items seized from Chenâ(TM)s house were four computers and two servers, an iPhone, digital cameras, records from a Bank of America checking account and the printout of an e-mail sent to Chen from Gawker Media Managing Editor Gaby Darbyshire earlier that day. The e-mail referred to Californiaâ(TM)s shield law and specifically stated that police cannot use a search warrant against a journalist to identify a confidential source, or obtain notes and other unpublished information from a news story."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/iphone-raid/

http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1795

>>Being or not being an Apple fanboy here is not relevant - we're discussing the police and their role in investigating crime and executing warrants.

It's clear you think that Apple can do no wrong, and are not at all bothered they have a paramilitary police force (that is breaking federal law) at their beck-and-call that kicks down journalists doors.

So it's not only the Swiss Franc that's strong relative to the US$. In the last 12 months, the dollar has dropped from CHF 1.05 to 0.75...

Most of the public debt of the US is actually held in the US as investments by various companies, investment funds, retirement plans, and individuals. If you are going to make some wild claim at least provide some evidence to back it up. If the provided link isn't enough how about this one that show the breakdown of the US debt that is foreign owned. China owns about 20% which is about $900 billion so extrapolating from that the total foreign held debt is about $4.5 trillion.

Having Standard & Poors downgrade the creditworthiness of the United States, and warn it about further downgrades, is a little like having the Catholic Church lecture scout leaders on the proper behavior toward boys. http://news.yahoo.com/why-congress-standard-poors-deserve-other-092005860.html

I laughed; but, I still don't know if it is funny or just plain sad.

Uhh, yeah.

http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090831071022AARpZVG

...from a few years back

They're growing too:
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=ARM.L#symbol=arm.l;range=1y;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=;

Hence I share your sentiment, this article is here purely to increase share prices. Who do you think benefits from that? There are vested financial positions behind most articles they print. They do not print real analysis.

Remember, the value of your investments can rise or fall.

The banks paid it back with funds borrowed from other government programs.

Gmail and yahoo both sign all outgoing messages cryptographically using dkim. That means that if you get a spam claiming to be from one of their accounts, you can verify that it really is from such an account. Once you've done that, you can report it: gmail, yahoo. So if the author of TFA is complaining that this can't be accomplished by sending email to abuse@gmail.com or postmaster@gmail.com, then I suppose he has a valid complaint that they're not complying with RFCs...but...that's the way it is. It's not the end of the world. Gotta use a web interface instead. Boo hoo.

The author of TFA is upset that he can't get spamming accounts shut down instantly, 24/7. I actually don't really want an internet where any random person can get my ability to send email shut down instantly. What if it's a joe-job? What if the complaint is from one of these people who just clicks on "spam" when they don't want the mail, even when it's not spam? A much better way to handle this is to limit the number of messages per hour that can be sent from a newly created account. Then if it takes a day, or three days, to shut down a spam account, the consequences aren't that bad; the spammer can't use the account to send a million emails in 24 hours. I assume that gmail and yahoo already do this kind of rate-limiting.

What would be a huge improvement would be if the remaining big email providers other than gmail and yahoo would start using dkim. Once dkim becomes universal, we can establish actual reputations for people as spammers or non-spammers.

Virtually all the spam I get these days is from small domains. Recent examples include education-portal.com, spacesaver.com, and mg-style.net. The solution proposed by the author of TFA is to bug education-portal.com to respond to email sent to abuse@education-portal.com by deactivating jones@education-portal.com. Um, that isn't going to work, because jones works for education-portal.com, and they want him to spam me. The solution is to make dkim universal enough that people can stop accepting mail from domains that don't dkim-sign. Then education-portal.com can get an online reputation as a spammer, and everyone can start blocking them in their spam filters.

Just five years ago, Charles Monnett was one of the scientists whose observation that several polar bears had drowned in the Arctic Ocean helped galvanize the global warming movement.

Now, the wildlife biologist is on administrative leave and facing accusations of scientific misconduct.

Come on. We're all adults here. We all are fully aware that global warming climate change activism is just misusing science to obtain good political results. What does it matter about the facts, so long as the narrative is correct? If climate change is "scientifically" true, then it follows that a lot of desirable political changes need to be made. Remember the Kyoto treaty? The entire idea was to destroy the evil capitalist economies of the West, while excluding the economies of Brazil, China, and India, all of whom are huge polluters. Why can't we get competent scientists who can make their results ironclad, so that we don't have this conflict between the truth and the narrative? I just don't get it. The changes they desire are good, there can be no question. Was climate change the appropriate vehicle to attach their political aspirations? After all, if a political point can be proven by science then anyone opposing it is not a noble dissenter, but a denialist. It brings to mind the old Soviet Union, when people were imprisoned for denying the scientific proof of Marxism. Why can't we imprison climate change denialists? What the fuck is wrong with these people who won't recognize scientific facts?

That's ok. rural America is only 16 percent of the population and falling fast.

"NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed."

"Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models."

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted

If you were to check the actual numbers, you'd discover that the rich pay way more than their fair share. The top 10% richest americans pay half of all taxes, while half the country pays no income tax at all.

I think that statistic just demonstrates how crazy, out-of-whack rich the top 10% really are. They pay the majority of the taxes because they have the majority of the money.

According to this page the top 10% hold about 75% of the nations wealth: Wealth Distribution Seems like if we're talking about "fair shares" then they should be paying about 75% of our taxes and not just 50%.

Well there is that old saw about paying their fair share. I don't know about you, but I'm more than a little angry that people of tremendous wealth pay lower tax rates than me (as well as the vast majority of the American public)

If you were to check the actual numbers, you'd discover that the rich pay way more than their fair share. The top 10% richest americans pay half of all taxes, while half the country pays no income tax at all. I don't know what kind of a perverted mind can call this arrangement fair. If anything, it is the poor who are not paying their share.

Close the proposed loopholes and end the Bush tax cuts.

In case you have forgotten, the Bush tax cuts only reduced the top bracket by 4%. 4%*50%*$2.7e12 = $54 billion - practically a rounding error in the budget. Furthermore, neither this nor closing loopholes will likely result in actual revenue increases. The rich have accountants who know how to pay less in taxes (legally, and fairly, as you can see from the totally unfair payment distribution above) and will rearrange those incomes that used to fit into those loopholes into whatever other ventures that avoid your tax increase.

Use the money to *actually* stimulate the economy through public works

Yeah, sure, and do you expect the government to "stimulate" the economy continuously? You left wingers think that all the underlying economic problems will just go away if you spend enough money, while forgetting that it is this excess spending that has created the problem in the first place. The housing market can't "rebound" because bubbles by their nature are not self-sustaining. You can't have continuous growth - eventually the prices come down, supply is bloated, and lots of people employed in the sector become unemployed. That's perfectly normal when you create fake demand by government subsidy and then stop it. Government spending creates bubbles - which create people employed in making things nobody needs. Why are you surprized that they are now unemployed? Why should we all continue funding the creation of things nobody needs? Stop government spending, and things will go back to normal after a time.

I'm all for reducing spending, but hacking up the safety net in a time of great national need is irresponsible and cruel.

When you donate your money to charity, you inevitably create people who start to depend on it. When you can no longer afford to donate, those people will suffer. It's a fact of life. The United States can no longer afford to give out as many handouts as before, so people depending on them will suffer. More debt is not the answer. Getting people off welfare is the answer. Stop printing money so we can get some deflation, and our wages will finally be competive in the world market, which will bring jobs back home. Default on the debt, so the interest rates can rise and give those poor retirees some interest income on their savings accounts. Get rid of social security by immediately refunding all the money paid into it. Do these things and you'll have a balanced budget without having to steal more money from everybody by raising taxes.

I'd love for the middle class to pay for it. I'd love for the lower class to pay for it too. I'd love for the upper class to pay for more of it.
The fact of the matter is nearly half of Americans who are whining about the rich not paying their fair share, pay no federal income tax. Considering those are the same people who demand free health care, free school lunches, for the government to pay them not to work, I'm not so sure it's the wealthiest Americans who need to pay their "fair share". As soon as the number of Americans paying something that resembles taxes - even if it's just $100/year - gets closer to 20%, I'll listen to you bitch about the how the Rich aren't paying their fair share.

P.S. I'm middle class.

And IIRC, that was the other part of the license agreement: you had to charge the same amount for in-app and out-of-app purchases. So no, you can't mark up the in-app purchase price to cover the Apple tax.

I'm grudgingly willing to allow that Apple can set whatever rules they want about what apps running in their ecosystem must and must not do. I'm much more pissed off that they're setting pricing policies for third parties, especially for purchases that don't go through any part of the Apple store.

That was the case, yes. However Apple backed down on the requirement to have the same amount for in-app and out-of-app purchases. If I charge a subscription fee outside my application for content as long as I don't have a direct "Buy" button or link to my store Apple will let it pass. If, however, I want to sell content within the app I must pay the 30% to Apple and use their API. (Source: Steve Jobs Blinks! Apple Backs Down On App Subscription Rules)

...professionalism, responsibility, and minimizing damage
All of which rests on some set of unprovable axiological premises.

Consider the fact that your rights end where they infringe on another person's.
Give me a measurable, quantifiable, provable definition of "rights" and I might take you seriously. ...I haven't actually managed to kill anyone yet
So, you don't buy or wear clothes in an industrialized country?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour#Present_day
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homelessworld/message/22807

"... Canada would become a haven for actual criminals ..." You mean as opposed to war criminals? http://news.yahoo.com/canada-releases-names-suspected-war-criminals-205701047.html

Did they pay it back?

Yes, with money borrowed from the treasury.

All of which is to say that these banks repaid cash owed to a program run by the Treasury Department by. . . borrowing from another program run by the Treasury Department.

Classic pyramid scheme. Perhaps that is why an unfinished pyramid is on our money.

Don't make a straw man argument about infrastructure. I'm talking about the billions of dollars in useless federal and state regulation, taxes that are taxes upon taxes. The ponzi scheme that is social security, which just came under threat from the Obama administration of having its funds cut off even though only $.25 on the dollar go to pay current benefit recipients, meanwhile the federal government has been borrowing $.75 of every dollar paid into social security. And they have the audacity to tell us, sorry now we're going to borrow $1.00 of every dollar paid into the already empty fund! You can keep payin' us but we're going to be paying our federal workers and entitlement programs with that money. And what's Obama's solution to the problem? Raise taxes by 1 trillion!

"The feds" don't print money, "the fed" (federal reserve bank) prints money which in turn is borrowed by "the feds" (federal government). The federal reserve bank is no more the federal government than federal express. They are two different entities, one of which ("the fed") was quite unconstitutional. They borrow money from foreign governments and others in the form of t-bills that must be paid back with interest. That goes to 1. devalue the currency because more is in circulation and 2. borrowing on behalf of the public makes the public liable to pay back such funds, and was the unconstitutional bit, along with having a currency that is not backed by gold as it was intended by the framers. How now it is constutional when then is wasn't? The Living Constitution. Duh!

"General welfare" is perverted in numerous ways thanks to the liberal doctrine of the Living Constitution. Now that the flood gates are opened to the free interpretation of the meaning of the words in the constitution welfare can mean just about anything. As James Madison said: " What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense." Indeed, that is the key reason why the government today is so alien to the principals of founders. If you can take "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" to mean " we shall infringe upon the right to bear arms any time we damn well please." what can't you do?

I love the dumptruck analogy, but I'm not convinced of the math. Let's see if we can work it out:

A dumptruck has a volume of approximately 722 cubic feet (17 x 8.5 x 5) source. Converting that gets us 1,247,616 cubic inches.

A harddrive is 3.5" x 102 mm x 25.4 mm source. Or about 14 cubic inches.

This means that roughly, we can fit about 89,115 hard drives into a dumptruck, assuming everything fits perfectly.

The largest commercially available 3.5" harddrive is 3 TB. This means that we're going to have 267,343 TB on our truck.

Driving across the country takes 26 hours assuming no stopping. Source

This yields 267,343 TB / 26 hours = 2,138,744 Tb / 26 hours = 2,138,744 Tb / 93,600 seconds = 22.849 Tbps = 22,849 Gbps.

Compare that to a commercially available 10Gbps link available from any business class provider, and you're going to trounce them. The latest stuff is 100Gbps, which you should be able to get a hold of if you're willing to shell out right now, but it's still a blow out. You are indeed correct.

A couple of other items to note:
1. You can add a day at the front and a day at the back to load and unload the truck and you're still around 10 Tbps.
2. If you add another 2 days to collect all the data, write it to harddrives and then do the same 2 day process at the back end, you're still around 5 Tbps.
3. A more fair comparison is probably not using such a slow mechanism like a dump truck (I understand it's there to prove a point in your analogy). But instead use a cargo plan. You'll get 23,200 cubic feet of storage out of a Lockheed C-5 Galaxy cargo plane which is about 32 dumptrucks. Also, you can get across the country in 6 hours, even assuming some landing and takeoff. If you still assume it takes several days to load and unload the plane, you'd probably be up in the 1 Pbps range.
4. I was trying to think what would be the fastest way to load and unload the truck, and then I realized I was insane for trying to calculate such a dumb thing. The real answer here is to build storage arrays on the truck and have it roll back and forth. Essentially, it's a mobile data center. You have a few hundred 10 Gbps ports on the rear of the truck to plug in, and you can download all of your data on and off of it pretty quickly, without manual labor beyond plugging in a port. Further, this would be a very fun way for the Pirate Bay, or someone similar to distribute data if they ever wanted to go physical (and thus blatantly break the law). Once a week, the Pirate Bay truck would roll into town and all the kids could plug in the back to download petabytes of information before it leaves for the week. A fun concept, if nothing else.

Agreed, and to answer Dunbai, look up this. People do bet agaisnt currencies with the purpose of getting even MORE MONEY. This man is well hated on Fox news and the Hannity show as someone who bets agaisnt' American and foreign curreinces by shorting it in strange tradings. So yes dollars are being manipulated and traded upon as well in financial products.

I agree with Dunbals postings as it is now gambling rather than investing, but I need money as do many others. Stock market may crash if Moody downgrades the US bond rating. My savings account pays .01% interest! Where do I go next? Bitcoins is the next wave. I personally wont invest in it as I missed the opportunities if I ran my FreeBSD partition and 8 months ago and could have generated a couple hundred dollars of free money.

If real jobs come in with affordab;e gas, housing, and lower debts then I wont have to look into such strange ways to generate income. But everyone else is doing it which means if you are there first you can cash in and make $$$. In Florida I knew people who made $300,000 and are set for retirement just from flipping houses before they were even finished being made. They stopped when it look overheated. Wouldn't you want tha kind of money?

If jobs come back to the US then I think people will act more sensibly. In these times people will always try to make a buck. I laughed at the lawyer copyrighting bitcoins when his wife has a collection.

I do not consider it real currency at all, but an interesting investing experiment.

not just control freaks. They are fattening their wallet while on their job.

http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-town-disarray-mayor-alleges-corruption-012411346.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPY3BIsVQq8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C6uQ1O6dTk

Welcome to USSA!

It isn't like it would put them out of business, but it could shrink the profitability a lot and no company is interested in that.

Take a look at the P/E ratio on AAPL of 16+, analysts' earnings and one (1) year target estimates; not exactly a bargain, considering the risks (Android is both a serious and viable competitor), if you ask me. Plus, if Apple fails to meet expectationsor worse starts missing on quarterly earnings because of Android then look out below because Apple has a long ways to fall, especially given the fact that its meteoric rise in recent years is due in no small part to the fantastically profitable iPhone. If you want to see an example of how quickly the markets and Wall Street can punish a tech company that fails to deliver on expectations, look no further than RIMM which some commentators now refer to as, "wasted research, downward motion". Research in motion is down 63% from its 52 week high; that's brutal if you were a buyer any time between then and now.

I consider myself to be a fairly savvy investor, but the smart phone market changes quarterly and the pace of new handset releases, especially Android phones, is only increasing. There are many unknown variables, including killer apps or features, that are both disruptive and come out of nowhere on a regular basis. This may be good for consumers, but that level of risk and volatility, especially in a narrowly focused company like Apple with a healthy stock premium, is high risk and high stakes for all but the hardiest and best informed investors. I'm not a buyer of Apple, especially at these prices, because (a) the stock is expensive and (b) the risks in a disruptive and unpredictable business, like the smart phone business, with plenty of well informed insiders, are too high. In my opinion, most small investors would be well advised to steer clear of these rocky shoals. Alternatively, the telecoms have come down in price somewhat and all of those smart phone users are still paying $30+ per month, in spite of the jobless recovery, for their data plans.

It isn't like it would put them out of business, but it could shrink the profitability a lot and no company is interested in that.

Take a look at the P/E ratio on AAPL of 16+, analysts' earnings and one (1) year target estimates; not exactly a bargain, considering the risks (Android is both a serious and viable competitor), if you ask me. Plus, if Apple fails to meet expectationsor worse starts missing on quarterly earnings because of Android then look out below because Apple has a long ways to fall, especially given the fact that its meteoric rise in recent years is due in no small part to the fantastically profitable iPhone. If you want to see an example of how quickly the markets and Wall Street can punish a tech company that fails to deliver on expectations, look no further than RIMM which some commentators now refer to as, "wasted research, downward motion". Research in motion is down 63% from its 52 week high; that's brutal if you were a buyer any time between then and now.

I consider myself to be a fairly savvy investor, but the smart phone market changes quarterly and the pace of new handset releases, especially Android phones, is only increasing. There are many unknown variables, including killer apps or features, that are both disruptive and come out of nowhere on a regular basis. This may be good for consumers, but that level of risk and volatility, especially in a narrowly focused company like Apple with a healthy stock premium, is high risk and high stakes for all but the hardiest and best informed investors. I'm not a buyer of Apple, especially at these prices, because (a) the stock is expensive and (b) the risks in a disruptive and unpredictable business, like the smart phone business, with plenty of well informed insiders, are too high. In my opinion, most small investors would be well advised to steer clear of these rocky shoals. Alternatively, the telecoms have come down in price somewhat and all of those smart phone users are still paying $30+ per month, in spite of the jobless recovery, for their data plans.

The hands-free issue is moot:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2008/10/17/cellphone-handsfree.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2012393/Distracting-hands-free-devices-dangerous-mobile.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
http://www.tgdaily.com/mobility-features/57097-hands-free-calls-could-be-just-as-dangerous-on-the-roads
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/jun/30/mobilephones.uknews
http://socialtimes.com/distracted-driving-dangerous-but-no-evidence-hands-free-laws-help_b69790
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/hands-free-cell-phone-usage-equally-dangerous-while-driving/
http://news.yahoo.com/hands-free-cell-phone-usage-equally-dangerous-while-170124007.html
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/hands-free-phones-more-dangerous-for-drivers-than-alcoholic-drinks.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2012393/Distracting-hands-free-devices-dangerous-mobile.html
http://www.iol.co.za/motoring/industry-news/hands-free-phoning-just-as-dangerous-1.1096622

Seems it was published everywhere except mainstream US media, which strongly indicates that it's true but contrary to corporate interests. I guess more accidents translates to more car sales. Ideally cars should be as safe as possible for the driver and passengers, but difficult to drive (i.e. small windows, confusing/distracting features, controls, and meters), and most importantly more likely to be written off from even minor collisions. Sounds about right. Too bad about the bad wrecks that kill people, but hey, business is business.

Exactly. The problem is ANY distracted driving. Once your mind is on something else, it's not on the task of driving. Hands-free doesn't even solve the problem, since you are still mentally distracted: Hands-free cell phone usage equally dangerous while driving

The point is, pay attention to the road first... not the phonecall or other person. The priority needs to be the road, not anything else in the car.

You mean like trickle down (80-88) voodoo economics (88-92) free trade with countries with no environmental laws (92-2000) and of course lets cut them taxes on the rich a lot! (2000-2008) and finally bailout baby bailout! (2008-present) like that?

Look at what the tax rates were during the best times of this country such as the 50s (which the Rs idolize) and today. You will see that taxes on the top 5% have never been lower not in the ENTIRE history of our tax system. Not once.

So if the libertarian/republican trickle down "Its the gubment!" theory held true, we are living in a utopia right now. Are we? hell in just the last 10 years with EVER lowering taxes on the top 5% we've lost 21,000 FACTORIES even as the politicians tripped over themselves to give ever larger tax cuts to the top 5%, oh and the middle class? They are just about DOA. If the "give the rich more money" theory was sound, where are the results? Where is the trickle down?

Oh right it is actually trickle upon, as in they piss on the peasants while lining their pockets. well that is how revolutions get started my friends. ever hear a little ditty called "no taxation without representation"? Or what the tree of liberty needs to be watered with? If those at the top think the other 95% are just gonna go quietly starve to death in a corner you got another thing coming. Hell we have our own soldiers taking oaths to FIGHT THE GOVERNMENT that trained them! Think this is a coincidence? I think when the shit hits the fan they are gonna find like old Mo Mo the military? Well they got families too and they ain't rich.

It ain't gonna be pretty but perhaps it is just what this country needs. No government lasts forever, just look at how many they have been through in Asia and Europe. Maybe it is time to start over.

well that *is* a lot of money for a scrap of cloth.

Actually you get a little more than the scrap of cloth.

"Moser said he had Neil Armstrong sign a photo of the flag planted on the moon when the astronaut returned to Earth and he kept the picture and his rescued scrap of flag together in his NASA office until he retired in 1990. But after hanging onto the photo and flag-swatch assemblage all these years, he finally decided to put them up to auction.."
http://news.yahoo.com/swatch-moon-bound-flag-unsold-la-auction-032542272.html

In fact, facebook has bigger privacy problems than google+. Here are a few examples:

Facebook thinks they own your friends list, and actively try to block you from downloading it: http://news.yahoo.com/facebook-blocks-friend-exporter-plugin-053907002.html. Google+, on the other hand, has a "data liberation" tool that lets you download all of your infromation in a few clicks.

Facebook does not let you prevent people from tagging you in photos. You can remove the tags, but not stop them from appearing in the first place. Google+ lets you configure this, and I have set it so all tags of myself have to be vetted by me.

Facebook is run by someone who calls his customers "dumb fucks" for being so stupid to give him their data.

If only there was a tool where we could all host (or serve) our own Pages.. We could link them together, almost like a web of pages. Of course, it would have to have standards, follow established protocols, and have a tool to "browse" the pages.

hmmmm

From http://geocities.yahoo.com/index.php

The GeoCities service is no longer available, but there's a lot more to explore on Yahoo!

Also Yahoo provides free disposable addresses. You can have 500 free active addresses and then just delete some old ones if you need new ones. Those also clearly identify the service those are linked to. So it's easy to know when something leaks. I got really worried when I started to get spam to email address that I had only given to one bank. It makes you think, about customer information security. Yahoo disposable addresses

...if your junk ...

The word you're looking for is: penis. Why is everyone having such a hard time (no pun intended) with this? It's not like it's "He who must not be named" or anything. (In case you're living under a rock.)

Hmmm. While looking for alternates, I came across this:

Because we're taught to think that our penises are dirty and we should be ashamed of any sexual actions," Adam ... said. "We live in a society based on Puritan beliefs, so by calling it 'junk' we are perpetuating the notion that penises are despicable."

That may be a bit too serious but it's an interesting thought. Or is penis one of the 7 words you can't say on TV?

[citation needed]

MSRP sources.
Tesla Roadster: $109k-128k; Lotus Elise $51-55k
Nissan Leaf: $33k. Nissan Versa or Ford Fiesta: $15k.

12k average miles, a bit high for a 2 door coupe or a short ranged electric car. It's 48 miles a 'work day' - 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year. 33 miles for 365 days a year. Thus, I consider this 'high end' for a car that has a range of 73 miles.

Sport Option:
12k miles@23mpg(Elise) = 522 gallons, $2.1k fuel cost(@$4/gallon). $50k@5% interest = $2.5k. IE you can pay the increased fuel costs by leaving the money in investments to pay for the gas. Admittedly, this doesn't include maintenance, but even at a couple thousand a year it'd take quite a few for the cost of oil changes, engine maintenance to make up that cost difference; by the time that happens you'll be looking at needing to maintain the batteries of the roadster, not cheap itself. Add in that unless you're getting the electricity for free; you're actually 'only' saving 50-80% of the fuel costs.

Economy Option:
12k miles@30mpg = 400 gallons, $1.6k fuel cost. With an increased cost of $18k, that's a decade of fuel, with some left over for maintenance.

I stand by my remark that, outside of special circumstances, electric vehicles are currently more expensive overall.

I figure that my mile estimates are high, I didn't put gasoline maintenance in there, but neither did I figure in battery changes nor the cost of electricity for charging.

they have whatever cost they have right now, although that cost may not have been established.

Have I established that, at least under ordinary circumstances, electric vehicles are more expensive?

Google search does not dictate the terms by which people use it to search the web.

Huh? Yes it does.

http://www.yahoo.com/
http://www.bing.com/

Do either of those links work for you? That is what is meant by dictating the terms. To draw a comparison to the Microsoft saga in the 90s you could not physically purchase a desktop computer without Windows on it, and you could not physically run a copy of Windows without IE. With Google you're free to come and go as you please.

Google search does not have a lack of viable competitors.

Really? Name one viable competitor then. Yahoo uses Google for a backend, bing is not viable in itself (it only exists as part of MS's anti-google strategy), and there's no-one else I can think of with any kind of marketshare in the west.

You just named two. What Yahoo uses in its back end is completely irrelevant. But by your own admission you've basically just said that Yahoo is the same as Google, so why not use it? You get an alternative homepage, alternative set of services, the same high quality results, and quite critical to the discussion of the GP you don't get an advert for Chrome.

As for Bing, depending on who's figures you read they have a 15-30% market share. So it seems to be quite a viable alternative to many people. Suppose just of the top of my head I want to find a website that deals IT news. The top set of results are similar (though not identical) to Google's. They are also quite relevant for my local with The Australia's IT section listed 3rd for me (7th on Google). A perfectly valid set of results. They also offer a news search, an image search, etc.

I won't use the service because I frigging hate Microsoft products, and their childish UI design, but that's my bias against the company and not a discredit to the results their search engine produces.

So again, Google Search is not a monopoly. You're free to try and use others if you want. If you LIKE Google Search more than the competition, well that's entirely your decision, and not Google's. If it were Google's decision then it would be a monopoly, but unless www.bing.com doesn't work for you...

Too bad the ol' Ag has gotten really expensive recently, "despite" the recession and all the all the stimulus.

You know that you don't have to take your iPad out of your bag when you go through security right?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ytech_gadg/20100407/tc_ytech_gadg/ytech_gadg_tc1503

I've flown with mine in my bag numerous times and I've never had an issue.

Since when?

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/who

"In general, who tends to predominate over whom in informal contexts. Whom may sound stuffy even when correctly used, and when used where who would be correct, as in Whom shall I say is calling? whom may betray grammatical ignorance. Similarly, though traditionalists will insist on whom when the relative pronoun is the object of a preposition that ends a sentence, grammarians since Noah Webster have argued that the excessive formality of whom is at odds with the relative informality associated with this construction; thus they contend that a sentence such as Who did you give it to? should be regarded as entirely acceptable."

It's as natural to me as he/him, likewise with many people I know

Personally, I don't know anybody who makes a point to use it, especially in conversation. I've never found it's usage natural, and if I were to use it, I'd have to stop and think about it. It's just one of those antiquated forms that have very little actual use in everyday language and is best off left for dead.

and nobody has ever had a problem with that.

Lots of people won't even tell somebody they know that their fly is open, let alone tell them that they don't like their manner of speech.

I am not trying to troll but if one really wanted to stir the pot with this ruling just mention that it would allow data mining of individuals who have taken the morning after pill or other similar ones (I don't know if they exist)

This is a bit of straw-manning of what the actual case was about. From another article on the subject.

Pharmacies are required by state and federal law to get that information when they fill prescriptions. They sell the information, without patient names, to data mining companies that, in turn, provide drug makers with a detailed look at what drugs doctors choose for their patients..

The data-miners aren't going to know who is taking what, only what pills doctors are prescribing. This makes the "privacy" argument on the other side lose a bit of luster. I could admit that people could use this data to help find out who is actually taking what, but there are probably other ways of legally preventing marketers from connecting the dots. Furthermore, the law did not restrict the doctor prescription data from being released at all, only that certain types of people couldn't use it for certain types of purposes. The majority found this law to be very selectively targeting specific uses of information to pass constitutional muster, and I think I agree with that.

I don't want anyone to pay more than their fair share in taxes

Well then you obviously must support raising taxes on the poor to pay for healthcare. After all, half the country pays no taxes, and the richest 10% pay three quarters of all taxes. Surely you don't think this fair? The poor are the ones who will be using this universal health care, so why should the rich be the ones to pay for it all? I don't know what definition of "fair" you could have in that twisted mind of yours, but this situation certainly does not fit mine.

I would gladly pay more than I do know if that is what it took to provide healthcare to all. How you can live with yourself when you believe innocent children and anyone too infirm to work should die I do not know.

The issue is not whether they should die or not. The issue is whether you have the right to use force to take my money to pay for their survival. There is a huge difference between charity and welfare: the former is voluntary, the latter is done at the point of a gun. You said that you would gladly pay more to provide universal health care; so why don't you do that? There are charities that provide free health services to the poor and you are free to contribute. Why do you insist that I and everyone else in the country must be robbed in order to pay for these services? How can you live with yourself when you advocate using violence to deprive people of their hard-earned property?

It is not customary for a member of the U.S. Marine Corps to use the title "soldier."

Some people may argue that "soldier" is a generic term that can be applied to any servicemember. However, in actual use, "soldier" specifically means a member of the Army. U.S. servicemembers are referred to as soldiers (USA), sailors (USN), airmen (USAF), or Marines (USMC). Calling a Marine a "soldier" is akin to calling a Senator a "Congressman" - using the term may be technically correct in a very narrow sense, but that's not how native speakers with contextual knowledge use the term, and you are suggesting that the person in question has not earned the right to be counted among the members of a smaller, specialized body.

(To counter the argument that this is somehow elitist: very few Marines, even Recon Marines, would look down their nose at Deltas, who are unambiguously "soldiers." But the Marine Corps has a distinctive culture and history. Would you tell a Hmong family "Thai is a generic term that refers to someone from Thailand. Hmong would be a subset of that. The only reason someone would object to conflating the terms would be if they were Hmong and were overly sensitive"?)

http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40051
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061108110349AAcUIiC
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22soldier+in+the+Marine+corps%22+OR+%22Marine+soldier%22+OR+%22Marine+Corps+soldier%22
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22soldiers%2C%20sailors%2C%20airmen%2C%20and%20Marines%22

Yes, it's happened several times in history.

From http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090827010233AAJCv3o

It has happened more than once, from the time of Jackson to Lincoln, we had nothing but one term Presidents and the incumbents were not all renominated by their party.

1844 - John Tyler was elected VP in 1840 to William Henry Harrison, when he died Tyler became President and ran a program favorable to the Democrats rather than the Whigs. The Whigs kicked him out of the party and in 1844 nominated Henry Clay. The Democrats didn't trust Tyler either, so they nominated James Polk.

1848 - James Polk was not renominated by the Democratic Party, instead they nominated Lewis Cass, who lost to Zachary Taylor.

1852 - Millard Fillmore became the President upon the death of Zachary Taylor and when he signed the Compromise of 1850 became so unpopular that he was not renominated in 1852 by the Whigs. Instead they went with Winfield Scott who lost to the Democrat Franklin Pierce.

1856 - Franklin Pierce was not renominated by the Democrats in 1856, instead they chose Democratic party hack James Buchanan. He was such a non-entity that he was not renominated in 1860 on any of the parties that the Democrats had broken up into over slavery.

1868 - Andrew Johnson was not renominated by the Republicans, he was passed over for US Grant.

1880 - James Garfield won the nomination over the sitting President Rutherford B Hayes.

1884 - Chester A Arthur became President after Garfield was killed and James Blaine was nominated in his place.

1928 - Calvin Coolidge became President upon the death of Warren Harding and was replaced on the Republican ticket in 1928 by Herbert Hoover.

1952 - Harry Truman was replaced on the Democratic Ticket by Adlai Stevenson who lost to Ike.

1968 - Lyndon Johnson was replaced on the Democratic ticket of 1968 by Hubert Humphrey who lost to Richard Nixon.

It happens more often then one might think, I heard a few days ago that Hillary may once again challenge B.O. for the nomination in 2012.

Chaos is upon us

it already is ...
ICANN approves expansion of Internet domain names

ICANN will receive applications for new domain names - the fee is $185,000 and the form is 360 pages

360 pages for an application form? for crying out loud ...

Given Apple's cash reserves couldn't it just buy every major carrier in the country? I'm sure it could buy ATT, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, et al, with the loose change in the couches at the Apple campus. :) Given Internet access is pretty much already a local monopoly with no competition what would it matter? At least with Apple in charge they would have an incentive to get rid of the caps.

Apple alegedly has US$50 billion in cash,

Comcast's market cap is US$65 billion.

Asuming that Apple actually has the money, they might be able to negotiate Comcast down to that but chances are Comcast will go for a higher price as they have no need to sell, forcing Apple into debt.

This is just Comcast, AT&T (~ US$160 B) and Verizon (~ US$100 B) are bigger.