Slashdot Mirror

It's not like they are claiming damages for just one year

If the hyperbola in the fricking summary can be believed, then they are claiming damages for all infringement dating back to 1877, when the phonograph was invented by Edison. ^_^

IIRC, Edison went on to lead a small company that's called General Electric. I'd like to suggest that the RIAA should go after the real bad guys and launch a Multi-Trillion lawsuit against one of the world's richest companies (whose market cap is $200 Billion).

I get that point, but someone always wins when gravity crushes "everyone but one" into the ground. For every mass of closing stores there's a rich conglomerate jumping up in joy since customers *them now* at monopoly pricing.

Millionaires don't care if they lost their temp gigs (the kind that doesn't indebt himself like a Wallstreet gambler^W trader anyway). Those mega-platinum contracts, audiophile cables, Mercedes Benz's, thousand dollar suits, alienware PC's and diamond plated laptops don't buy themselves and have been fine for years or decades, and if some died during a recession, someone else continued their trade with their stolen know-how or something.

Only the masses suffer and adapt during a true recession, but the rich find something else to sell them for cheap if trends change.

ORLY?

"Opponents urged the judge to reject the deal on antitrust, copyright and privacy grounds and said it would give Google exclusive rights to digitize "orphan works" -- out-of-print books which remain under copyright but whose authors cannot be traced."

Mar 22, 2011

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110323/ts_alt_afp/usitcompanybooksinternetgoogle_20110323003301

It sounds like an exclusive rights deal to me.

I don't think AT&T wants T-Mobile's 3G 1700/2100 service. I think they're planning on decommissioning those, and recommissioning as 1700/2100 LTE. Will they need to relicense T-Mobile's towers if they only switch the protocol? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110321/ap_on_hi_te/us_at_t_t_mobile_usa_phones

So maybe it is better this way, just let the courts sort it all out so that then either Linux developers can pay some RAND license and never have to deal with whatever the patents cover again, find a way around it even it if doesn't work as well like Theora, or just throw out everything that is covered and find new ways of doing it.

I think we will be more likely to redouble our efforts to tear down Microsoft for good. Seems to be working out pretty well so far.

Because apparently AT&T wants to repurpose T-Mobile's 3G spectrum for 4G. Source: AP via Y! news.

Gadhafi already called for a ceasefire Friday before the deadline, to talk things about with the rebels.

This isn't a peace talk. This is the West imposing their will on the Middle East again.

First Gaddafi broke his own "cease fire".

As for who is imposing their will, it appears that Gaddafi imposing his will on the African country he has ruled for 41 years. Strange that you would support a dictator. I guess you may have a case if the dictator had stayed in power by winning free and open elections for over 40 years, but that's not even the case here. It's not like the population is laying flowers down at his feet. There is an open rebellion going on over there.

So, again, it doesn't seem like it's the west imposing their will. It looks to me like the west is trying to remove the people out from under the oppressive rule of a dictator.

Go ahead and tell me where I'm wrong here.

You realize, of course, that engineers don't make funding decisions?

Yes, but they do have the ability to influence them. Also being able to incite public outrage by disclosing nuclear safety risks gives them a lot of leverage.

I think you overestimate the influence of engineers, I mean look at the GE employees back in the 70's that argued that this reactor design was dangerous and could suffer from a containment explosion and breach:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20110318/wl_csm/370818_1

They quit their jobs and their concerns were dismissed and the reactor went on to be sold. And so far, 40 years later, the failure mode they warned about hasn't happened (not even at Fukushima).

And that's the problem with arguing against rare events or complicated failure modes - it's hard to say that they will definitely happen. When an engineer starts waving his arms and says "Hey! Wait, when the thingamagig rubs against the widget for 20 years and someone presses the big red button, bad things will happen", there's plenty of wiggle room for the powers-that-be to explain it away as an extremely rare set of conditions that won't happen. And most of the time they are right. Rare failure modes are just that... rare.

LIkewise, when an engineer says "Hey, for only $25M you can install another set of generators up the hill to protect against a Tsunami that scientists say is unlikely", people nod their heads and say "Yeah, that's a good idea"...until it comes down to funding it.

I would have thought the absolutely economic necessity of an uninterrupted power supply would also be a good inducement to spending money. Particularly when a stagnating economy would benefit greatly from a large public infrastructure program.

But they had batteries, and redundant generators (6 of them?), as well as being tied to the grid. Apparently the design spec for the facility didn't count on such a large Tsunami washing over it. Or maybe it did - I haven't seen any definitive details on why the generators failed. Maybe they were in watertight containment structures and some automatic safety control opened the air intakes and tried to start them while the air intakes were still under water? If that did happen, then that *is* an engineering failure, though maybe outside of the engineer's control if someone said "To prevent a runaway reactor in the event that the plant is abandoned, the generators *must* be started after 15 minutes on battery power regardless of what the water sensors say". I really don't know what happened...do you?

Yes it will be interesting to see just how epicly they failed here. Pumping water is such a trivial task and in this case so vitally important that I'm absolutely astounded it is a problem in 2011.

Yes, but you still don't know the root cause of the problem. Is it really an engineering failure if back when the reactor was designed, scientists said that a Tsunami of the magnitude that occured was a 1,000 year event and could be discounted over the projected lifetime of the facility? Engineers don't often have the luxury of overdesigning - they design to spec (which includes a safety factor).

Designing some generators to withstand a tsunami is not an engineering challenge. For one thing you can simply place them 30m or so above sea level with a risk factor of 0.

But what do you do when you have a 31m Tsunami? After all, Sendai was hit by 30m waves...Alaska was once hit by a 500m Tsunami. And why would you even put 100 tons of generators on top of a tower when you can bury them in watertight enclosures?

Not having readily available alternatives is an engineering failure. This situation is disgraceful and and frankly I've been quite disturbed on how the nuclear industry has responded to these problems, downplaying th

There's no need to go into a panic so quickly.

Only if the city is a mere 180 meters (600 yards) "East" to "West" *. Nobody needs to be a gun nut to know city buildings' walls and gravity bring bullets to a stop sooner than you seem to think.

Even if everyone were our world's single 1.5-mile-record-holding war sniper, that killing shot had to compensate for 6 seconds of gravity and use a special long-distance rifle. An object (bullet) falls 177 meters in that time. The sniper managed to shave that downward path to only 120m. At 3 meters per floor, the bad guys need to secure a window from a 40 to 60 story building and/or shoot well computed arches into the sky. Average street tugs have training for close range guns, shotguns and maybe machine guns (ha!) and none of those tools are known for sniper-level ranges. Cities tend to be

* See LineFinder's second comment

TEPCO's corporate culture has for years been about as bad as they come: Bungling, cover-ups define Japanese nuclear power

Leaks of radioactive steam and workers contaminated with radiation are just part of the disturbing catalog of accidents that have occurred over the years and been belatedly reported to the public, if at all.

In one case, workers hand-mixed uranium in stainless steel buckets, instead of processing by machine, so the fuel could be reused, exposing hundreds of workers to radiation. Two later died.

"Everything is a secret," said Kei Sugaoka, a former nuclear power plant engineer in Japan who now lives in California. "There's not enough transparency in the industry." Sugaoka worked at the same utility that runs the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant where workers are racing to prevent a full meltdown following Friday's 9.0 magnitude quake and tsunami.

In 1989 Sugaoka received an order that horrified him: edit out footage showing cracks in plant steam pipes in video being submitted to regulators. Sugaoka alerted his superiors in the Tokyo Electric Power Co., but nothing happened. He decided to go public in 2000. Three Tepco executives lost their jobs.

Anyway what I currently find the most surprising is not the design of the reactors themselves but of the cooling ponds. The principal argument put forward by the countless arrogant and condescending pricks that here on slashdot and elsewhere sigh and call you a "luddite joe-six-pack" when you dare express concern about the risks posed by radio-nucleide pollution is that this danger is simply non-existent with current reactors because, contrary to how it was with Chernobyl, the 100 tons of fissile material in the core are hermetically contained and no radiation will ever escape from there ever.

Then I learn that on top of the building are stored 1600 tons of the same material if not worse, i.e., basically nuclear waste, the very nuclear waste that is going to be burried under Yucca mountain and of which not one milligram will ever get out of there during the next hundred thousands years, promised (the USA are four hundred years old by contrast). This material is encased in spontaneously flammable zirconium rods and requires active cooling, without which it boils away its swimming pool in a few hours and ignites.

So if I'm not mislead this design implies that in case of a final LOC accident, of which we were inches away it seems, in fact exactly one hydrogen or steam explosion away, that would have spilled enough radioactivity around to force the japanese to abandon the site, we would have seen about 1600 tons of radioactive waste going up in smoke in the atmosphere. And there are several pools, and one at least contains plutonium for good measure. Am I on track here? Is this even conceivable? Does anyone have any idea of what the consequences would have been? It seems to me that nobody dared really discuss this worst-case scenario because it at this point there was simply nothing to be discussed anymore.

ExtJS sucks.

Yes, it has a lot of features. But no, it doesn't scale well when what you need is granular control of how javascript loads and executes, and it doesn't help multiple developers working on different modules. Lots of hardcoded references to global objects, long namespaces, HUGE file downloads. It just doesn't add up. Sencha needs to really step up if it wants to stay competitive with a paid product.

Way better alternatives are YUI3 and GWT. Even ideas such as Wijmo perform better.

If a random blogger is going to submission spam slashdot with all of his two paragraph blogs plagiarizing news articles, the least he could do is actually LINK to some genuinely useful coverage of the story on a reputable sites...

• www.heraldsun.com.au
• www.dailytelegraph.com.au
• au.news.yahoo.com/
• www.torontosun.com
• www.nydailynews.com

the author loses credibility on a few points... the radioactive cloud irradiated sailors from the Ronald Reagan... impossible by the author's explaination, yet it happened. Also, his claim the reactor is safe and will stay safe is suspect. There indeed was subsequently a third explosion. I'd say his facts are suspect.

There haven't been three explosions, thanks for spreading the ignorance. That's exactly the point of calling out "journalists" on their sensationalist bullshit. Now stop your pointless spamming of more or less the same (wrong) post all over this topic.

there has now

yes. NOW there was a third blast.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_japan_earthquake_nuclear_crisis

As you will well know, the trouble with nuclear power plants is that when they fail, they fail spectacularly.

Like deep-sea drilling platforms? Or oil refineries? Or tailings ponds near mines?

You do know that radiation isn't the only type of pollution that can kill tens of thousands of people and render large tracts of land unusable for long periods of time (impacting the livelihood of yet more tens of thousands), yes? I mean look at this explosion (one of several due to this quake): lots of people are going to get sick and die as a result of god knows what fumes that's spewing, and there's no way to even try to contain those fumes. How is that an acceptable risk to build while nuclear plants (the ones currently failing in slow-motion giving people time to evacuate and adapt containment strategies) are not?

That and the nuclear waste, which seems to be an unsolved problem that is just silently ignored

The nuclear waste "problem" has been studied extensively, and technical solutions already exist, both in terms of reducing the existing waste and in terms of reducing the amount of waste to be produced in the future. The only people ignoring anything are the NIMBY oh-it's-not-100%-safe crowd, and the only thing they're ignoring are the actual solutions which already exist and would be built today if not for fucking politics.

And Germany, where they stored the trash in a salt mine and now have to dig up the leaking containers.

Neat how all the waste was in one place where they could get to it to fix the problem. Funny how that doesn't work with the sort of exhaust that coal plants produce...

I'll not go into the situation in Russia, because that just makes me sick to the stomach.

Russia has a problem because they didn't care to handle the waste responsibly. First it was more important building the great Soviet arsenal, then it was more important raping what was left of the economy so there would be no money to deal with the problem. That's, again, a political problem, not a technical one. It certainly isn't restricted to the nuclear industry.

See China for more of the same.

Neither coal or nuclear energy is currently at a level where it can produce clean, safe energy at this time.

Correct, in the sense that nobody can guarantee you that no radiation will ever leak anywhere ever at all. However nuclear is demonstrably many times safe-er than coal, and will continue to be so even if both of these plants go full Chernobyl. It's silly to piss ourselves over the prospect of nuclear accidents when we already accept not just the risk, but the actual fact, of far greater environmental damage in order to run our coal-fired plants and drive our cars.

It's pathetic that we refuse to replace a terrible, continuously polluting, and highly prone to catastrophic failure solution with one that produces only a tiny fraction as much ongoing pollution and is only slightly prone to catastrophe, because the average person is under the impression that radiation is that much scarier than toxic fumes and iridescent mining sludge.

I don't know how it is in the US, a lot of the time this is all self-taught. Because pretty much no-one seems to teach HTML/CSS/JS/etc. properly in school/university and so on.

Javascript is one of the most used programming languages and because it looks simple or familair most people assume it is, but in reallity it is the probably the least understood language by frequent developers. Most have no clue what prototypal inheritance is for example.

Also the Javascript name is just a marketing ploy because it has nothing to do with Java.

The core of the language is very small and was created and working in just 10 days.

It is a functional programming language with a C-syntax.

With the recent creating of node.js (a fully event-driven framework for writing network programs) Javascript has also become much more populair on the server.

Node.js was created in 2009 and is already almost the most watched project on github.com for example.

There introduction video where the creator/author explains what it is about:

http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/theater/video.php?v=dahl-node

So it is just an event-loop just like a webserver like nginx.

One of the design goals is actually:

The API should be both familiar to client-side JS programmers and old school UNIX hackers.

I guess that applies to me twice. :-)

So, it is a computer version of Derren Brown?

Adobe should have just stood their ground, and used THEIR bulk to break Apple, not the other way around.

Not much of a chance:

ADBE :
Revenue: US$3.8 billion
Net income: US$775 million

AAPL :
Revenue $26.7 billion
Net income: US$6 billion

Adobe should have just stood their ground, and used THEIR bulk to break Apple, not the other way around.

Not much of a chance:

ADBE :
Revenue: US$3.8 billion
Net income: US$775 million

AAPL :
Revenue $26.7 billion
Net income: US$6 billion

My football has only three downs you insensitive clod!

Actually, the blog 55 Yard Line has an excellent article on whether or not more coaches should go for it on third down based on yards to go for a first down and the line of scrimmage.

I try it,and so much better site isyahoo.
I understand why you recommend the following sites.
My favorite one is finance INFO..

Actually, according to a study done last month, an estimated 57% of internet users log into Facebook at least once a month. Sorry.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110224/tc_afp/usitinternetfacebooktwitteremarketer

Sorry, you missed one, probably just a simple mistake on your behalf...
Red Hat market cap: $7.90 billion dollars

Oh riiight, I forgot, it is bad form to remember that a large amount of the FOSS comes from companies, even the Kernel.

Microsoft market cap: $218 billion dollars
Apple market cap: $331 billion dollars

Oh riiight, I forgot, it is bad form to criticize people who insult FOSS developers because it makes US look bad.

Microsoft market cap: $218 billion dollars
Apple market cap: $331 billion dollars

Oh riiight, I forgot, it is bad form to criticize people who insult FOSS developers because it makes US look bad.

Thats odd, but doesn't change my point, 451C is WAY higher temperature than 451F. According to this quick Google result though, it is 450 F:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080903111520AA5XA5k

I don't know how accurate their supporting links are, but either way, as someone below stated, sparks can't ignite paper, so as I was saying, I wouldn't be to concerned.

So I am retarded for pointing out the title of the book that was based off science?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080903111520AA5XA5k

Yes, paper ignites at 451 deg F, and can be treated to raise that temperature, one other person in that thread specifies 450 deg, and another says the glue catches at 451, but all of these are for paper, not cardboard. I would not be concerned about the normal heat caused by components igniting the box, especially when speaking of MiniITX boards which are designed to be passively cooled. I have never seen a normally functioning piece of equipment that went this high without a thermal shutdown. There is the possibility of a fire starting from a malfunctioning piece of hardware, but as that is extremely rare, would concern me just as much as in my desktop case sitting on my wooden desk, or my parents computer that is completely enclosed in a desk.

Involuntary man-slaughter might be involuntary, but it still lands me in the slammer. Compare that to what happened in the gulf explosion. People died, nothing happened to anybody.

First: the explosion occurred less than 1 year ago. I think it's safe to say that we haven't even begun to see the end of the lawsuits that will occur as a result of this, but you can see here that there are already several hundred lawsuits filed in the US over the event, and it appears as if more criminal charges may be coming.

Second: it's entirely possible for you to accidentally kill someone, and have no charges filed as a result - accidental deaths do happen, and unless there is specific negligence or recklessness on the part of the person who "caused" the death, there may not be criminal liability at all - the law does not impose a liability for failure to act unless there is a specific requirement to act codified by law. There may still be civil liability for wrongful death, however. Given the nature of the event, and the fact that multiple factors and conditions contributed to it, it's possible that there is simply no way of pinning the blame for this on a single person's actions or inactions.

And that has nothing to do with the "corporation" - if people are criminally liable for their negligence, and it can be proved, you will see people stand trial for it. Suggesting that the largest spill & disaster the oil industry has ever seen should have all its legal loose ends tied up less than a year after the event is a pretty tall order, especially when investigations are still ongoing.

Because people can band together in the legal construct of corporations, individual responsibilities for activities carried out under the banner of the corporation get diluted to the point of being null. This creates immense freedom for individuals to act in manners that are not accessible to individual people, or people in single-person corporations.

This has nothing to do with corporations per se, and everything to do with the fact that in large groups of people working together, it's often difficult to determine where one person's culpability begins and another person's ends. Unions aren't incorporated - does this mean that wrongdoing (and hiding that wrongdoing) is somehow harder for them because of it? The mafia isn't incorporated - are they a model of transparency and clear lines of responsibility & liability?

What incorporation DOES grant people is the existence of a single entity to sue for damages & wrongdoing, and who has assets which can be forfeited to satisfy judgements against them for wrongdoing. Let's turn it around: if you work for a company that files for bankruptcy protection, and I'm a creditor, should I be able to go after your house? After all, you draw a salary from a company which owes me a lot of money - aren't I entitled to recover the money owed to me from the assets of the people involved in the group of people who are stiffing me? I could certainly make a legal argument, if you do away with the idea of corporate personhood, that your house was paid for with money which rightfully should have been used paying me for the goods & services your employer got from me, and then failed to pay for. The fact that you work for a *corporation* protects you from having to defend yourself against actions like this.

You were "isolated from the rest of the prisoners" for a weekend . Manning has been in "maximum custody" solitary confinement for about seven months . If you are trying to draw a parallel between these two events then you, sir, are truly an idiot.

The accusations come not only from Manning's lawyer but from Amnesty international and by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture.

But, hey, why don't you do some reading on the subject yourself?
For example, here's a statement by a psychiatrist and expert witness.
Or, since we are all so big on peer review an citations, try asking Google Scholar.

Oh, just so you won't be under the impression that Manning is an isolated case, there are some 100,000 more like him.

Well, Sarah Palin's in the process of trademarking her name, and as a controversial (yet wealthy) politician, it's a hell of a tool to have at hand.

And yes, yes, free speech, political freedom, etc, etc - the only hope I have is that when she starts dropping C&Ds around, someone else is wealthy enough to fund the defense suit. Otherwise you can be completely in the right and yet too poor to win.

What metric are you using? Hewlett Packard beats Apple soundly in the Fortune 500.

Market cap. AAPL is over $300B while HPQ is significantly under $100B.

I'll give you that while Apple's revenue may have doubled in the year since your citation, it's still only $76B. HP is currently pulling in nearly twice that. It's also interesting to note that Apple's operating cash flow is twice that of HP.

I can understand wanting to use annual revenue as a metric of company size, and I can even come up with a few justifications. Within the context of companies needing armchair quarterbacking to tell them what industries they need to cater more to, I hope you can see my perspective that the one with the lower operating margin, return on equity and quarterly revenue growth need more help.

What metric are you using? Hewlett Packard beats Apple soundly in the Fortune 500.

Market cap. AAPL is over $300B while HPQ is significantly under $100B.

I'll give you that while Apple's revenue may have doubled in the year since your citation, it's still only $76B. HP is currently pulling in nearly twice that. It's also interesting to note that Apple's operating cash flow is twice that of HP.

I can understand wanting to use annual revenue as a metric of company size, and I can even come up with a few justifications. Within the context of companies needing armchair quarterbacking to tell them what industries they need to cater more to, I hope you can see my perspective that the one with the lower operating margin, return on equity and quarterly revenue growth need more help.

What metric are you using? Hewlett Packard beats Apple soundly in the Fortune 500.

Market cap. AAPL is over $300B while HPQ is significantly under $100B.

I'll give you that while Apple's revenue may have doubled in the year since your citation, it's still only $76B. HP is currently pulling in nearly twice that. It's also interesting to note that Apple's operating cash flow is twice that of HP.

I can understand wanting to use annual revenue as a metric of company size, and I can even come up with a few justifications. Within the context of companies needing armchair quarterbacking to tell them what industries they need to cater more to, I hope you can see my perspective that the one with the lower operating margin, return on equity and quarterly revenue growth need more help.

What metric are you using? Hewlett Packard beats Apple soundly in the Fortune 500.

Market cap. AAPL is over $300B while HPQ is significantly under $100B.

I'll give you that while Apple's revenue may have doubled in the year since your citation, it's still only $76B. HP is currently pulling in nearly twice that. It's also interesting to note that Apple's operating cash flow is twice that of HP.

I can understand wanting to use annual revenue as a metric of company size, and I can even come up with a few justifications. Within the context of companies needing armchair quarterbacking to tell them what industries they need to cater more to, I hope you can see my perspective that the one with the lower operating margin, return on equity and quarterly revenue growth need more help.

You should read your home theather system manual. If that's too much, read this : http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080125184700AAB57dY

btw, title is incomplete: CIA also loves to sell^H^H^Hhow some more modern warfare to the public...

So, I'd say, what about taking the CIA executives (and staff) and sending them back to the shithole superstitious fucktards also name the Promised Land.

Dude, Coca-Cola is worth $145B

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=KO&ql=1

If you dkim-sign your own outgoing email, you can go through a process with yahoo http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/postmaster/forms_index.html to tell them that, and if the info you provide satisfies them, your mails are less likely to end up in users' spam boxes.

I have a virtual server that has it's own IP. I run a handful of domains on there, and I tried to go through this process with yahoo.

They denied me because I run multiple email domains on the same box! They want me to have a different server for each domain, each with it's own IP.

I've had similar problems.

The clueful email service providers are yahoo and gmail. They both support dkim and sign all their outbound mail with dkim. They both have mechanisms for reporting dkim-signed spam from their users ( http://mail.google.com/support/bin/request.py?hl=en&contact_type=abuse and http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/classic/spam.html ). If you dkim-sign your own outgoing email, you can go through a process with yahoo http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/postmaster/forms_index.html to tell them that, and if the info you provide satisfies them, your mails are less likely to end up in users' spam boxes.

The one that doesn't work for me is AOL. Any email I send to their users goes straight to the bitbucket. I have never been able to find any mechanism for convincing them that I'm not a spammer. I'm sending mail from a dedicated server with a permanent IP address, SPF, DKIM, and reverse DNS all set up properly.

This whole trend is really upsetting to me, and totally broken. I never have a problem sending email to someone with a gmail.com address, and they have the best spam filtering of any email provider I've ever used. The shortcut of blocking any DSL IP is clearly unnecessary if Google can do such a good job without it.

It baffles me that some large email providers like hotmail and AOL don't implement DKIM. The added CPU load is negligible on a modern machine. I'm not saying that DKIM is a cure-all, but it works much better than these silly, ad hoc measures like blocking all vanity domains. If someone with a yahoo account sends spam to someone's gmail account, the user can report it to yahoo, yahoo can verify the dkim signature so they know it really came from that account, and they can deactivate the account. If someone sends spam to a gmail account, and they claim to be a yahoo user but they aren't, google can detect that it isn't properly signed and trash the mail.

I've had similar problems.

The clueful email service providers are yahoo and gmail. They both support dkim and sign all their outbound mail with dkim. They both have mechanisms for reporting dkim-signed spam from their users ( http://mail.google.com/support/bin/request.py?hl=en&contact_type=abuse and http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/classic/spam.html ). If you dkim-sign your own outgoing email, you can go through a process with yahoo http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/postmaster/forms_index.html to tell them that, and if the info you provide satisfies them, your mails are less likely to end up in users' spam boxes.

The one that doesn't work for me is AOL. Any email I send to their users goes straight to the bitbucket. I have never been able to find any mechanism for convincing them that I'm not a spammer. I'm sending mail from a dedicated server with a permanent IP address, SPF, DKIM, and reverse DNS all set up properly.

This whole trend is really upsetting to me, and totally broken. I never have a problem sending email to someone with a gmail.com address, and they have the best spam filtering of any email provider I've ever used. The shortcut of blocking any DSL IP is clearly unnecessary if Google can do such a good job without it.

It baffles me that some large email providers like hotmail and AOL don't implement DKIM. The added CPU load is negligible on a modern machine. I'm not saying that DKIM is a cure-all, but it works much better than these silly, ad hoc measures like blocking all vanity domains. If someone with a yahoo account sends spam to someone's gmail account, the user can report it to yahoo, yahoo can verify the dkim signature so they know it really came from that account, and they can deactivate the account. If someone sends spam to a gmail account, and they claim to be a yahoo user but they aren't, google can detect that it isn't properly signed and trash the mail.

Even if you have a non-cable modem IP, it can be difficult to send (opt-in) business email from a small mail server. The reason is that spam filters at major email providers like Yahoo are turning to whitelisting, and you have to contact each major provider to avoid getting your email sent straight to the spam filter.

Since the implementations of spam filters at the server level seem to vary quite a bit, I tend to avoid sending particularly important single emails through my own small email server for fear they just end up in the spam folder of the recipient.

That said, in general I wouldn't trust a business-class cable modem connection to host an email server for business purposes. Virtualized servers are commonplace now and quite affordable (I pay $15/mo for mostly personal use). Set up the backup on your own connection.

Really? less incompetent?

I of course don't make mistakes, but what do you think would happen if for example you wiped 8.5 billion dollars off of the value of your company?

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=NOK+Basic+Chart&t=3m

Do we have a world record here Mr. Elop?
 

When someone who everyone thinks is a pretty big asshole punches another guy in the nose and says, "MAN, that guy is a fuckin' asshole!", wouldn't that give you pause for a moment?

It'd be like Mike "The Situation" Sorentino calling someone a douchebag, Ballmer telling someone not to throw a chair, or (in one of those cases where life is stranger than fiction) Charlie Sheen telling Lindsay Lohan, "Work on your impulse control. Try to think things through just a little before you do them."

You can hold a short for as long as you can cover your loses.

You are thinking of a put option. With that you not only need to guess the date but how far down you expect the stock to drop.

A review of Put option premiums on apple could give us a 'market forecast' for Job's death. Looking at http://finance.yahoo.com/q/op?s=AAPL&m=2011-05 I see call option premiums dropping and puts raising. No action to speak of more the $100 out of the money. Option premiums go up for out of the money options as they go further out, but that is expected.

More useful to know is what Nokia did when compared to similar technology stocks. That makes it clear that the 20% drop was real, not just falling with similar market sentiments for other companies. See the yahoo finance 3mo chart, it makes it very obvious that the 20% drop was real and other companies did not have similar results. That's against the NASDAQ, it's similar for other indices.

For the majority of us latitude isn't in that 45-50 deg range. It seems Auroramax offers live aurora streaming from one of those frigid locations in Canada. Search engine results don't seem too encouraging on variety for this, though.