is that it's hard for a lot of managers to figure out who's valuable. Most smaller shops hire IT staff because they don't have the expertise in-house already. It's not like a cook that hires an assistant cook and can watch them and know if they are skilled or unskilled. I think most IT for smaller organizations are easy marks for unskilled IT, that can be incompetent and still appear valuable because the people doing the hiring and the managing can't properly assess a person's skills before OR after the hire.
And I think this hurts the average pay. I've seen this happen a lot around here, where idiots are working IT for someone and the idiot moves on, leaving behind the managers to think that they need to find a replacement "as good as Tim", and are completely astounded to find that their new hire Jason actually knows what he's doing and is a massive improvement. Leaves them wondering "were we paying Tim too much, or are we paying Jason too little?"
So now at least they know that good IT is worth paying more for, but the rest of the hiring pool out there that hasn't learned that lesson yet doesn't consider their IT all that valuable because they currently are employing an idiot and just have no idea how much more they could benefit from quality IT.
Why the fuck are lobsters expensive and considered luxury food? Supply obviously is far greater than demand.
Quantity available is only one factor in price. Cost to acquire, transport, store, and market also add in. Live lobsters are expensive to transport and store, and lobster meet turns to mush if frozen.
There's an old anecdote that's appropriate here. If there were a huge pile of gold bars on the moon, it wouldn't be economical to go get them.
(seafood is typically cheap on the coasts, where beef is expensive. in the central and midwest, beef is cheap and seafood is expensive)
There is one important variation you need to consider. Software EULA for physical purchases does indeed usually have the EULA in the box, out of sight, without anything on the outside saying "visit www.xxx to review terms of service before purchase". But software bought electronically, and most other EULA for online services such as paypal, facebook, etc, will have a "click-through" that gives you the opportunity to not agree, not receive the product, not make the payment, and not be bound by the terms.
I was addressing the latter in my previous post, which is a lot more common, although this thread did start out more discussing adobe software, which is often physically purchased. (although the last four customers I've helped install adobe software for have all downloaded digitally after clicking through the TOS)
Unfortunately, often they are. It's more a matter of "technically, the law can consider them a binding contract", and it often comes down to a judge to decide whether or not it's truly binding.
We've seen several cases here recently where a user clicked through a TOS and clicked "agree" which caused them to waive some rights, which ended up being relevant in court later.
So in cases like these where there's an obvious "bad law" (or precedence) on the books, it usually comes down to who can afford more justice (hire more lawyers) to get the legalities "interpreted" their way determine who wins.
It's a basic problem without a clear-cut solution. Companies need to be able to protect themselves from random people that will abuse the legal system. That's why boxes of q-tips have to say "don't put in your ear". But people need that same protection from companies that also abuse it with thinks like "agree to no class action lawsuit". TOS are double-edged swords, the problem is there's no balance. It's hard to codify "common sense", there's no easy way to draw a good line. It's both a way for people to protect themselves from being taken advantage of, AND a tool to use to take advantage of others.
All brain functions are in decline throughout most of our lives, I doubt any one specific area has much more of an impact than any other. Judgement, trust, memory, reasoning, caution, etc.
Up to a certain point, sheer experience helps prevent older folks from being scammed, but somewhere there's going to be a tipping point in most people's cognitive skills in general that make them an easier mark. A headline like "Elderly found to be easier to scam!" just gets "no kidding!" from me.
I'd also wager the average 85 yr old is easier to coax into a stranger's car than the average 5 yr old.
I'm sure I'll get a reply from one or two telling me their Aunt Gracie was sharp as a whip till the day she died at 90, and you'll run into that from time to time, but those people are by far the exception to the rule.
In business this means that if Windows games always earn 10x as much as Linux games, it is foolish to assign developers to make a Linux port of a Windows game when you could have them making another Windows game because you have to account for the opportunity cost of not making the extra Windows game which will dwarf your expected benefit from making a Linux game.
That is only true when return on investment is linear, which in any established economy/market it is not. As you pour more resources into a project, (programming in particular) your return starts to level out and your ROI eventually crosses the line and goes negative. I hope you're not trying to suggest that you expect tripling your developers (on the same specific project) will triple your profit?
It's the responsibility of the business management (CEO?) to watch ROI and recognize when dumping more in isn't going to get more out. At that point you have to look at other ways to invest, one of which is diversification. Into a different market or different angle of the market you're already in, where ROI is still going to be positive. And then that is what you start to invest in.
And it's better to recognize your ROI is declining before it levels out or goes into the red. (a stage most would call "in denial") Do it when it's dropped to a low enough point that there are other attractive options to diversify into that will have a higher ROI than what your current pet project is producing. Not only does this increase your overall profit, but it also protects your business by widening your revenue base. If a new competitor moves into town, it doesn't have to affect everything you do.
Stubbornly refusing to respect this fairly basic principle has been the downfall of a great many business giants.
Sure it's Steam on Windows only. But considering it has the biggest market share, it's quite ok to do so when you want to raise money for a charity.
Every time I hear someone justify a business decision with "Since the majority of the money is here, it'll be a great idea to just completely ignore all other sources of revenue!" gives me a horrific twitch.
What is it? Are they actually teaching this in business school nowadays?
Considering the brits managed to reverse design an enigma machine based entirely on analysis of the traffic, (and were btw quite amazed at the similarity when they finally got one off a nazi sub) it's easy to see that they will go to extraordinary lengths to decrypt messages.
Reuse of an OTP would very quickly be identified and broken if your adversaries are resourceful and serious. And in world wars, they usually are.
Length isn't even relevant. Proper use of a OTP recommends simply copying the remaining pad past the end of the cleartext, or to a random length beyond it. This makes it impossible to determine the length of the cleartext. The cleartext just ends in a standard End of Message, which can only be identified by the recipient with the pad key. "We will attack at dawn. End of Message." could be transmitted as a two page block of ciphertext. It's not a waste since the pad cannot be reused in whole or in part anyway. That entire page of pad just gets torn out of the book and burned when the message is sent.
Your citation is incomplete. Key reuse is one way to weaken the encoding
Please re-read the entire cited text. Pay special attention to "never reused in whole or part"
(also, even a single re-use can completely compromise all other messages that used a given pad, if the plaintext of a single message encoded with that pad is discovered by other means)
In cryptography, the one-time pad (OTP) is a type of encryption which has been proven to be impossible to crack if used correctly. Each bit or character from the plaintext is encrypted by a modular addition with a bit or character from a secret random key (or pad) of the same length as the plaintext, resulting in a ciphertext. If the key is truly random, as large as or greater than the plaintext, never reused in whole or part, and kept secret, the ciphertext will be impossible to decrypt or break without knowing the key.
So unless you classify the key as a "clue" (rather than a cluebat) you need to rethink that.
Yes, you can offer a deal in civil violation cases, but you certainly do not get to call in police to back you up if the opponent turns down the deal.
Actually that's exactly how it works. You don't call the police directly like you're reporting robbery though. Your lawyers see a judge and file charges and obtain a warrant. THEN the police get involved and go to the defendant and gather evidence. Those extra steps are required, in theory, to make sure that a crime is likely taking place before the police get involved. At some point a judge approved this raid before it happened. The plaintiff presented evidence to support their claim, had their i's dotted and t's crossed, got the warrant, and in came the cops. That's sometimes how civil cases go.
The plaintiff can contact you and see if you want to make a deal. They can offer any legal terms, and you can accept or decline. If you accept, you're likely going to be signing a deal, that says they get xxx and they also promise not to press charges. They don't have to offer you a deal either. They don't have to notify you unless the law states some requirement.
Any other law violation you either get searched/charged or let off the hook. How about next time you are charged with (actual) theft, someone calls you first and offers to pay 600 euros to avoid the hassle? Why is this a valid option for copyright violation accusations?
Unfortunately, "any other law" doesn't apply here. This is a civil violation, not a criminal one. Its not theft, it's copyright violation. It's extortion to demand money not to turn someone in for a criminal violation, but in civil matters you are free to offer a deal in exchange for not pressing charges. In criminal cases, the D.A. is the one pressing the charges, and in civil cases it's the plaintiff's lawyer, which is why they have the option.
The plaintiffs aren't the problem here. The police aren't the problem either. The plaintiffs are simply taking advantage of the law as written for their own benefit, and the police are just playing along by the rules as required. It's the Bad Law that's to blame. You can't blame companies and greedy people for being greedy, it's what they DO. You can't blame the police for enforcing the law, it's also what they DO. The only one to blame is your legislator, who created the Bad Law, whom you voted in. That means blame yourself, and work to get the laws changed.
Makes one wonder who would be out of their mind enough to spy for north korea? Though I suppose there's good odds that anyone they let loose out of their borders has their entire family at gunpoint if they decide to run.
We'e seen a few stories recently like this, where a judge has demanded someone to turn over information that they've already agreed not to in a TOS.
Was this ever resolved, whether a judge can order you to violate a TOS? Either it's legally binding or it's not. Not variable on who's asking or whether or not it's convenient. They need to make up their minds.
That means that this is only beneficial for large scale pirating.
Like in China? The "large scale pirating" is generally where they lose most of their money. When a high schooler pirates his windows pro it's not like he was going to pay full retail price if he didn't manage to pirate it, that piracy didn't cost them a sale, despite whatever the BSA will try to convince you of otherwise.
But an entire building full of windows machines in a medium size business somewhere, that's another story entirely. That's where they really, legitimately, DO lose sales. And that's exactly where this little "bug" will be useful. This is a huge problem that kicks them where it hurts.
It's very hard to fight a confession in court. DNA evidence gives you a little bit better odds to escape justice.
He may have done it just to get it out of the way. Once they had his father and his son's DNA on file, it wouldn't take long for them to be knocking on his door, that alone fingered him. He may have decided it was more pleasant than the inevitable long and public fight to get his dna and get the legal ball rolling.
And there are some other possibilities. He might have been high when he committed the murder, and honestly had no firm recollection of the event and didn't believe he was guilty. Or may have been psychologically repressing the memory of the event.
I don't see how you can consider this a "bug"? You don't just "accidentally test a string for a specific value". This is clearly intentional operation, not a bug.
Not surprising that free software is so popular. Especially when it's the greedy manufacturers doing the shopping;)
Not only is the software free, but the maintenance and upgrades are being handled for them too. Unless you have a big company pushing you to install their OS on it (MS) this is probably going to be your best choice.
Looking back at the considerable difficulty that MS has getting Windows to run smoothly on a wide variety of hardware, it's impressive to see just how well Android manages to support such a large variety of kit. Kudos to them for that.
Also, what's to stop a cop from taking them off to do something under the table? A million excuses come to mind.
There are similar concerns with ticketing and dashcams. What's to stop a cop that has started writing you up a ticket from accepting a bribe and throwing the ticket in the trash instead of turning it in?
To address that issue, all tickets are now serialized, and there's hell to pay or lots of paperwork to fill out if you "misplace" one, making it difficult to sweep something under the rug. I expect the same sort of view will be taken with the video here. One of those "suspicious until proven innocent" if records go missing.
So many of today's squad cars have dash cams. In most cases, the cams are rolling automatically anytime the cherries are spinning, a feature the officer cannot disable, to insure accountability and reliable/consistent gathering of evidence.. Cherries up is required during a traffic stop, by long-standing rules that stand up well against any excuse. So that makes it tough for them to get around that one. "I forgot to turn on the lights" during any traffic stop just doesn't cut it, and immediately raises suspicion.
I think any police department that isn't rotten to the core with good-ol-boys will be able to reliably manage this. A "good cop" is probably going to see this as a positive thing anyway. Even though accusations rarely stick, they love to be able to walk into court when accused of excessive force etc, with a dashcam video or with a store surveillance video that shows them acting properly. An honest cop should have no excuse to hide their behavior when doing their job among the public, and should welcome it.
Truly honest departments won't fight it tooth-and-nail anytime someone requests records from them. In my book anyway, any department that puts up a fight for access to records of their public behavior needs to have a special investigations team elbow-deep up their business looking for what they're obviously trying to protect the public from seeing.
Fun fact: you are limited to 4 successful resets, per email address, per day.
Oooh, that is a fun fact! You must have been bored though?
Usually when things like this happen, people start looking for places to poke fun, like bill.gates@live.com etc. I wonder who balmer has in his skype contact list?
with the airlines sandwiched between rising costs for fuel and unsteady demand from price-sensitive consumers
I'm stunned the article doesn't include the public's distaste for dealing with the TSA as a substantial contributing factor in lower patronage. I've always assumed it was at least a relevant number. I know I don't fly anymore unless unavoidable due to TSA. I've had friends lose computers at the airlines. I'm avoiding the airports, and keeping both my dignity and my property safe.
Maybe the airlines need to do some serious lobbying to get rid of the TSA, if only to be looking out for themselves? I've heard they understand it's affecting sales, but I don't see them doing anything about it other than cowering and going along with it. Ad when their customers complain, they just blame all the inconvenience on the TSA. (who really doesn't give a damn) I can't believe they have no ability to influence change here.
If they're really in as dire straights as they're saying, evicting the TSA from their terminals ought to be somewhere on their how-to-avoid-bankrupcy list.
Coffee and cotton are both very destructive to soil, requiring large amount of fertilizer and other treatment to put back all the nutrients that those two crops remove every season.
out with the Ballmer, in with the "interim CEO" bill gates? would be interesting to see what he does with the company now that he's become more of a philanthropist. Worked for Apple, and we know how MS loves to... innovate.
Slashdot Mirror
is that it's hard for a lot of managers to figure out who's valuable. Most smaller shops hire IT staff because they don't have the expertise in-house already. It's not like a cook that hires an assistant cook and can watch them and know if they are skilled or unskilled. I think most IT for smaller organizations are easy marks for unskilled IT, that can be incompetent and still appear valuable because the people doing the hiring and the managing can't properly assess a person's skills before OR after the hire.
And I think this hurts the average pay. I've seen this happen a lot around here, where idiots are working IT for someone and the idiot moves on, leaving behind the managers to think that they need to find a replacement "as good as Tim", and are completely astounded to find that their new hire Jason actually knows what he's doing and is a massive improvement. Leaves them wondering "were we paying Tim too much, or are we paying Jason too little?"
So now at least they know that good IT is worth paying more for, but the rest of the hiring pool out there that hasn't learned that lesson yet doesn't consider their IT all that valuable because they currently are employing an idiot and just have no idea how much more they could benefit from quality IT.
Quantity available is only one factor in price. Cost to acquire, transport, store, and market also add in. Live lobsters are expensive to transport and store, and lobster meet turns to mush if frozen.
There's an old anecdote that's appropriate here. If there were a huge pile of gold bars on the moon, it wouldn't be economical to go get them.
(seafood is typically cheap on the coasts, where beef is expensive. in the central and midwest, beef is cheap and seafood is expensive)
There is one important variation you need to consider. Software EULA for physical purchases does indeed usually have the EULA in the box, out of sight, without anything on the outside saying "visit www.xxx to review terms of service before purchase". But software bought electronically, and most other EULA for online services such as paypal, facebook, etc, will have a "click-through" that gives you the opportunity to not agree, not receive the product, not make the payment, and not be bound by the terms.
I was addressing the latter in my previous post, which is a lot more common, although this thread did start out more discussing adobe software, which is often physically purchased. (although the last four customers I've helped install adobe software for have all downloaded digitally after clicking through the TOS)
Unfortunately, often they are. It's more a matter of "technically, the law can consider them a binding contract", and it often comes down to a judge to decide whether or not it's truly binding.
We've seen several cases here recently where a user clicked through a TOS and clicked "agree" which caused them to waive some rights, which ended up being relevant in court later.
So in cases like these where there's an obvious "bad law" (or precedence) on the books, it usually comes down to who can afford more justice (hire more lawyers) to get the legalities "interpreted" their way determine who wins.
It's a basic problem without a clear-cut solution. Companies need to be able to protect themselves from random people that will abuse the legal system. That's why boxes of q-tips have to say "don't put in your ear". But people need that same protection from companies that also abuse it with thinks like "agree to no class action lawsuit". TOS are double-edged swords, the problem is there's no balance. It's hard to codify "common sense", there's no easy way to draw a good line. It's both a way for people to protect themselves from being taken advantage of, AND a tool to use to take advantage of others.
All brain functions are in decline throughout most of our lives, I doubt any one specific area has much more of an impact than any other. Judgement, trust, memory, reasoning, caution, etc.
Up to a certain point, sheer experience helps prevent older folks from being scammed, but somewhere there's going to be a tipping point in most people's cognitive skills in general that make them an easier mark. A headline like "Elderly found to be easier to scam!" just gets "no kidding!" from me.
I'd also wager the average 85 yr old is easier to coax into a stranger's car than the average 5 yr old.
I'm sure I'll get a reply from one or two telling me their Aunt Gracie was sharp as a whip till the day she died at 90, and you'll run into that from time to time, but those people are by far the exception to the rule.
That is only true when return on investment is linear, which in any established economy/market it is not. As you pour more resources into a project, (programming in particular) your return starts to level out and your ROI eventually crosses the line and goes negative. I hope you're not trying to suggest that you expect tripling your developers (on the same specific project) will triple your profit?
It's the responsibility of the business management (CEO?) to watch ROI and recognize when dumping more in isn't going to get more out. At that point you have to look at other ways to invest, one of which is diversification. Into a different market or different angle of the market you're already in, where ROI is still going to be positive. And then that is what you start to invest in.
And it's better to recognize your ROI is declining before it levels out or goes into the red. (a stage most would call "in denial") Do it when it's dropped to a low enough point that there are other attractive options to diversify into that will have a higher ROI than what your current pet project is producing. Not only does this increase your overall profit, but it also protects your business by widening your revenue base. If a new competitor moves into town, it doesn't have to affect everything you do.
Stubbornly refusing to respect this fairly basic principle has been the downfall of a great many business giants.
Every time I hear someone justify a business decision with "Since the majority of the money is here, it'll be a great idea to just completely ignore all other sources of revenue!" gives me a horrific twitch.
What is it? Are they actually teaching this in business school nowadays?
Considering the brits managed to reverse design an enigma machine based entirely on analysis of the traffic, (and were btw quite amazed at the similarity when they finally got one off a nazi sub) it's easy to see that they will go to extraordinary lengths to decrypt messages.
Reuse of an OTP would very quickly be identified and broken if your adversaries are resourceful and serious. And in world wars, they usually are.
Length isn't even relevant. Proper use of a OTP recommends simply copying the remaining pad past the end of the cleartext, or to a random length beyond it. This makes it impossible to determine the length of the cleartext. The cleartext just ends in a standard End of Message, which can only be identified by the recipient with the pad key. "We will attack at dawn. End of Message." could be transmitted as a two page block of ciphertext. It's not a waste since the pad cannot be reused in whole or in part anyway. That entire page of pad just gets torn out of the book and burned when the message is sent.
Please re-read the entire cited text. Pay special attention to "never reused in whole or part"
(also, even a single re-use can completely compromise all other messages that used a given pad, if the plaintext of a single message encoded with that pad is discovered by other means)
I'm not a cryptoanalyst, but I play one on TV
[ citation needed ]
Here, let me help you.
citation
So unless you classify the key as a "clue" (rather than a cluebat) you need to rethink that.
Actually that's exactly how it works. You don't call the police directly like you're reporting robbery though. Your lawyers see a judge and file charges and obtain a warrant. THEN the police get involved and go to the defendant and gather evidence. Those extra steps are required, in theory, to make sure that a crime is likely taking place before the police get involved. At some point a judge approved this raid before it happened. The plaintiff presented evidence to support their claim, had their i's dotted and t's crossed, got the warrant, and in came the cops. That's sometimes how civil cases go.
The plaintiff can contact you and see if you want to make a deal. They can offer any legal terms, and you can accept or decline. If you accept, you're likely going to be signing a deal, that says they get xxx and they also promise not to press charges. They don't have to offer you a deal either. They don't have to notify you unless the law states some requirement.
Unfortunately, "any other law" doesn't apply here. This is a civil violation, not a criminal one. Its not theft, it's copyright violation. It's extortion to demand money not to turn someone in for a criminal violation, but in civil matters you are free to offer a deal in exchange for not pressing charges. In criminal cases, the D.A. is the one pressing the charges, and in civil cases it's the plaintiff's lawyer, which is why they have the option.
The plaintiffs aren't the problem here. The police aren't the problem either. The plaintiffs are simply taking advantage of the law as written for their own benefit, and the police are just playing along by the rules as required. It's the Bad Law that's to blame. You can't blame companies and greedy people for being greedy, it's what they DO. You can't blame the police for enforcing the law, it's also what they DO. The only one to blame is your legislator, who created the Bad Law, whom you voted in. That means blame yourself, and work to get the laws changed.
But by that reasoning, a judge could be a blank check for anyone to violate any contract.
If that power exists, either it's got to have some significant limitations to it, or it should.
It's not a judge's job to help people negate legally-binding documents.
Makes one wonder who would be out of their mind enough to spy for north korea? Though I suppose there's good odds that anyone they let loose out of their borders has their entire family at gunpoint if they decide to run.
We'e seen a few stories recently like this, where a judge has demanded someone to turn over information that they've already agreed not to in a TOS.
Was this ever resolved, whether a judge can order you to violate a TOS? Either it's legally binding or it's not. Not variable on who's asking or whether or not it's convenient. They need to make up their minds.
Like in China? The "large scale pirating" is generally where they lose most of their money. When a high schooler pirates his windows pro it's not like he was going to pay full retail price if he didn't manage to pirate it, that piracy didn't cost them a sale, despite whatever the BSA will try to convince you of otherwise.
But an entire building full of windows machines in a medium size business somewhere, that's another story entirely. That's where they really, legitimately, DO lose sales. And that's exactly where this little "bug" will be useful. This is a huge problem that kicks them where it hurts.
It's very hard to fight a confession in court. DNA evidence gives you a little bit better odds to escape justice.
He may have done it just to get it out of the way. Once they had his father and his son's DNA on file, it wouldn't take long for them to be knocking on his door, that alone fingered him. He may have decided it was more pleasant than the inevitable long and public fight to get his dna and get the legal ball rolling.
And there are some other possibilities. He might have been high when he committed the murder, and honestly had no firm recollection of the event and didn't believe he was guilty. Or may have been psychologically repressing the memory of the event.
I don't see how you can consider this a "bug"? You don't just "accidentally test a string for a specific value". This is clearly intentional operation, not a bug.
Not surprising that free software is so popular. Especially when it's the greedy manufacturers doing the shopping ;)
Not only is the software free, but the maintenance and upgrades are being handled for them too. Unless you have a big company pushing you to install their OS on it (MS) this is probably going to be your best choice.
Looking back at the considerable difficulty that MS has getting Windows to run smoothly on a wide variety of hardware, it's impressive to see just how well Android manages to support such a large variety of kit. Kudos to them for that.
There are similar concerns with ticketing and dashcams. What's to stop a cop that has started writing you up a ticket from accepting a bribe and throwing the ticket in the trash instead of turning it in?
To address that issue, all tickets are now serialized, and there's hell to pay or lots of paperwork to fill out if you "misplace" one, making it difficult to sweep something under the rug. I expect the same sort of view will be taken with the video here. One of those "suspicious until proven innocent" if records go missing.
So many of today's squad cars have dash cams. In most cases, the cams are rolling automatically anytime the cherries are spinning, a feature the officer cannot disable, to insure accountability and reliable/consistent gathering of evidence.. Cherries up is required during a traffic stop, by long-standing rules that stand up well against any excuse. So that makes it tough for them to get around that one. "I forgot to turn on the lights" during any traffic stop just doesn't cut it, and immediately raises suspicion.
I think any police department that isn't rotten to the core with good-ol-boys will be able to reliably manage this. A "good cop" is probably going to see this as a positive thing anyway. Even though accusations rarely stick, they love to be able to walk into court when accused of excessive force etc, with a dashcam video or with a store surveillance video that shows them acting properly. An honest cop should have no excuse to hide their behavior when doing their job among the public, and should welcome it.
Truly honest departments won't fight it tooth-and-nail anytime someone requests records from them. In my book anyway, any department that puts up a fight for access to records of their public behavior needs to have a special investigations team elbow-deep up their business looking for what they're obviously trying to protect the public from seeing.
Oooh, that is a fun fact! You must have been bored though?
Usually when things like this happen, people start looking for places to poke fun, like bill.gates@live.com etc. I wonder who balmer has in his skype contact list?
I'm stunned the article doesn't include the public's distaste for dealing with the TSA as a substantial contributing factor in lower patronage. I've always assumed it was at least a relevant number. I know I don't fly anymore unless unavoidable due to TSA. I've had friends lose computers at the airlines. I'm avoiding the airports, and keeping both my dignity and my property safe.
Maybe the airlines need to do some serious lobbying to get rid of the TSA, if only to be looking out for themselves? I've heard they understand it's affecting sales, but I don't see them doing anything about it other than cowering and going along with it. Ad when their customers complain, they just blame all the inconvenience on the TSA. (who really doesn't give a damn) I can't believe they have no ability to influence change here.
If they're really in as dire straights as they're saying, evicting the TSA from their terminals ought to be somewhere on their how-to-avoid-bankrupcy list.
Coffee and cotton are both very destructive to soil, requiring large amount of fertilizer and other treatment to put back all the nutrients that those two crops remove every season.
out with the Ballmer, in with the "interim CEO" bill gates? would be interesting to see what he does with the company now that he's become more of a philanthropist. Worked for Apple, and we know how MS loves to ... innovate.