Sure, but the link farms don't want to pay for SSL certificates for their subdomains such as https://viagra.spamsite.com/ , https://buy-viagra.spamsite.com/ , etc. I think I'm going to like this change.

The Democrats could, in theory, nominate a different candidate. In practice, it is very difficult to wrest the nomination away from an incumbent. At this stage of the presidential race, it would take a miracle for sufficient support to coalesce behind another candidate. The organization would take several months to build, by which time it would be too late. IMHO, the only candidate who would have even the remotest chance of pulling this off would be Hilary Clinton, who of course is SecState, so that's not going to happen.

If a copy is found, it may be possible to determine when the copy was done and by whom. E.g., "Suzy's record was added on the 3rd and Bobby's was added on the 4th. This copy has Suzy's record but not Bobby's, so the copy must have been taken on the 3rd. Who did the backups on the 3rd?" By saying the tapes were stolen, it's much less suspicious if a copy is found.

Well, the Titanic sunk bow-first, so I think you meant "stern is already high in the air." For a car analogy, how about, "the wheels are coming off"? Or, to coin a phrase, "the auditors found the nitrous bottle and demanded it be taken out".

Replying to self, but opt-out is *not* possible for *federal* public sector workers hired after Jan 1, 1984. See http://www.ssa.gov/history/1983amend.html:

Makes comprehensive changes in Social Security coverage, financing, and benefit structure. Following are major provisions of the legislation which incorporate the recommendations of the National Commission on Social Security Reform: Covers under Social Security the following groups: (1) Federal employees hired on or after January 1, 1984; ...snip...

Correction, opt-out of Social Security is possible for public sector workers. From http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p963.pdf, page 5-13 :

3) Employees With No Social Security Coverage The final category of workers includes those who are not subject to any voluntary or mandatory social security coverage at all. This can only occur where the workers are covered by a qualifying public retirement system. Employers of these workers will not withhold social security taxes or show any 'social security wages' on Form W-2.

I must have been thinking of Medicare, since Medicare switched to "no opt-out" in the 1980s. From page 5-16:

Prior to April 1, 1986, the only way for state and local government employees to be covered for Medicare was by voluntary Section 218 Agreements between the states and the Federal government. This changed with the enactment of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985, which mandated that almost all state and local employees hired or rehired after March 31, 1986 must be covered for Medicare, and pay Medicare taxes regardless of their membership in a retirement system.

I still think opt-out is impossible for private sector workers at least for now. There are, however, a few specific types of income which are exempt; gory details in a table starting on page 30 of http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15.pdf.

There is more than one link in TFS.

Workers in some local governments like the one in Texas could once opt out of SS but can no longer do so. IIRC, this change was made in the 1980s. No private business could ever opt out.

The lead plaintiff would change, but the lawyer behind this would still be suing on behalf of all those aggrieved parties who sold their stock before the announcement and therefore lost money when the stock rose later. If only they had known how spinning off the PC business would unlock shareholder value, they could have gotten what was rightfully theirs! Or something.

These shareholder lawsuits are little more than a shakedown. The lawyers (both sides) make out like bandits, the lead plaintiff gets a little taste, the company (or their insurer) gets screwed, and everybody else gets close to nothing.

So that they can dissolve the ink in the 'payee' line and replace it with "Cash".

GreaseMonkey scripts can run in Chrome; just drag and drop them into the Chrome window. They can be enabled/disabled in chrome://extensions.

We'll miss you, Mr. Jobs. Wish you good health.
Sincerely,
Apple fans everywhere

Now there's an arms race in the technology industry, with patents playing the role of ICBMs. "Patents are emerging as a new currency," Alexander I. Poltorak, chief executive of the patent licensing and enforcement firm General Patent, told the New York Times. "I've recently received several calls from financial analysts and bankers who want to know how to value patents and what does it mean."

I think there's a lot of truth to what he's saying, but Mr. Poltorak clearly has a vested interest in a patent war, or at least fear of a patent war.

I'm very surprised that Google would spend so much money on defensive patents for Android. Android can't be generating that much revenue, can it? I thought its selling point was that it was essentially free to carriers. The App Market can't be pulling in that much, can it? I feel like I'm missing something here.

Karma-whoring link to print version of TFA

Not necessarily. The model will presumably incorporate crime reported by citizens, not just violations and arrests reported by police officers. The weighting may be different depending on who reported the crime, the severity of the crime, etc. A typical officer-generated arrest for, say, weapons possession should get a different weight than a more severe crime.