That's only true for timelike separated events. (I.e. events such that a light pulse sent from the earlier event would reach the position of the later event before it occurs.) It is most definitely NOT true for spacelike separated events. This doesn't violate causality though because spacelike separated events cannot possibly influence each other since information can't travel faster than light.

True, I was so stupid, I used to think they were called "tax havens", not "tax heavens". But I guess you enjoy paying taxes so much, you consider it a heavenly experience.

Quite the contrary. It's not a bug it's a feature. The kind of deal Amazon was able to strike with Luxembourg is an important defense against overly greedy countries (like the U.S.) which try to tax more than they should be entitled to. Note that the story says this is only about non-U.S. earning. Why should the U.S. be entitled to taxes on non-U.S. earnings?

If Luxembourg is willing to offer lower tax rates than other countries, why shouldn't Amazon accept? It's no different than choosing to shop at a store that offers the lowest prices.

There was a really good TV show (fiction) called Amazon that ran around 2000 or so, but lasted only one season unfortunately. It dealt with some of these issues. It's available on DVD, but unfortunately it ends with a cliffhanger that was never resolved. Really awesome show though. Kind of like Lost, which came years later, only much better in my opinion.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) just announced that it will be spending $31 million to "enhance diversity in the biomedical research workforce."

$31 million seem like it would buy ... a lot of diversity ... I guess.

Maybe some of the money could be diverted toward actual research like this.

lllll AJ

Really? I'm surprised Australians are even still allowed to take to the streets!

Not true. In order to conform to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the new act only prohibits images that are obscene. In other words, it isn't enough that the (cartoon) images depict children having sex, the images must depict children having sex and ALSO must be obscene. Obscene speech was never protected by the U.S. Constitution. Cartoon images are no exception.

True. Then the U.S. Supreme Court struck down that law as well.

No. In the U.S. cartoon images ARE protected by the First Amendment. This was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002. (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)). Sometimes our Supreme court DOES get it right!

Citations please?

No, no, you're looking at this all wrong. Apple stayed out of the Phablet market until they were "cool/hip/trendy". The vast sales Samsung had were merely to unimportant people. Apple, on the other hand, entered the market exactly when phablets became cool, because, by definition, phablets became cool only once Apple had entered the market.

And Facebook was notified of the defamation and took no action for 11 months. Why is Facebook not liable? After all, Facebook had the technical ability to delete the account; the parents did not. For all we know, the kid may have even forgotten the password.

Then Facebook is lying, cause they delete fake profiles all the time. If Facebook knew they were hosting defamatory content and didn't subsequently take steps to delete it, then it is Facebook that should be sued here, not the parents of the kid who created the fake page. For all we know, the kid may have forgotten the password!

If the remarks were truly defamatory, then couldn't the girl or her parents simply get Facebook to delete the fake profile?

But if that's the case, then the current speeches by the FBI director are counterproductive to those aims. The only people who would choose not to buy an iPhone as a result of his comments are honest people. If anything, his speeches would encourage criminals to buy iPhones. Surely that can't be what the FBI wants, if it really is as hard to get at their data as he claims.