Of course they should not have. What the hell was the point? Whether he is the founder or not makes no difference. This is Hollywood ET style journalism. Who gives a crap about anything to do with the founder? It belongs in People magazine not a business or technical journal. So anyway you look at it, it was dumb.

Its annoying but isn't it all about kin group identification? It is annoying that those that turn up their nose at creationism (for all the right reasons) can also believe that cell phones give you cancer or microwave ovens harm your food.

They are just being intellectually lazy and falling back on a type of "fashion" that says "I am one of these people, not one of those people"

it bugs the hell out of me, but I understand it is just because they want to be loved :)

It is really all about coal. USA Has been converting to Natural Gas, China has been gorging on coal. Finding a way for China to get off coal is really important. http://www.energytrendsinsider...

From an ethical standpoint emission per capita is the only measure that matters. The climate does not care how many cars you built while spewing emissions, it only cares about absolute numbers. And when discussing global "fairness" the only thing that matters is per capita. It would be like saying your allowed to litter more then your neighbor because you make more money and buy more stuff. On what ethical foundation to rest your claim that per capita is worthless and per GDP is preferred?

Also, the main reason that emissions are dropping in the USA is because of the shear number of coal plants converting to natural gas. Not intending to diminish this achievement, its a great step in regards to the climate. But once that conversion is complete then what?
http://www.instituteforenergyr...

I would also like to point out that you are making proud statements about something that Obama deserves credit for. At the time the Republicans lambasted Obama about it saying he was de-industrializing the USA etc etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Having read at lease all of the summary that it is NOT either of the mothers suing for child.support, it is the state. At some point one of the mothers needed child support. The state feels that the other parent ahould be paying if they can. So either they thought the man had more resources to be able to pay. Or perhaps they thought that going after the other women would result in a precident of the state recognizing a same sex parent. In either event this is cold mechanical government policy at work, not a women seeking assistance from the man. In all likelyhood she stands by her contract. But I didnt read tfa

Marked insightfull??? Think that is a big whoosh on the sarcasm.

Because otherwise local sydney cable companies would have to license the shows themselves. If people in sydney want to watch these shows, thats a potential market to sell.to

Right. People forget that corporations exist.at.the pleasure of the electorate. You have the power to yank their charter at anytime. If they try to.sue you for it, change the law so they cant. The only.real power is political power. If mega corps have too much power its because you were tricked into giving it to them.

I read his point as being that democracy is messy and inefficient and his job as a warlord would be a lot easier if everyone would just sit down, shut up and do as they were told. He is exactly the kind of person you should worry about. Personally I don't care if the trains run on time if I have to give up my political voice in trade. Civilian rule is better then the alternative. So how about we let you play with your tanks and you let the inefficient electorate set the political goals. Grow up and deal with it Gates. If you can't we will have to get out the gulitine again.

The fact that you dont get my point about street lights is kinda the point. Something that on the surface impedes my freedom " a red light" actually provides more freedom. Without street lights I would have to stop at every intersection to check.for oncoming traffic. I am in Canada which has a single payer health insurance system. (A system that most Canadians would kill to defend and I am truly sry you guys disnt get for yourselves). I understand that you would view it has a liberty reducing socialism like a red light. But I view it as liberty increasing. Firstly health insurance is very affordable because risk is spread as wide a possible. This increaes my financial freedom. Second, preventitive measures and harm reduction programs abound. This increses my freedom from infection from others. We have no destitution created because of someones lack of acces to affordable health. This increases my freedom from fear because of less crime. We spend less then you for health care and get way better outcomes. So I am free from getting screwed by a for profit insurance company. Free from getting sub-standard care because I dont earn enough. But I do hear you that you dont want government to fund laws you dont like. Welcome to democracy, if enough other people like those laws they get funded. This doesnt mean government is broken, it just means democracy works. Deal with it.

It might be fun for you to take a vacation to a country with no building codes, no food inspectors, no labeling laws, no noise bylaws, no courts to enforce contracts, and all the other "freedom surprresing" rules. Then you should read Hobbs, Mills, and Locke so that you understand exactly why it is that we are more free with street lights then without. One could easily argue that a red street light is a gross violation of your liberty by the gubberment. But do your really want to live in a city without street lights? If you want to discuss the nuances of spefic laws and how balance between personal liberty and common good, there are many people who would love to have that talk. And they would respect your views. But if all you say is that all government and taxes are bad, you will quite rightly be dismissed as an idiot not worthy of listening to. This is the proplem with the tea party. All the valid viewpoints of the right are lost in the noise of all the nonesense.

They exist. Corporate culture starts at the top. Thats why CEO get the big bucks right? I have worked in well run government departments and bad, ditto for private sector organisations. What made the difference was the culture. In "groups" that put group reputation ahead of short term personal gain, the better the output. If your leaders or managers appear more interested in their personal gain and appear to care little for the quality of the output, then the whole place sucks and so does there work. All their work, you can feel it in the lobby on the helpline, or when you talk to a salesmen. The reverse is also true, when there is genuine ethical leadership the whole organization rocks and you can feel it everywhere. With that in mind you can understand why the repugs create self-fufilling reality. How well do you think government employees perform.when.their political masters are constantly saying how much suck amd that "you are the problem". Not to mention when they themselves are caught witheir hand in the cookie jar. So, it starts with the electorate. Choose ethical, dedicated, self-sacrificing leaders and you will have good government. Hmmm...actually this whole "individual always above the group", and anything collectove being.villified,.means your.probably doomed to have bad leadership public and private. Accept in that one instituion that makes a science of encoraging hive thinking and group above individual, the USA military.

And if you want to live in a sane less politically polarized, less gun toting, less religious fanatic, less devil take the hind most place with beaches and skiing then you move to Vancouver, B.C.

Recruiting for cyber-warfare

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) clearly lacks an understanding of monetary policy if he thinks that the trillion dollar coin idea is anything other then a joke. Can he also propose a bill blocking the president from writing an executive order requiring all citizens report for immediate gender re-assignment surgery.