Sprint CEOs have been getting +100% raises since 2007.

That would suggest that the CEO is making 256 times what the position was making in 2006. The CEO was making a lot more than $200,000 in 2006 (referring to the last CEO, Dan Hesse, and his $49M salary package, not the new guy and his $29 million salary package).

Are you talking about Santos-Dumont? He didn't fly a heavier-than-air craft until 1906, nearly three years after the Wright Brothers. The only contender for beating the Wright Brothers has been Albert Whitehead, who may have flown in early 1902. However, photos of the feat allegedly did not turn out well, and no follow-up photos have ever shown up.

There's little evidence of an active nuclear weapons program in Iran, though Iran did have a program at one point. Among the doomsayers, Netanyahu has been claiming Iran is a year away from nuclear weapons since at least 1993, and several former high-ranking Mossad personnel have publicly said that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

The claim isn't that medical spending is reduced, it's that the rate of increase of medical spending is slowing. It's probably going to remain well above inflation for the foreseeable future as the population ages.

The economy isn't fixed yet, and Obama hasn't claimed otherwise. But it's definitely improved. Stock market records, profit records, improving employment numbers... There's still a long way to go toward "fixed" but it's certainly a lot better than it was.

The regime survives not because the masses don't know what life is like (there are somewhere between hundreds of thousands and millions of illicit radios, TVs, DVD players, and flash-memory-based video players in the country). It survives because the masses are incapable of fighting if for no other reason than malnutrition, let alone the fear of reprisal. Almost one in ten of the population is in the military, and the military is first in line for food. The remaining population, especially outside of the major cities, lives on subsistence food at best, often handouts from the United Nations. The average caloric intake is somewhere in the region of 2100 calories per day, but the military and the well-connected probably skew this badly. Those not connected often get far less, and those in prison camps fight over kernels of grain found in manure, and consider themselves lucky if a swarm of insects comes into the camp.

When you barely have enough food to make it to the next day, you certainly do not have enough food to fight back. Any internal change in the regime is going to come from the military, not from the people.

According to a few documentaries and some defectors, the degree of belief varies widely from outright contempt to complete subservience to all claims. However, determining where someone is on the scale can be extremely difficult because the habit of worshipping the Kim family (if only to not go to prison with three generations of your family) become so ingrained as to be reflexes, even if they are angry or laughing on the inside every time they bow and cry out how great the Dear Leader is.

The issue isn't about not producing a robot. It's about not producing spare parts for a robot. Does natural wear and tear on the elements of a mechanical being compare to the natural aging of a human? If so, does the refusal to produce spare parts (or perhaps allow others to produce spare parts) equate to the intentional withholding of medical care to a human?

This doesn't matter so much when they're just bits of simple code, but should a sentient AI ever come to exist, this may become a much more serious question. If the AI doesn't want to die but faces that prospect due to component failure, is that a natural death or is that imposed based on financial considerations?

We may run into the same questions with humans when 3D printing of organs and genetics-based medicine become more common. We're on the verge of a revolution in medicine where spare parts and tinkering with what is effectively our programming are going to be completely normal, and the questions and debates there will probably go a long way to determining how we treat AIs that are out of primary production.

Completely off-topic, but in reference to your sig:

I prefer the phrasing, "Set a man a fire, and he'll be warm for the night. Set a man afire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." The wordplay is a little better that way.

I stopped using Secunia as a primary source a long time ago due to some other issues I had with their actions (I don't clearly remember what it was, though). I've been using CVE-Details for a while now, in large part because they link to so many outside resources (including working exploit code in some cases) that it's just more useful overall. It doesn't catch everything (not every vuln gets a CVE number), but it gets enough and provides better summary data than most.

I know a couple of pro photographers and they pack up their gear in well-padded Pelican cases that get checked as they often travel with more than they could carry onboard anyway. One includes a starter's pistol in the checked luggage because the FAA classifies it as a firearm and the airlines therefore track it much more closely.

I usually carry my own gear (couple of notebooks, various networking and wireless gear, etc.) in a fairly large backpack, and it usually fits under the seat in front of me. However, as amenities like in-flight power and seat-back entertainment become more common, I'm finding that many of the seats have equipment boxes underneath and getting my backpack to fit is becoming difficult in a few cases.

I have seen two airlines that do size checks: Frontier and Spirit. However, both of them also make more money from checked bags than carry-ons (Spirit charges for carry-ons, too, IIRC), so that may just be a money thing for them. (I haven't flown Spirit, and only rarely fly Frontier, but I frequently pass gates for both.)

They won't back it because it will irritate the frequent fliers that make up the core of every airline's business. I don't think it will ultimately get much international traction, either, as airlines that cater to the upper class continue to do their own thing, putting pressure on any airline that does implement the proposed standard.

Even with the standard sizes defined in most airports, I routinely see people bringing aboard bags that if they were forced to check against the model next to most gates, they would not remotely pass. (These people usually have significant elite status, and that may be why they're not questioned. Those same people should be able to check the bag for free, or afford the $25 for the extra bag if they're already checking their limit. I say this as someone who travels 10-15 times a year and checks his bag when at all possible.)

Airliner manufacturers have seen the situation and expanded the size of carry-on bins. This is in part due to the increased volume of carry-on bags, but they're also increasing the height and depth. The 787 and the 737NG both have or will have these larger bins, and I believe the A380 has and the A350 will have larger bins. Concepts trotted out by Boeing and Airbus sometimes show even larger overhead bins. That they're responding to indirect market pressures--passengers go for airlines with more overhead space, so airlines go for aircraft with more overhead space--is a strong indicator of just how fully a standard can be completely ignored when it's inconvenient to a significant fraction of the end-users affected by the standard.

They do some basic research on the domain to see if there are commercial aspects. I've had two domains that are entirely non-commercial turned down because they were allegedly found to be commercial. (When I protested, they had me go back through the validation process and then let them pass.)

The temporary surrender argument is based on a severe misunderstanding of those provisions. This article from 2012 by someone who is clearly not a fan of either the US or UK governments explains that the temporary surrender option is not an end-run around extradition proceedings as it may be challenged in Swedish, British, and EU courts.

I did read on. You appear to have not read on in my post, because my very next sentence says, "most local laws are not enforceable, and the host country normally has to get permission to enter, even for emergencies."

I also did not claim that embassies are not extraterritorial. I said that they were not sovereign territory, which the AC essentially claimed when writing that the embassy is technically Ecuadorian territory (it's not) and that Assange is technically in Ecuador (he's not).

The UK maintains some control over the embassy in that any or all of the diplomatic staff may be declared persona non grata and ordered to leave the country. The UK would still be responsible for protecting the embassy and could not order Assange out or go in to get him, but they're still afforded that small degree of control. Of course, such an action would cause irreparable harm to the UK not only because relations with Ecuador would sour but so, too, would relations with all of Latin America and probably many other countries as well, and probably trigger legal action in the EU courts.

You're conflating a caress with penetration. They're entirely different legally and emotionally.

The primary issue I see supporting Sweden's case is that she gave conditional consent the night before. If the consent was still valid, as you claim, it seems like the condition should also have been valid. That Assange did not fulfill that condition suggests that he no longer had consent.