Because different faces, or parties for that matter, tend to pursue similar policies?

Right! If we'd elected McCain instead of Obama in 2008, the Affordable Care Act as we know it today would still be more or less intact, we'd still have withdrawn American forces from Iraq on the same schedule, and we'd still be shaking hands with China over a miniature climate agreement. In smaller matters, the Keystone pipeline would still be in limbo (just because that's easier than killing it explicitly). Et cetera et cetera.

With all due disrespect to Uber's extant valuation projections, you've used airlines as an example. Besides the fact that people travel on the ground more than they travel through the air, airlines are notorious for having razor-thin margins, spotty track records of profitability and a tendency to go broke on short notice. Their capital stock is a double-edged sword. You may have heard a joke: "How do you become a millionaire in the airline industry? Well, you start out as a billionaire..."

The real questions about Uber are how big the new market they want to build actually is, and why some competitor won't grab substantial portions of that market from them.

Another thing about that spending, too -- election advertising this year ran about $3.7 billion overall. This is real cash, but it's about real issues and the future of our nation is at stake and many policy proposals could make a significant impact in the nation's $3 trillion-a-year economy. Proctor and Gamble spends about $5 billion a year advertising for the likes of laundry detergent, Nyquil, and diapers.

And about 90% of the difference is additional taxes that your government has placed on the substance -- so if you don't like it, whine to Parliament. :P

Well, the US operates the GPS system itself, which is a distinct advantage in a time of worldwide military conflict.

Why would it be different? I don't know, maybe because mammalian brains' learning mechanisms and the way they react to stimuli are shaped by a series of useful heuristics that arise from the bio-chemical structure of their brains, and it's not at all clear that there would be direct analogues in an artificial brain?

Whoa, whoa, slow down. I think you're a little off-base here. Be reasonable!

... It's probably going to be more like "you owe us $80 million for the $100,000 you hid in bitcoin".

The real danger to your privacy comes once you've joined the network, giving it your real MAC address, and start sending a bunch of data around that isn't encrypted end-to-end (like web browsing).

Well, it sorta-does. They have first dibs on over a third of earnings, which I suspect is far more than the single biggest shareholder gets. Doesn't come with all the bells and whistles like voting in board members, mind you...

At a guess: the sale may come with contractual obligations -- e.g. if IBM has agreed to design and manufacture chips for a certain third party for a certain length of time.

THAT's better than simply taking that money and investing it into the division?

I don't know, that could just be throwing good money after bad. This isn't a software division, it's not even like their server hardware division, it's chipmaking. It's kind of a go-big-or-go-home game where your competitors -- well-funded types like, say, Intel -- can easily pour many billions of dollars into next-generation fabrication processes and equipment which will readily put any half-assed investment to shame. I don't think IBM's chip business has the customer base to make "go big" profitable, or any reasonable plan to acquire new customers, so "go home" makes a lot of sense here.

Now, the wisdom / folly of gutting the rest of IBM's various divisions is left as an exercise to the reader.

I think a premise that people go to a church to inculcate themselves with a certain set of values that place marriage and God on the same page is a little bit stronger than your vaguely-implied "religious people are sheep whose convictions are substantially a function of the local popular opinion". But trust Slashdotters to discard informed rational thought concerning irrational behavior like religious belief...

Google feeds their employees dead cows and chickens on a regular basis. They should have used plants. These days, quinoa is in common use in foodservice, as are beans and eggplants, and lentils could also have been easily used instead. Google should leave beef out of its activities altogether.

:b

Forget the stigma of divorce. In some places there are still different social values involved. These people aren't spineless or mere slaves to the apparent popular opinion of the local population (which would be a fragile situation circular, since they are the local population); they believe that marriage is a holy, sacramental bond which does things to your soul. If present, this conviction is a far stronger reason to avoid divorce than social pressure.

Even supposing this to be true, it means that a train could be safely and efficiently operated by someone who hasn't expended months or years of their life being taught and practicing how to drive a train.