And, since the employees are not employed in Massachusetts, they are not violating the agreement in Massachusetts. I think A123 is going to need to sue them in California where the contracts are being violated (and are void due to superseding state law). The employees just need to be sure not to visit MA for business until the non-compete term wears out.

Apple isn't even a party to these A123 agreements. Those are between A123 and the employees, so unless A123 is arguing some sort of wacky six-way conspiracy I think Apple will get this dismissed rather quickly.

Then A123 can decide if they want to sue the individuals, whereupon Apple will provide the five with complementary legal counsel to point out that non-compete agreements aren't valid in California.

You're correct that this doesn't sound like a cure. On the other hand, it might be both a very effective vaccine for the uninfected, and a reliable treatment for those infected. (This depends mostly on HIV's ability to mutate these receptors into something that can reject the drug but still connect to the target cells.) Even if a vaccine isn't a cure, it can lead to eradication of the disease. The smallpox vaccine wasn't a cure either, for example, but with sufficient coverage it was quite effective.

More recent HIV treatments target portions of the virus that mutate slowly, and are moreover unlikely to be able to mutate more quickly. These have significantly higher chances of being a "cure" compared to the older cocktails to which you refer. Unfortunately it did take 20 years of AIDs research to figure this out and have the knowledge and technology to develop these techniques, but I think a very reliable vaccine will be readily available by the end of the decade, and a cure 5-10 years after that.

The vaccine isn't 100% effective, with rates depending on which vaccine we're talking about. Your kid might have gotten the vaccine but might still get infected. Your other child is too young to get the vaccine and is thus susceptible regardless.

Also, humans with empathy worry about the well being of children besides their own.

False on two points.

1. Intel wants to hire the "best" candidate for a position, not necessarily the most "perfectly qualified". The definitions of both terms are subjective, so let me explain the difference with an example. I have interview a candidate for a senior position, whose resume was a mile long with impressive work. He had the necessary experience, and he might have the insight necessary to find novel solutions to our problems. But, in 30 minutes with him, I could tell he was an asshole. His attitude would shut down brainstorming sessions, drive wedges between other members of my team, and possibly drive some of them away. He was perhaps the "most qualified" candidate but he was certainly not the "best". The person I hired instead had less experience but a very positive work attitude, and has learned what he needed to become a good designer. If you don't agree with me on this point then let's just agree to disagree, because we need to spend more time talking about point...

2. Intel believes that the "best" candidate for a position might not be applying for the position. Is that hard to imagine? When your company has a job opening, they don't necessarily look at all of the resumes, pick the one that sucks the least, and hire them. Maybe they didn't cast a wide enough net to gather interest? Maybe they need to change their recruiting practices entirely? Sometimes you pick "none of the above" and try again. Intel believes that the best candidate for some of their positions isn't applying for the job, because she was told in fourth grade by her science teacher that she wasn't cut out for computer work, because he was sexist. They know they'll have a job opening in 2027 for a talented young computer scientist, and they are concerned that they won't get the "best" candidate because that candidate decided on a different career.

My 2003 Sony plasma (still doing fine, thanks) is the last Sony product I've bought. If they're losing money, it's in part due to engineering mistakes (investing in plasma over LED) but also in part due to the film and music arm (makes my hate the company).

They need to get the hardware arm lean and mean and profitable and spin it if off. Actually I'd keep the Sony name on the hardware and gaming arm and spin off film and music and insurance. If I owned the company. Which I don't, not even slightly, because they suck and I don't want their stock in my portfolio.

Why would it be? A math major has already learned all the math taught in grade school. And a math educator, who will teach grade school, might need a refresher on how math is being taught today, but doesn't necessarily need to know math concepts more complicated than a few years past where they plan to teach. I'm sure if they truly love math they could take additional math courses as electives, but to get a job as a teacher their education should focus on how to teach.

I suspect that, sometime in the next 200 years, someone (not necessarily a government) will start releasing aerosols into the upper atmosphere to reflect away more sunlight, preventing it from reaching the surface at all. Only military action could stop something like this, as any given country or rich enough individual or group could do it.

The real question is, will there be a way to remove these aerosols once the resulting cooling (together with increased sequestration of carbon) leads to an increase in surface ice? Or will they just dim the sun and leave a future generation to fix that?

No Highlander jokes, please.

I think a large percentage of baby boomers are starting to realize that they can never retire...

>> So you would rather put a burden on the poor who can't afford to fix their cars or buy newer ones??

Just because you're poor doesn't mean you have the right to pollute more than anyone else. The government could subsidize fixing the car, or the poor could instead try out subsidized public transportation, or the government could subsidize newer, more efficient cars. We can call it Cash for Clunkers.

Exactly. "GMOs" is as wide of a category as "chemicals", and I would laugh at, or run from, any scientist that said "chemicals are safe".

And how do you pay for the "IP" part of that "VoIP" if you don't have a job? It makes 10000x more sense to keep a prepaid cell phone than home internet access when you're unemployed. You can also go to the library for internet access, or to apply for jobs, etc., but if you're contacted by a recruiter you need to pick up the phone whether you're at the shelter getting dinner, or at the library, or in the bathroom.

Land lines are more expensive than cell phones. Why would an unemployed person have one?

And why do you assume that an unemployed person has a home?

And, if someone is unemployed and has a home, shouldn't they be out looking for a job all day, rather than sitting around hoping someone will call them? If they're sitting at home, they can't apply for jobs unless they also have internet access, which in your world must be an incredible luxury for the unemployed. Do you propose that they give out the land line number for the public library as their resume contact?

There are strategies to cool the planet using atmospheric seeding. They are only political if you try to do them over territory of a given country. Do them over the open ocean, and it's (if anything) a military problem.

This assumes there's someone with enough money and power to fund and execute such a strategy by fiat, who isn't also part of a government.