IANAL, but the general principles of the ADA are fairly straightforward.

The ADA prohibits asking directly about disabilities or anything else that's not directly related to the job. However, it is legal to ask questions that might reveal a disability, as long as it relates to the job.

For example, if I'm hiring for warehouse stocking, I could ask if you're capable of lifting a 20-pound box, if the job involves that. I couldn't ask, though, if you have any physical disabilities, or ask somebody who wouldn't be required to lift boxes fairly regularly.

If the person I'm hiring might have to lift one box maybe once or twice a month, but it's not a significant proportion of their job responsibilities, then if they had a disability, letting them ask somebody else to do it or providing some mechanical means would be considered a reasonable accommodation.

We already do that, time and time again. How many war profiteers, dishonest corporations, politicians, and other malefactors have been caught out in barefaced lies already? Of those, how many have suffered the consequences?

Confronting a self-righteous liar with the truth typically only inflames their self-righteousness and that of their followers.

If the person(s) posting the review can provide evidence that the reviews were based on fact, they could counter-sue for Malicious Prosecution. Some of the owner's responses on Yelp are potentially actionable as well (particularly defamation). While no reputable attorney would take on a suit just for the potential defamation (it would be virtually impossible to prove damages against an anonymous reviewer), if the reviewer(s) sue for Malicious Prosecution, they'd probably throw in the defamation charges just to get the owner's responses in front of the jury.

In the United States, at least, you can get any nonprofit's 990 form, either on their website or at www.guidestar.org. The 990 lists how much the top executives make, who their top vendors are, and how their budget gets spent.

Depending on the organization's lifecycle and purpose, about 15-20 percent of the budget on overhead is normal. A very new nonprofit has to spend a lot more on outreach and fundraising, as would a nonprofit that's raising funds for a major capital project.

I've found one of the most telling signs is a big gap between the CEO's salary and that of the next highest-paid staff. Unless there's some obvious reason (the CEO is the only full-time employee), that's the sign of a big CEO ego and a weak board.

The CEO and upper exec salaries should reflect their real market value, including the perks of the nonprofit sector. Most CEO turnover in the nonprofit world is voluntary, for example. In addition, the CEO of an organization with a lot of independent chapters has a lot less to do with their revenue stream than the CEO of one that's highly controlled from the parent organization.

Unless the organization is doing fundraising for a capital campaign, there shouldn't be big payments to professional fundraisers, compared to total income. Big consultant fees are another warning sign.

Or rather like cruise control, which a few people willfully interpreted as "self-driving" when it was first introduced.

Well, more like "brain controlled" in that all our physical motions are brain-controlled. They're using the brain's signal to move the prosthetic as well as the nearest muscle. So somebody amputated above the knee would be able to control an artificial leg if normal functions of the leg could be coded into the prosthetic. (When this muscle flexes, move the leg like this, when that one flexes, move it like that.)

A lot of Apple's value to the consumer comes from the perception that one is standing out from the crowd as an Apple product user or for conspicuous consumption. That's the main reason that their headphone cords are white instead of black, for example.

While definitely somebody can talk about having the iTV, it's not the same as being able to carry it around.

As I understand it, by the time you reach the steam, you've gone deeper than most drilling equipment can go and gotten hot enough to melt most drills. Worse, you can't safely predict the results of releasing that much pressure, especially since there's no reliable way of imaging what you're drilling into at that depth and heat level.

In the political sphere, at least, I'd say that does happen. Political compromise gets a lot of scorn poured on it, there are certain political figures/organizations who get venerated and call most of the shots, and while there's very little side-switching in national and state politics, so not quite the equivalence to becoming an ex-member, those who do stray from doctrine get targeted, most definitely.

In some ways, it's very cult-like in the way that it forms identity. Denialism gives you victim/threatened status (those evildoers are attacking our beliefs, we need to be warriors), enough victories to think of oneself as a winner but maintain the communal aspects of thinking oneself under threat, charismatic leaders, the companionship of shared beliefs, a sense of superiority to those who disbelieve, and, in the most cult-like aspect, the assurance of being above mere facts, of living in a world where your personal beliefs trump mere objective facts.

Google has made so many investments in experimental and developing technology (robotics and energy to name just two examples) that its portfolio of companies and patents is tremendously valuable. It has the money to be almost anything that it wants to be and can afford to take more product development risks. Even if Google Glass turns out to be an absolute failure, the odds are strong that it can redeploy most of the research and lessons learned from developing it for something that will be successful.

Even then, the organizations with the most muscle create and enforce monopolies, barriers to entry, or taxes on potential competitors.

You forgot the passive voice.

I mean, "The passive voice was forgotten."