IANAL, but from my understanding of the SEC regulations, it doesn't matter if his health (or the speculation thereof) does actually affect stock price, it only matters if Apple's management thought that it would. Anything that they believe might have an effect on stock price has to be disclosed (whether it does in the end or not). If there is a single e-mail among the management that says anything akin to "Don't tell the shareholders that he's sick, our stock price'll plummet", Apple very well may be in some serious trouble. On the other hand, if they can prove that they had no reason to believe it was an issue that would manipulate stock price, the SEC doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Isn't that the trade name for Vista?

Yes, because there's no real money in research, especially for those Nobel Prize geeks. </sarcasm>

'hero shot' is a term I've heard bounced around in web design/publishing before, which possibly may be what is referred to here.

Until the command-line FTP client in Windows is removed because some schmuck in Europe whines to the EC.

To use that logic, however, implies that Stuart is just as likely to be incompetent at management as well (he rose to a managment position in just a few short years, according to TFA).

'coffee' not koolaid.

Considering all of the lawsuits we see these days over larger inheritances, the concept of an 'ironclad will' seems a bit out of touch, doesn't it?

Censoring ad revenue?! NEVAR! What I'm waiting for is the day when you attempt to view censored material, and instead they sign you up for random advert email lists. That way, you can't view 'bad' content, AND they get to make some money on the side. Wouldn't that be awesome?

It may be anecdotal, but every Brit I've ever talked to about it has very little in the way of Choice among ISP's.

There is a law in a certain small town in Washington state that still has on it's books a law forbidding 'unescorted Negroes on public property after dusk'.

It's federally unenforceable and would get shit-kicked by the US (and probably Washington State) Supreme Court, but to actually take the time and effort of removing the law costs the city money, which is better spent on other things. Even the act of altering an existing statue and attaching that to the current bill takes extra money that a lot of places aren't willing to shell out.

The answer in this case is simple: Just don't enforce it.

If you want a few other oddball examples, try looking up some of the statues in the state of Texas regarding horses (or, better yet, compare how those laws interact with the municipal laws of El Paso and Houston).

This is, in many ways, akin to saying "I don't like to see drunk people. It's not fair that I can't go to a bar." You may or may not like it, but the current trend is that the majority of this country either speaks in, or is comfortable with, this language. There are services that are available to you if you find most profanity offensive, such as certain satellite radio stations and various cable television stations, that cater well to such sensibilities.

If you don't like it, change the channel. That's the great thing about the freedom we live in (when it comes to free speech, at least).

The 'No Swearing' law got overturned by the State Supreme Court of Michigan back in 2002. http://articles.latimes.com/2002/apr/02/news/mn-35828

First and foremost, anywhere that an intern is catching derisive comments about his production speed and not, instead, getting helpful tips and guidance toward swifter solutions is a place that shouldn't have interns at all. I'd suggest you find whatever agency (university?) that guided you toward this employer, tell them what went on, and make sure they never send anyone this employer's way ever again.