Solar and wind are only viable when generously subsidized. Add in that Obama with the militant EPA are putting coal powered plants out of business. Obama stated that energy prices under his plan "would necessarily skyrocket" and that is exactly what is happening.

Just wait until the summer CA. When all of those coal plants are out of business and there is a shortage of electricity. Remember the rolling brownouts a decade ago? Those will be nothing compared to the blackouts where there just won't be any electricity.

"You reap what you sow" will never be more true after the coal powered plants are forced out of business.

Fucking exactly right. Anti-gun liberal extremists is the problem.

Sell off the stock that is generating them funds. Have fun explaining why fees are even higher.

Such economic strategy takes a university mind.

And TechDirt can suck a bag of dicks.

So when you plug in a cable, the logo on the top is always correct. When it is a sideways plug, you are on your own. :)

Assuming you're right, that may work in the courts. With a judge. That definitely won't matter with the court of public opinion and probably wouldn't work with a jury.

I understand your last two jobs were longer, but you have a trend.

You must have used Dragon software to write this article because you were obviously patting yourself on the back with both hands.

Germany had, for all intents and purposes, won the Battle of Britain before Hitler decided to change the successful tactic of attacking primarily military targets to civilian targets.

Actually, ALL shareholders are motivated purely by profit. Think I'm wrong? Apple has enough surplus cash to indulge in such ventures. What if Apple posted a $10B loss? Think such money sinks would still be funded? Yes, willingly paying a premium for energy is a money sink.

If Apple was losing money, all of their shareholders would be concerned. Don't be fooled into thinking they wouldn't be.

You best believe that if Apple was limping along financially then they wouldn't have splurged on such green energy ventures. Don't misunderstand me. Apple has the cash and they can spend it as they wish. But Cook is making a moral argument and it's only the success of the iPhone/iPad that allows him to do so.

I don't think you understand what "ad hominem" is. (Yes, I understand I am using it incorrectly, but I'm sticking with the theme)

I don't think you understand what "doing something for a joke" is. Actually I think you do, but you're being deliberately obtuse so you could follow up with that idiotic following sentence.

Don't be fooled.

Is it social bias or is it just the way things are? Building toys that boys like and marketing them to boys isn't "social bias." Same things with toys for girls. The whole bullshit about "social bias" is that boys and girls are equal in every way and think, act, and prefer in the exact same way until "society" forces blue on boys and pink on girls. Total bullshit.