The way SpaceX was asking for more funding for NASA made it look like they themselves are counting on that government money.

That's great, it means they have an independent source of demand that's relatively stable (unlike space tourism where you depend on just a few very rich people). So they could theoretically grow on their own even without the government contracts.

Since we're talking about SpaceX, what is the business case of the first "private" space company? Do they plan on being a space tourism company? Or do they intend to make all their money being a government contractor? I fail to see any other possible customers for their services, unless space mining is something more than a pipe dream.

But LibreOffice is still giving them value as a plausible threat, even if they're not using it. Besides, who knows how much time they must waste because of incompatibilities in documents they get from the outside world. If the offer is cheap enough, it might be worth it.

The only people up in arms seem to be the slashdot editors, it seems to me. I've started to be like "Oh God, not another NSA article!" I got it, the NSA is doing surveillance, how many times a day do I need to be reminded?

What's the biggest run of consecutive pages of equations in it?

I can't agree with that even in principle. That's like asking others to take advantage of you. Of course you should care for your own people more than for strangers, that's basic common sense. Everyone should know where he belongs (the Us), and where he does not belong (the Them).

That's true even today. I think Slavs should stand together, because I doubt the West cares about us as much as we do.

I'm afraid I'm a proponent of the philosophy of realism instead.

While I understand what you mean, I prefer not to play with word definitions. For me, spoken language is a democratic process, and words mean what the majority of people believe them to mean. That's how language develops. It's called semantic shift. If the majority of people have the "wrong" definition, then it perhaps the word has simply shifted its meaning, and it's time to acknowledge that.

That said, what is the colloquial meaning of socialism? How does the common man on the street define it? I'm from Eastern Europe, and here for example, anyone you ask will tell you that socialism mean the way things were in the Warsaw Pact - a one-party state, propaganda, jobs provided by the state, and all life organized by the state. Nobody here would call Norway socialist. In fact, most people here would simply call them a capitalist country, because to us, any country West of the Warsaw Pact, including Norway, was simply a capitalist country. Socialism meant Us, and capitalism meant Them, and Norway wasn't part of Us.

Of course, that's what socialism means in Eastern Europe, perhaps it has a slightly different meaning in America.

Ukraine was a Russian province during Tsarist Russia, and then part of the Soviet Union. Perhaps we could say they're just taking that land back?

I think the word "rebel" is more appropriate than terrorist. I'd save terrorist for people who blow bombs for a political agenda, not for armies that take over cities.

I agree to that, I had come to say the same. The whole thing doesn't make sense if done intentionally by Russia, because it makes them look bad - they don't gain anything from it.

The most likely thing is that they mistook the civilian plane for military, and just shot.

It seems that adding Metro UI to Windows 8 has resulted in their tablets and phones going from 1% to 2%. Was the whole exercise worth it?

That's true, eating right and exercising prevent you from getting it in the first place. But once you've gotten it, they can't undo it, it's too late by then.

Yes, ultimately they were all "consenting adults". But did the board act against the shareholders' interests? Ultimately, it's the shareholders who appoint the board, so even then they should blame only themselves.

As Stalin said "Cadres are a key to everything" - meaning be careful who you appoint to what. The shareholders should have thought about who they are appointing as directors, and the board (if the shareholders appointed them well) should have thought about who they appoint as CEO.