This is despite the fact that you will have to pay the maintenance and replacement costs of the lawnmowers from your own pocket.

Not exactly from my own pocket; it comes out of the profits of the company. This operating cost comes out before the $5 per yard.

You ... have no savings to boot from because of the 12:1 rules

Maybe the company would have some savings if I had planned a little better, or if I hadn't been so greedy taking $700 an hour for... doing what exactly? Owning 140 lawnmowers?

enjoying the fruits of their labor

Do CEOs labor 50 or even 12 times harder than janitors?

in the end, it is telling companies they cannot pay someone over a certain amount

No, in the end it is telling companies that they must pay all employees closer to the average amount. Companies may freely choose to raise the average instead of limiting the top outliers.

Companies succeed or fail as an organism and rely on the performance of every part.

Your philosophy is like saying the brain deserves 50 times more calories than the hands because it's smart enough to negotiate a better salary from the stomach. And that this continues to be morally correct even when the fingers are starving and falling off.

Obviously, government need not "slavishly enforce" conditions which are against the law.

Remind me, who is it that decides what the law says?

You are asserting that "more utilitarian" == "better". Did you intend to do so?

What is the discounted marginal value product that a CEO brings to a company?

I have seen no evidence that the salary of the CEO has any correlation with the success of a company. Nor have I seen evidence that past success is any better than random chance as a predictive indicator of future success by a CEO.

The ecology of CEOs and shareholders has more in common with feudal oligarchy than it does with free market economics.

Probably Entry of the Gladiators

Absolutely. So why is the DOJ involved?

Sure he could buy one, but the higher ups won't let him wear it at work.

Most atmospheric radiation goes right through your body. The rest is generally absorbed evenly throughout your body mass. The airport scanners concentrate ALL their emissions on the surface of your body, no more than a few millimeters deep.

These scanners probably are safer than people think, but according to those same current models of radiation-cancer association, more people WILL develop cancer and die from being exposed than if the scanners were not used. The question must be: does this increased risk justify the reward? Are we saving lives by preventing terrorist attacks? How many?

Exactly two things have made air travel safer since 2001: reinforced cockpit doors and passenger awareness. EVERY other airport or airplane security scheme serves not to make us actually safer, but to make people who don't know any better FEEL safer. If a terrorist gets to the airport with a plan and means to blow up a plane, our security efforts have already failed.

Esc, the Windows key, or any arrow key will get you out of the search box.

If we heard that a United States General had been captured, crucified, and fed to rats, would that soothe the average American or aggravate him? Would he be more or less likely to support violent retribution or volunteer to fight?

Trumpeting a triumph in victory against our foes is all well and good, but purposeful desecration of the body? We're better than that. A slap in the face against deeply conditioned religious beliefs? I would hope we're smarter than that.

Try a software keyboard with Swype. It's downright miraculous.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/32009/All_New_Game_Engine_For_Next_Elder_Scrolls.php

To be fair, Steam was released on Mac last May. Nearly 5% of the user base in 7 months isn't too shabby, especially when you consider how few of the games on Steam are available for Mac. Steam was first released for Windows in 2002.

Not that this invalidates your points about performance.

Except that those fuels are already being recycled into soil, then grass, then more cattle.