Corrupt building inspectors were most likely the biggest issue. Newly constructed buildings were not built to code and came crumbling down. Of course, it's a lot harder to go after those guys than just blaming some scientists who were making reasonable predictions based on the available data.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/world/europe/08codes.html

The U.S. government makes an even more bold claim than that. They have argued with Megaupload that the government can continue to seize their servers even if the case is dismissed. I'm halfway surprised that the government bothered to drop the charges against Rojadirecta since they feel they can keep cases like this in limbo indefinitely without any consequences.

We'll call this the Spinal Tap Syndrome. (But my screen goes to 11.)

I'd guess that a soda tax is more of a first step than a solution. Probably taxing any sugar or refined flour would make come later.

As far as diabetes being passed on, I suppose that is true for type 1 diabetes but I'm not sure what the research says about type 2. While there is probably a family correlation, that probably has more to do with learned behavior than genetics. Not sure if research has made any conclusions on that though, especially since nobody really knows why some overweight people get diabetes while others don't.

I'm not saying that government's motives are completely altruistic here. I do believe though that diabetes is a monumental drain on our society and recently scientific studies indicate it is only going to get worse. So what are your suggestions of fixing the problem? Updating the food pyramid? Having fat people pay more for health insurance? Eliminate diabetes treatment in Medicare and Medicaid?

Citation please. Type 2 diabetes is certainly correlated with an increase in sugar intake. And while sugar intake isn't the only risk factor for diabetes, it is a big one.

Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Risk of Metabolic Syndrome and Type 2 Diabetes

What might confuse you is that any carb can result in a high glycemic index. Rice and potatoes can have a similar effect. The difference is that food and drinks have so much sugar in them now, it's having a greater effect on people. Overconsumption of all carbs can be bad though.

Yes, this on the surface seems like an overreaching nanny state tax. Consider this though.

• 1 in 5 healthcare dollars go to diabetes
• 1 in 4 teens have diabetes or prediabetes
• 1 in 3 people will eventually contract diabetes

So what do you do about this? Let people eat up our healthcare system with obesity related illnesses (no pun intended), or try things out to fix the problem? The government has run educational programs before with little success. Taxing sugar almost seems like a reasonable alternative at this point.

No, they just realize that nobody uses Bing :) They send the takedown to Google first since that will do more good.

This is a fantastic thing. Take a look at NASA's goal.

To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind.

Being the tow trucks to space has very little to do with that. NASA has done that for more than half a century now and I'm personally very happy to offload that responsibility to private entities.

So what does this mean for NASA now? I'd say it clears up their responsibilities for space exploration. More rovers. More probes. And if we can justify it, more manned space flights. If private entities can handle sending things up to orbit, then I see that as a good thing.

Comparing any stock to Apple is going to make a company look bad. They have had phenomenal growth.

Obviously they have missed out on opportunities. But at least they have had slight growth over the past 5 years while paying out dividends. That beats the S&P.

I'm not saying that Microsoft has done well. We're steadily moving towards a web centric world where the operating system is less relevant. But worst CEO? Not a chance.

The author criticizes Balmer for the stock not getting back to it's high of $60/share. You can dismiss this article just based on that criticism. Microsoft's stock price skyrocketed to that during the 2000 tech craze and was seriously overvalued at that point. Balmer had nothing to do with the stock price tanking at that point. Reality did.

Stock price is also an incomplete measure of a company's performance. The article fails to mention that Microsoft has steadily paid out dividends or made a special distribution of $3/share in the fall of 2004. That kind of activity isn't reflected in stock price.

I'll be fine with criticizing Microsoft for underperforming. Sure, they haven't found ways to capitalize on their monopoly power in the OS market. The sensationalistic opinions here don't mean much though.

This is the same thing that the TSA previously dismissed as "some guy" making a "crude attempt" at getting around screening procedures. At least they are acknowledging it now.

http://blog.tsa.gov/2012/03/viral-video-about-body-scanners.html

They have also said that these things are completely safe despite inadequate testing. Or that there are sufficient procedures in place to protect people's privacy. I wonder how long it will take for them to change their minds on that too.

Right, return his stuff after the damage is already done. Megauploads is gone. Nothing they can do now can repair their business.

And to be honest, I think that was the point of this whole exercise. I don't think our government cared about making any kind of legal precedent here. They mostly just wanted to show that they had the ability to take any of these guys down and went after a high profile business to do it.

Here's what the ACLU was actually saying in this particular case.

"The law is overly broad, criminalizing not only commercial SPAM but also anonymous non-commercial bulk emails containing political and religious messages"

http://www.acluva.org/docket/jaynes.html

So the complaint here is Virginia's own anti-SPAM legislation was written to also penalize anonymous non-commercial free speech which is a violation of the first amendment. This is different from the federal CAN-SPAM law that specifically mentions that emails need to be commercial in nature to apply.

I also find it very funny that you pick this particular case because the Virginia supreme court eventually sided with the ACLU that the Virgina law was overly broad. Like most people that criticize the ACLU, I feel like you don't understand the issue they were trying to address.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/151014/court_overturns_virginia_spam_law_conviction.html

That may be true in the U.S. thanks to our court system actively pursuing abusers, but that's not what I have seen around the world. Irelend has supposedly not received cooperation for criminal investigations and cover-ups may still be going on in Asia.