"not in scope"

I see what you did there.

I'd say he's tied for first place with Tyson. Who do you think is "more fore" than the two of them?

The prisoners aren't the customers.

Radio is an ad for albums? Huh. I thought albums were ads for concerts. Heck I only $9 for a CD but I pay triple that for a concert tshirt and double THAT for the concert ticket.

I'm in my mid thirties. The last time I listened to the radio for more than sixty seconds was when I was in high school. Do a lot of people still listen to the radio? Are these people who have never heard of MP3s? How hard is it to press play on a pod instead of a radio?

The list of hardware tech that Apple has developed is small and underwhelming. It's not zero length, but it's nearly zero impressiveness.

What kind of idiot would buy a cell phone with a non-replaceable battery? That would be even more stupid than if it had a proprietary data-cable port. Nobody in their right mind would but such a crippled device.

I think your complaint is invalid. The simile to Apple's current market strategy is strong and compelling:

Today Apple builds the handheld computer-pod, offers an app store including support for in-app purchases, and takes a huge cut of all proceeds.

Tomorrow Apple builds a car, offers an app store including a per-mile insurance app which draws funds from your App Store balance, and takes a huge cut of all the proceeds.

That's perfectly cromulent.

You are right. It depends on the state and statutes vary widely. My understanding is that noncompete contracts are hard to enforce in California, but obviously this company thinks it is possible.

I don't know, man, it sounds like you were in a position to argue. You could have asked him what it was worth to him.

I watched it. I thought it was above average for a gross slapstick comedy.

That problem was solved 220 years ago. Since then the problem has been dumb voters. Democracy, as they say, is the government you deserve.

The American market can enjoy this because of the nanny state. Thanks, big government! Fuck you, free market!

It seems like your third step begs your whole algorithm. How can you know how close you are to the destination if you haven't calculated a minimum route to the destination?

Still, I understand your point, which is valid. Your algorithm is simplified for explanatory purposes but fully formed the example would be fine.

The article writeup doesn't imply a problem to me. I read it as a feel-good story about a douchebag getting nipped. Assuming he is guilty, fuck that guy.