Even if they used it now, I'm not sure they'd sue. It would make them look pretty crappy. As it is, they got a request to use their logo on a statue of a murdered child, and they were like, "Eh... we'd rather not." It's really not that hard to understand why DC wouldn't want to be strongly linked to child abuse and murder in such a potentially long-lasting medium, given the choice. How much trouble they'd go through to stop it, though, is another issue.

Part of the question, I'd imagine, is whether they're denying the use of the logo via copyright protection or trademark protection. I'm not sure it makes sense for them to claim trademark protection here, but if so, there are some legal requirements for them to protect their trademark, so they might need to at least send a cease and desist letter. I'm not a lawyer, but that's my understanding.

Isn't part of the problem caused by checked baggage? They don't like when you check baggage and then decide not to get on the plane.

Sing: "Send me your money."

So you nicely repeat the lies they have fed to you ?

What lies? That there are a bunch of murderous thugs trying to take over the Middle East and impose a 1500-year-old fascist dictatorship on the 99.9% of ordinary people that live there?

The lies about the suicide bombers with surgically-implanted bombs?

The Isis thing is once again financed by the Sauds. YOUR friends.

Yes, I know who finances them. They're not "my friends." I've never met any of them personally, and I don't approve of any of it, whichever of the warring sides you care to mention.

...and his side-kick Blair.

Anyway, the new dude is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and he's assimilating Irag, Syria and probably Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Somalia, Nigeria... you name it... into his all new "proper" Islam state.

A number of armies in the region are already squaring up, including Iran and Saudi. There have been some murders of Israeli and Palestinian teenagers by terrorists too, probably trying to goad each side into action.

It's a bloody miserable state of affairs.

Whenever you set off to do something like "setting up an internal corporate Intranet site", you should always be very clear about your answer to this question: "Why are we doing this?" As in, what problem are we solving? How do we actually imagine this being used?

Lots of people will start something like this and think, "This application looks cool. It's like Facebook, but private and we can control it." And yeah, it may be fun to set up, but why are you doing it? What problem does it solve? Does it serve a purpose in disseminating information in a way that a normal website or email mailing list would be less effective? Does it aid in collaboration somehow? Once you have a clear answer, then you have to have a plan on how to get buy-in from employees. How are you going to get them to think it's a good way of accomplishing whatever it is that you hope it'll accomplish? Why should they bother with it at all? You need to convince them and then remind them to follow through.

But none of that works if there's no purpose in the first place. Is the intention just to socialize? First, they can do that in Facebook. If they want a more professional setting, that's what LinkedIn is for. Beyond that, lots of those people are sitting in the same office building anyway, so they can meet face to face. Throw them a little cupcake party on the first Friday of every month. It'll be cheaper, and people will like it more.

Sure it can't be all human experimentation, or else ad agencies couldn't attempt to measure the effectiveness of their ads. Parents couldn't raise their children (e.g. "Let's try withholding cookies and see if that works!").

There must be specific parameters under which human experimentation is illegal.

Indeed, they're a swivel-eyed loon.

I feel like I'm being a little paranoid, but I had the same thought. And after all the NSA revelations and whatnot, I feel like paranoia is justified.

It's an industry that has always tacked on weird semi-fraudulent charges to your bill. The industry has always tried to hide what you're actually being charged for, advertised different prices than what you're actually charged, charged you for add-on services without consent, and charged for unexpected overages without warning. Meanwhile, T-Mobile has been shaking up the industry with simpler billing, making their charges more clear, and doing away with overages. Why would the FTC be going after them specifically?

Being unhappy tends to lead to increased awareness of details and a more cautious/pessimistic approach to problems. While that can be a handicap in many situations, it can be helpful when the shit hits the fan. "Stress" is itself a biological state that is priming us for bad situations. Stress can be helpful in dangerous situations. The problem is, in our relatively safe modern society, we have a tendency to enter a state of stress, and then never leave.

And C++ supports recursion, immutability, and the other hyped features of functional programming.

Yes, and at this rate, perhaps in another 20 years, it will have caught up with LISP (from the late 1950s).

And if you aren't a dumbass, you'll use ...

A simpler, more efficient high-level (higher than C++) language that is more expressive with fewer lines of code, less prone to introducing silly bugs caused by human error, and more readable by other programmers.

C++ is for those serious programmers who want to get real work done, and who don't have time to waste with overhyped crap.

C++ is for conformists and trend-followers lacking in enough critical thinking skills of their own to investigate and adopt better tools for the job.

That's what it is.

The end of quarter profit is what matters. Suck it up and take it like a man! Pull your weight like a true team player or you'll be let go to make way for a flexible, empowered, dedicated business-oriented go-getter from the thousands of them queuing up at the door.

If you can't do it right, or don't like it, get out. Don't drag the team down with you, loser.

I agree, up to a point. We worship happiness a little too much and fail to see the value of other emotions.