true, but they are not in it for the long run. They want to make as much as possible today and move on to the next target. It's not so much whether it is the right or worngthing but "can I make enough money doing this instead of something else?"

Yea, theres a lot of risk in such a move. But an investor need nobly buy enough to force the issue with the board.If someone else pays a premium over what they'd get then they'd happy dump their shares. After all, the name of the game os making money not what is best for Yahoo.

Which it is why an outside inverter or group of investors need to buy enough to force the boards hand; which usually only happens if a few board members are replaced. This type of change needs to be driven by outsiders who stand to make a boatload of money by changing the fundamentals of the company; however they first need to be convinced that the breakup is financially more lucrative than as an ongoing single concern.

In that case, it would be worth it for some deep pocket investors to gain control of the board and drive a split-up.They'd get a 25% return for it; that they haven't may mean either no one can put together a del enough set of pockets to be able to force a breakup or they rely don't think there is such a premium.

That's when you do an LBO, liquidate the company and pocket the difference.

True. Putin is very good a looking out for Putin and surviving. Right know, Putin can hold the specter of a trail and imprisonment over him as motivation to do what he is told. As long as Snowden is useful to Putin he'll be kept around and trotted out like a show pony. Once having him around is a liability or Putin can use him to achieve some more important end Snowden will be cut lose. Putin could simply decide to "follow Russian law" and deport him. Snowden is only safe in Russia as long as he is valuable and given his propensity to become disillusioned or get angry if he is not viewed as valuable he may very well wear out his welcome as well. Make no mistake, Putin has nothing but disdain for Snowden but since he is useful he keeps him around.

True, but who is really going to investigate each and every link? That would be a full time job. My guess is that someone though "if chancellor approval is needed people will be careful about where they link..." when in reality nobody worries about that and now have official OK for the link as a CYA. Which is why I think providing a list of the links requiring approval and asking "do you really want to do this?" and suggesting letting Departments approve them on their own, holding them accountable for what they approve, and running spot checks for obvious problems is a better solution then becoming a PITA.

Perhaps because offering a solution to a problem rathe than just being a PITA in hope sit will go away is the professional thing to do? When someone just brings up issues without offering solutions it quickly becomes apparent they are not capable of the level of thinking needed to advance. They may be good at what they do but that's all they'll ever do; that may not be fair but it's the reality of most workplaces.

While what you say is true, it is not necessarily the best way to deal with stupid policies. In the end, the PITA gets remembered long after the stupid policy is forgotten; all people know is someone was a PITA and eventually will be made to pay for it. You could, for example, send all links on one page and have that be signed. After a few were signed its's time to broach the "is there a better way to do this" argument. Malicious compliance with rules generally results in pissing people off and payback at some future point; it can even be fun watching the PITA get a taste of their own when the opportunity arises.

Just as I was pointing out flaws in a common pro-gun talking point.

The evidence seems to point to reducing the availability of guns tends to lower the suicide rate in those most prone to use a gun to commit suicide; it seems suicide is an act of the moment and a gun gives you, as you point out, a sure fire way to succeed.

Again, I am pointing out a common flaw uncommon pro-gun arguments; i.e. burglars won't break into house where they fear an armed owner.

Personally, my experience with guns has me view them simply as a tool. I am not fascinated by them nor do I fear them. They can serve a useful purpose if used properly. I also think there needs to be a middle ground, much as Switzerland has found, between the two camps although I doubt that will ever happen.

In the mean time I find the arguments made by both sides to take great liberty with the facts when making their case; and find it ironic that the NRA and most gun shops will not allow someone to take a loaded gun inside. I like to bring that up when someone goes off the deep end and ask "If more guns make you safe would;t they want armed people where they work?" just as I ask the rabid anti gunner "If you were about to be murdered wouldn't you want to be able to defend yourself?" Then again, sometimes it is just fun to kick the hornet's nest.

Well, there also was the mass shooting (with a SIG) of 14 people at a cantonal meeting as another example.

However, disproving that doesn't prove the opposite, i.e. that mass gun ownership reduces gun deaths or stops crime. Most of the gun deaths in Switzerland are from suicides or domestic violence.Their gun related suicide rate is one of the highest in Europe. One common argument made for gun ownership is criminals such as burglars won't break into a house with an armed owner yet burglaries are rising in Switzerland. My point is that Switzerland is not a good example for the argument greater gun ownership is good (or bad) since there are so many other factors at play that to focus on one is misleading.

Another interesting point is the Swiss seem to seek compromise on gun control issues such as limiting ammunition ownership, the need to have a permit to buy or carry a weapon, severely restricting the right to carry in public, even to the point of not giving reservists ammo for storing at home for their military issue weapons.

I certainly agree with that.

Actually, they have. I recall one while I lived there where their was a shooting over a girlfriend; but I will admit it is rare. However, if you want to adopt the Swiss model lets add universal registration of all weapons, severe penalties for carrying one in public unless you are on reserve duty, mandatory registration with the police in your place of residence, and universal healthcare. Somehow, most of the folks I know who point out Switzerland as a good reason for gun ownership aren't willing to really adopt the Swiss model.

Certainly, but in an appropriate environment; not just thrown into special ed because it is a convent dumping ground. In addition, if their behavior disrupts and threatens others then they should be removed and learn there are consequences for their behavior and it will not be tolerated. Unfortunately, many of them can get away with it and thus do not modify their behavior.

One important but often overlooked point in the WS article is how special education classes are setup. As the WP points out, in addition to kids who really need help they become dumping grounds for behavioral problems; as a result teachers have to teach and deal with troublemakers and the administration simply expects them to deal with it. So, instead of addressing the problems schools simply ignore them; especially since actually taking action and expelling the kid or moving them to a school designed to deal with troublemakers is a long and difficult process. If the teacher is lucky they can document the problems and get the kid kicked out of school or if they are an out of district kid, give them so much work to do that they decide to go back to their original school. No wonder many special ed teachers tell young kids who want to do that to do anything but teach special ed; and the kids who really need help suffer because teachers spend far too much time dealing with troublemakers.

True, but Netflix is paying Comcast for a specific level of service. Absent that Comcast has no requirement to ensure Netflix can deliver a decent level of service.

No, they paid for a maximum bandwidth, not a minimum one. That sucks, but that is what Comcast customers are buying.

Unfortunately, Comcast's only duty is to maximize its stockholders value.

That said, I've contended for a long time that the looming battle is over the last mile. As Apple and others build up content libraries they will become viable alternatives to cable. As content producers become more willing to make content such as TV shows available shortly after broadcast, at reasonable prices, they will draw in more cable cutters since people are already accustomed to time shifting. I could see a model where you can buy a free or watch ones with ads for free. As people shift the cable companies will look to profit more from the internet pipe - I see tiered services for data amounts as well as speeds becoming more prevalent. Right now, cable is too important for content producers to make stuff readily available on competing services; but as the $$$ potential form them grow they will embrace them. There is no loyalty that 1$ more profit can't overcome.