I am assuming that Google has to pay sales tax to buy the food to begin with so really there is not taxes being avoided here.

"'I buy my lunch with after-tax dollars,' said McMahon. 'And I have to pay taxes to support free meals for those Google employees.'"

How exactly do tax dollars go to fund the lunches at Google's cafeterias? Last time I checked, that money came from revenue earned by Google, through its business. You know, from working.

How would the government prove that a given employee is actually eating the meals? Do they have a swipe card that tracks them? What if they are bringing their own lunch?

I have always been of the opinion that while Christian conservatives decry Islam as evil, they are secretly jealous of it. Afterall, Islam has permeated many governments in the Middle East to a degree which most Christian conservatives could only hope to achieve.

Adult pornography is not generally illegal, true, but unless you actually work in the industry it probably is not appropriate for the office.

Fairly, however, an employee should be instructed as to what is and is not appropriate for work before they can be disciplined for violating it. I remember being presented with an internet use policy when I was hired, as well as sexual harassment training. So it you are told in advance not to do certain things at work, and you freely agree not to do them, you can then be disciplined for doing said actions.

Otherwise one could argue the old "No one told me porn at work was not allowed!" a la George Costanza.

An EULA is a contract, and the first rule of contracts is that they cannot constitute anything illegal. You may sign a contract giving a third party full permission to murder you, but since murder is illegal, a jury will still convict said third party.

Normally with Sony, I'd agree with you. However, the Sony Reader supports more diverse formats than the Kindle.
Although Sony doesn't officially support it, there is software out there that will let you make your own books in BBeB format.
Calibre (http://calibre.kovidgoyal.net/) is one that comes to mind.
Beny

The goggles, zey do noh-zing!

Wow, what an idiot!

That's like a banker thinking that nothing good came of dynamite, simply because bank robbers have used it to blow open bank vaults!

This is the absolute perfect example of the mess that SONY has become. "If we aren't using the technology to screw our customers, then nothing good has come of it. Period."

If the government is the majority shareholder, can't they vote to stop the lawsuit?

It sounds as if the government is suing itself!

Beny

I am not advocating piracy, but the more the two sides drag their feet on this issue, the more their dedicated "willing to pay for the music" fans will tire and just turn to bittorrent to get the whole album at a much more attractive price... free!

The suits are either stupid or don't care about this rapidly shrinking pool of purchasers of Beatles music.

Ben

First off, if the child is actively breastfeeding, the "objectionable bits", according to Facebook, are covered. Its when pictures are taken of the baby near the exposed breast that they take issue.

Secondly comparing the ability to breastfeed in public vs the ability to post public pictures of breastfeeding are two different issues and one does not beget the other.

When a mother is actually breastfeeding, the child is gaining some benefit from it. Arguments about breast pumps aside, someone is gaining some benefit from the feeding.

Posting pictures of the baby breastfeeding really does not affect the baby's well being, thus Facebook would take the stance that it is perfectly within its rights to take them down.

I personally don't understand why someone feels compelled to post breastfeeding photos on Facebook to begin with, unless it was part of some sort of breastfeeding instruction manual to help other new mothers out. Thus, there would be a net benefit to the baby.

But of the myriad of cute baby photos that you can post of your little darling, why do you have to post pictures of breastfeeding? Why is there a need to document every second of the child's life and post it in a public forum? Is your creativity low? Have you exhausted every other adorable scene?

Perhaps, this stems from me being a male, and so I will never understand the mother/child bond, but I think the whole debate is silly. If the child is not on the breast, then it is not actually being breastfed. Thus it is not technically a picture of the child breastfeeding.

I would have to say that a decent level of special effects are required. This does not mean that enough SE will over ride a crappy or non-existent story, but we have achieved a level of sophistication that we want to see superpowers that are "conceivably realistic" (if that isn't an oxymoronic request).

I want to see webbing come right out of Spider-man's wrist, not Spider-man making a hand gesture and a net flying at the villain from off screen

A great storyline will not be able to support sub-par special effects, and vice versa.