This is a definition of a free market that even Adam Smith would not have recognized. It was not regulation per se that he was opposed to, but mercantilism and state granted monopolies. He looked favorably regulations which protected workmen (citation Wealth of Nations I.10.121). He was also in favor of regulating banks where their actions endanger society, even at the expense of curtailing natural liberties (citation: Wealth fo Nations II.2.94
).

The free market is free of price or supplier choice regulations. It's not necessarily free of regulation per se, such as regulations of weights and measures, of worker or consumer safety, or even of public morality (e.g. drugs and prostitution).

In any case you can't use the actions of states to indict the federal government for hypocrisy, although there is plenty of other material for that.

While I agree that kids need downtime, a two or two-and-a-half month break means schools waste time refreshing material they've forgotten at the start of the year. If the summer break were shorter you could give kids *more* vacation, more frequently through the year.

A typical US school years is 180 days or 36 weeks. This leave 16 weeks off, of which about two are holidays. This leaves 14 weeks of vacation, of which it's customary to divide up into three one week vacations and one eleven week vacation.

You could give kids four weeks off in January and July, and eight one week vacations distributed through the rest of the year mostly coinciding with holidays.

It depends on whether the particles are accumulating faster than they are leaving the system. If the figures we're talking about represent an equilibrium that will continue indefinitely into the future, surely we are not doomed. But if the concentration of particles is increasing and people need to do something about this before it becomes a problem, we might be.

Eventually something's going to get our species. Either changes in the Sun will make the Earth uninhabitable to anything recognizably human, or we'll do ourselves in before then.

Well, it probably makes no difference to the clean-up, but it does add to the take-away lessons from the disaster. It's an ongoing theme that TEPCO knew less about what was going on at the time than they thought or led us to believe. You have to set that against the overall good news that the failsafe designs of even this relatively primitive reactor mostly contained the accident. The principles of engineering are sound; management, not so much; at least not in a disaster.

It just happens to be denominated in dollars.

You don't seriously think when the Fed decides to add a trillion dollars to the US money supply that they call up the Treasury Department and tell them to fire up the printing presses? There's only about $4000 of physical currency for every US citizen, and a majority of the physical currency is being held overseas.

Most dollars "exist" as part of aggregate numbers sitting in databases. There's no reason to create an elaborate cryptographic algorithm for identifying each individual unit of currency for a centrally controlled money supply. The whole bitcoin thing, the interesting thing about it, is an attempt to create decentralized money.

It's called an airport. Scaled Composites has successfully launched suborbital spacecraft from one.

I think you just answered your own question there. Because not everyone can do it.

Of course, the fact that you did something that anybody can do but almost nobody does can be cool too.

I make stuff all the time. Just the other day I made a belt sheath that holds a pair of kitchen shears and a pair of forceps for when I'm fishing from my canoe. I made the sheath out of duct tape, which took me about five minutes. Anybody could have done it, which I think makes it a cool project. But suppose I'd sewed the sheath out of fish leather that I'd tanned myself. Not anyone could do that, and that would be cool too, but in a different way.

Well maybe Putin's going around cutting everyone's hawsers. That would leave them towing the line.

Well, this is what you signed up for.

Google's ToS explicitly states you can't use it for anything illegal, and their privacy policy states they can poke around in anything you send through them to make sure you're complying with the ToS. Furthermore their privacy policy allows them to disclose your data to third parties in order to "protect against harm to the rights, property or safety of Google, our users or the public as required or permitted by law."

So Google in this case was doing nothing that the user in question didn't grant permission for. Like most Google service users he didn't bother to read and think about all the documents he was supposedly agreeing to when he signed up. But it's not that hard to do. I did it, and I periodically check for changes.

How hard can it be to replace Ballmer? Very, very hard. But I think that's not he question you meant to ask. That question, I believe is this: How hard can it be to do *better* than Ballmer?

Long, long ago, early in my career, I spent about fifteen years in the non-profit sector.

You don't ignore office politics, but you don't take sides either unless there is a crisis brewing -- something illegal, highly unethical, or financially dangerous. When you work in IT, you're in a "support" position, rather than a "line" position. Your job is to support. So when there's a big pissing match between two line functions, your job is to support *both* sides.

Often this means documenting business processes that sort of evolved via the lava flow antipattern; 50ish is the size where things start to get out of hand, because it's the size where the amateurishly hacked-together processes that keep the organization running start to break down because everyone can't be aware of everything that's going on in detail, in real-time. Make it your business to understand what business systems (not necessarily computer systems) *accomplish*. That puts you in a position to offer a third way, the one that emerges as obvious to everyone once somebody has figured out what's actually going on.

It's supposedly hard to implement changes in non-profits because of the consensus-driven decision making processes, but I found that I could make that process work for me. Lack of understanding is a vacuum; presented with a clear picture people usually line up behind the obvious solution quickly. But you do have to do your homework. Never surprise anyone with anything in a meeting. Bring people up to speed with things you're going to say about their work *before* the meeting so they don't feel blind-sided.

In a crisis be prepared to do the right thing. If you're in a non-profit they're paying you below market rates, so you can do better elsewhere. There is no call for getting yourself sucked into something that offends your self-respect. I resigned one job because my superior (the COO) was doing things that were financially reckless and improper (spending without proper authorization). I informed the CEO in my exit interview. That was my solution to the problem of not getting drawn into a persistent pattern of dysfunction.

When you handle sensitive information, just ask yourself what is the professional thing to do? Be discreet. Resist the temptation to peek at data, and when you *do* accidentally learn something you're not supposed to know, disclose that to the responsible parties. Be trustworthy, and present a trustworthy face.

Finally, don't let them pay you far below the market rate for your services, and expect a really good benefits package, including 1.5x to 2x the vacation you'd get in a for-profit. Insist on the respect due a professional. Non-profits are full of young people who haven't learned that the IT guy isn't there to be kicked around when they're frustrated, and the fact that you're in a support position rather than a more glamorous line position doesn't make your work any less important.

Implementation makes a difference. Early versions of NT were quite good, but unpopular because you needed 16MB of RAM (if I recall correctly) to run them in an era when a high end personal computer shipped with 4MB of RAM. Over the years they tried to hold the line, at one point getting the minimum down to 12MB of RAM, but perhaps not coincidentally stability got really bad.

With slave labor, no less.

Yes people are limited by their culture and time, but not *that* limited. Braun deserves condemnation for using slave labor in WW2.

All the arguments based on classical economic theory only work if the assumptions of classical economics hold, particularly the assumption that there is a free market.

Amazon is arguing for its freedom to set prices it charges in its ebook store; that would be no concern of the publishers if we lived in a world where ebook users could simply buy books in non-proprietary formats from any Internet storefront they wanted. But we don't live in such a world. We live in a world where most ebook readers are controlled by Amazon and inextricably linked to its store. It wouldn't have been hard for Amazon to build the Kindle that way. Define some public book trading protocols, bootstrap the standard by building those protocols into the Kindle and Amazon's online store, and instantly the world is a better place for everyone except printers and bricks-and-mortar bookstores with no Internet presence. But Amazon didn't do that, because the Kindle is designed to tie the user to Amazon, the way the iPad is designed to tie the user to Apple.

So what we're looking at is a maneuver by Amazon to corner the market on books *in general* by killing off the traditional paper book trade. Preserving the ability to buy most books from someone other than Amazon seems like a legitimate reason to me.

Nobody's book is so incredible that people would buy them no matter what the price. If my only way to get Shakespeare was to pay a ten thousand dollar license fee I'd find a way to do without.

You really shouldn't assume that anyone who disagrees with you does so because they're stupid. Publishers know their marginal and fixed costs and certainly have a pretty good idea of the price elasticity of their books. The situation is more complicated than you know.

You can't compare Hachette to Valve, because Valve owns the whole Steam ecosystem, and delivers its services to users' commodity PC hardware with no intermediaries (other than Internet service). In the case of Hachette v. Amazon, we're looking at a situation where Amazon owns the point of sale, and has more control over the users' devices than the user himself has. And yes, you can read ebooks on a PC but few people will want to do that. And yes you can download ebooks in non-proprietary formats like epub from sources other than Amazon, convert the format to .mobi, and use file transfer to move the converted file onto the kindle; but that's a significant barrier for most people.

So what we're looking at is a move by Amazon to take control of the book market in a way it cannot as long as paperback and hardback sales remain strong. Amazon *looks* like a friend of the consumer because they're calling for lower prices. If they get what they want, then ebooks may well make a significant market share headway against paper books.

You might think that's fine, but it's not *generic* formats and *commodity* hardware we're talking about. It's formats and hardware controlled by an inextricably linked to *one* company. And that may mean lower prices today, but what will it mean ten years down the pike when Amazon corners the market on books?