The GP probably meant to comment on the story about Amazon "censoring" certain gay fiction.

Your workplace sounds incredibly unpleasant.

FSlint's "merge" option will do what you want.

It would seem to me if every citizen knew how to properly shoot a rifle, odds are pretty good one of those things could be knocked out of the sky with a barrett.

You really put a lot of thought into this didn't you? No, the odds are far from "pretty good". There's a reason why people hunt flying birds with shotguns: the spray of pellets is much more likely to hit a fast-moving target than a single projectile, and while there are any number of people in the U.S. who are quite proficient with shotguns, only a very, very few have the requisite skill necessary to hit a bird with a rifle, much less a drone, which would probably be flying MUCH faster than a bird, and if flying low, would be in sight for only a fraction of a second.

As to your suggestion that citizens be armed with Barrett sniper rifles, it takes months of intensive training to become a proficient sniper, and they start off with expert marksmen. Even then, the very best snipers would probably be ineffecive against a target such as a drone, which, given the the advances in small off-the-shelf turbine engines that are readily available to R/C hobbyists, would be travelling at a couple hundred mph, and if flying at low altitude, would only be visible for a split second. Add to that the mass of the Barrett, which makes it difficult to maneuver quickly enough to track a fast-moving target. Plus there is the wholly unanswered question of readiness: how to alert this civilian air defense artillery corps and give them useful targeting data IN TIME to be effective. What are they going to do? Lug a large heavy weapon plus ammunition with them to work, the beach, on dates etc, on the off chance that they might be alerted to incoming drones? The idea of training large numbers of ordinary citizens to the level of proficiency required is not a tenable one, to put it charitably, and would be FAR from cost-effective.

There is also the danger of falling bullets, as another poster pointed out. And if you don't think the danger is real, tell that to my friend Cathy, whose uncle was killed about four years ago in Miami by a falling bullet. He was sitting on his back patio with his wife watching the New Year's fireworks and having a glass of champagne when he slumped to the ground dead. The first thought was that he had suffered a massive heart attack, but the medical examiner noticed a small hole near his collarbone, and the autopsy revealed that he had been killed by a small caliber handgun bullet falling from a steep angle, fired into the sky by some unknown, and unknowing, person celebrating the fireworks. The thought of masses of people firing enormous volumes of .50 caliber rounds into the sky over populated areas is a terrifying one to me personally.

It's because people who use OO.o are likely people who wouldn't have paid for Office anyway.

Because the surviving Beatles, Yoko Ono, and George Harrison's family have collectively opposed making the Beatles' catalog available on any such service. They were slow to jump to CDs as well. It has nothing particularly to do with Apple (the computer company).

Suppose that such a cooling trend were to occur mainly because of Cap and Trade and friends, but sunspot activity coincidentally changed over the same period. How loudly do you think certain individuals would declare that it was all sunspots all along?

Or perhaps it is only the people that disagree with you that can be irrational fools.

TFA is about the Wii being less capable than its peers, so it sounds like your complaint should be with the great-grandparent. Nobody was misquoted, the grandparent just directly challenged the great-grandparent's attempt to minimize the importance of what TFA is about (and blaim the publishers instead).

Well since they've offered it to the highest bidder, notionally some third party could offer $bignumber for the data and then use it for this sort of purpose. Of course that doesn't seem terribly likely, the SMS cost data (and therefore the analysis) would be seen as tainted, and the hackers could still decide to also provide the data to some or all of the other bidders...

It's not clear what point, if any, you are trying to make here.

TFA is about Google using humans to improve its results, in a few ways.

Wolfram Alpha derives all of its results from a database that is curated by humans.

There are major differences in their approaches (as indeed there are major differences in what they are trying to accomplish), but the general notion of involving human beings to improve your results is the same.

By avoiding the appearance of being suspicious, and therefore avoiding being blacklisted in the first place.

Because major multinational Joe-Blow, Inc., is not comfortable buying joe-blow.tld1 and letting whoever wants to buy joe-blow.tld2, which they could use in a way that damages Joe-Blow's reputation. There is some legal recourse to that, depending on the specifics, but that takes time and is anything but guaranteed. Why risk it? So most large companies (and indeed, many smaller companies) just buy a bunch of permutations of their domain name, including different TLDs and common misspellings. They will generally ignore ccTLDs (of which there are over 250) except maybe the one for their own country, but will often buy several or all of the no-restrictions gTLDs (.com, .net, .org, and if they feel like it .biz, .info, and maybe the others). ICANN is moving toward creating more gTLDs.

So in effect, increasing the supply of gTLDs stands to artificially increase the demand as well, thus offsetting any price pressure.

What you are describing is in the same vein as the Creative Commons Founders' Copyright, although I am not sure that there is a workable way to also offer the work under a permissive license until the conversion to public domain. Alternately, you could simply wait 14 years (or what have you) and then declare your work to be in the public domain. CC can help you with that too. Of course, all of this assumes that they will still exist in 14 or however many years.

I assume you realize that "maximum theoretical speed of the interface" and "real-world performance" are not the same thing.

Both of Intel's Mini-ITX desktop boards with the Atom have the CPU passively cooled. However, they have a fan for the chipset (which consumes more power), and that may be the source of your confusion. At least some Atom-based notebooks do have cooling fans, but I couldn't say if they all do.