Its not their mess, its tanks owned by third parties:

Often built for gas stations during the 1950s and '60s highway construction boom, the tanks corroded over time, spilling gas and diesel with potentially cancer-causing chemicals under properties and into aquifers.

The oil companies are paid to clean up the pollution caused by these tanks constructed for, operated and owned by third parties. The oil companies are chosen because they already have extensive inhouse expertise on the subject, so they are ideal for doing it wholesale.

Chances are, most of these tanks have been abandoned and their original owners do not exist, which is why local government step in.

Of course, it then came out that at least one work was taken down by a WB employee, and that employee had done so on purpose, annoyed that JDownloader could help possible infringers download more quickly.

Isn't making a false statement under the DMCA essentially like perjury? And if it is, why isn't someone being charged criminally?

It's gotten to the point where these companies ignore the letter (and intent) of the law at will, and with no penalty.

If your computer system is identifying incorrect stuff, your computer system is faulty. If your humans are illegally issuing take downs for stuff you don't own, that's a criminal act.

And don't tell me it's a civil matter, because the *AAs have gotten enforcement of this ramped up to a federal crime.

As an OS, Symbian sucked. As an interface to a phone, it worked well. People who wanted a phone to run games and run all the bells and whistles didn't buy Nokia phones. People who bought Nokia phones wanted a phone that made phone calls, and in a pinch could do some other neat tricks, too.

For comparison, consider my wife's old Android phone, which crashed when the Phone app was opened... or my iPhone, which has trouble figuring out whether it wants to use Wi-Fi or 4G for data transfer at any given time. My old Nokia phone was just a phone, and for a large market segment (such as the elderly retirees whose kids insist they have a cell phone "for emergencies"), that's all they need.

Nokia had a niche market all ready as the manufacturer of reliable low-end phones. Elop led them down the familiar Microsoft path of following the latest trends, so they lost that one market they dominated.

Nor is it clear why nearby oil fields that have also been injected with CO2 have not experienced similar seismic activity.

Until you figure out why CO2 injection causes problems at one oilfield, and not its neighbors, even though all of them have had similar amounts of CO2 injected, it seems rather more likely than not that the CO2 injection had nothing to do with the tremors.

Microsoft is showing restraint with version numbers. I've lost track of what versions Chrome and Firefox are at now.

Because people who own Tesla stock have to justify their mistake? A better question is which company takes more taxpayer money per worker.

If we're just talking styling opinions, the Chevy Volt has much better styling and is more efficient. It's the winner in the long run. The Tesla is a boat that looks like a decade-old Kia with an 80s Maserati grill super-glued to the front.

Tesla has no rivals because no one else currently builds for the Cars-That-No-one-Wants market segment. Clearly GM won't be competing.

The correct question is: "is GM going to continue developing and improving electric cars?" to which the answer is already clearly yes.

Firing SysAdmins because... "At the end of the day it's about people and trust ... if they misuse that trust they can cause huge damage.'

I would be wary of the NHTSA front crash test ratings for the Tesla. The NHTSA front crash test is a full frontal crash into a wall at 35, while the IIHS does a more real world scenario of 25% and 40% of the bumper hitting a wall at 40mph. Without a large motor in the way Tesla is able to use the whole front compartment as a crumple zone as opposed to most combustion vehicles that primary use the sides as a crumple zone. While I don't think the ratings were manipulated they are artificially high because the Tesla design is able to game the system. Unfortunately the IIHS crash test ratings have not been released yet but I can't imagine them doing as well, in the 40% test the Tesla will have lost 60% of it crumple zone while typical combustion engines will lost a little over 50%, in the 25% test Tesla will lose 75% and the combustion engine is still at a little over 50%.