Feel good about shopping at costco. There's been a few weird items, but most of the stories written about costco end up looking like this -- http://positivesharing.com/2007/07/analysts-to-costco-stop-treating-your-employees-so-well/

I think your Math is off because boomers are retiring in full force now. My mom was a Baby boomer born pretty much right after the war, She would have been 66. But most of your serious campers are a bit younger. They are in their 50's and have retired early, not late. Kids are out of the house and they either worked for a private company and/or owned one that is now most likely in the hands of their genx kid, or they worked for the govt and retired after 20 years of service. which also explains why RVers are overwhelmingly veterans. The ones that are plus 65 many times stay in one campground for weeks, they don't travel as much as you think.

I wonder how much Fox news will report it. You can't tell me all the other networks aren't going to have a field day with this in the US.

Even better it took an Italian judge to rule this way. Brought to you by the same folks as this gem: http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2049773/Does-Italy-Really-Want-Search-Engines-Recent-Legal-Rulings-Suggest-Not

If you want to do this try having a glass of OJ (high pulp or not) with a bowl of oatmeal with some cinnamon on it - lotsa fiber and good taste even without the sugar with the cinnamon. Also - not to long ago it was common for restaurants to serve juice in a small 4 ounce glass. Even Mcdonalds had it in a pre ackaged 6 ounce container. It's a recent thing to have 8 or even more commonly 16 ounce servings, which is waaay to much. Fruit juices CAN be good for you, just not in such quantities. also, one other suggestion -- orange water. juice yourself one half an orange into a big glass of water. That right there is better than any softdrink and is fairly sweet if you mostly drink water. Stop drinking anything but water or unsweetened tea or coffee for three weeks- even skim milk will taste downright sweet afterwards.

That's assuming your new tool that's vitally important actually has a man page. Very little is documented as well as it was 10 years ago.

The problem is that we keep taking colloquial statements from non-scientific people we disagree with and pretending they are properly stated hypothesis to build a strawman so we can feel better about our intellectual superiority.

Finding 'what the heck is going on here?' is the most basic of scientific endeavors, yet the comments here overflow with predetermined conclusion on the theological question of ghost-existence, with a notorious absence of interest in any actual facts or potential evidence for the 'haunting' phenomena. This reflex is precisely why so many non-technical people think science is just like a 'secular faith with its own beliefs'.

To pick an arbitrary example, no doctor would work like that and claim its scientific:
- hey doc, I spent all day in the rain and got a flu...
- you're an idiot, you can't get the flu without being in contact with the virus. Now get out of my office unless you can really prove you got it from standing in the rain!

Instead, the doctor would extract the core of what the patient (not assumed to be a doctor or a scientist) actually means ('I feel bad, like when I've had the flu before'), interrogate the patient for the facts and details (symptoms, timelines, contact with other sick people), and translate that into a useful hypothesis for the disease and its cause... and at least go through the process before yelling hypochondriac.

Of course "there are ghosts" is not a useful scientific hypothesis.It's actually not a question of falsifiability, but specificity: 'ghosts' is not defined well enough to even get to the falsifiable part. Like 'god' most people in a conversation don't mean the same thing with that word, and a *lot* of people won't mean the same thing at different times in the same conversation.

But the people saying 'there is a ghost in this house!' are rarely trying to build a scientific hypothesis, or are even trained to do that either. They apply 'ghosts' as a shorthand for 'something weird is going on' and a blind jump of faith to a lot of cultural baggage of 'stuff people have said in the past was related to similar weird stuff', as a way to communicate that 'unknown' experience through a common meme. Much like people have always done when other stuff happens and they guess at some pattern: health and sickness, weather, economic hardships, magnets, etc - and people are often wrong when they do that, but that doesn't mean there was no phenomenae to feed those memes in the first place.

Maybe an investigation finds nothing more than construction defects, bad insulation, gas leaks or defective electronics - if it was fun enough to spend the time, so what? Maybe it finds something more surprising than the usual (without requiring theological explanations).
 

This is all true, but ignores the fact that for a lot of applications and teams RDBMS were overkill in the first place, so they are hardly sacrificing anything by switching to NoSQL.

It's the same reason a lot of people in the early dot-com days believed MySQL was awesome precisely because it was such a crappy RDBMS ('who needs transactions or referential integrity anyway? it just slows things down')... arguably with robust simpler storage now there is more awareness of which facilities are sacrificed, and which advantages the R in the acronym bring to the table when it is needed.

 

Wasn't there already a seminal paper on this topic?
http://public.research.att.com/~bs/whitespace98.pdf

I'd guess at least one of two reasons:
- Scale: it takes time and money to hire a single good developer with industry experience, even more to fit them into effective teams. If you can acquire a team that is already good/great without much attrition, it would pay off.
- Acquiring Founders + IP: as others have mentioned, it's usually the only way to not only acquire the IP but also recruit the (actively engaged) founder of a startup - so you acquire an executive leader on the area you're expanding instead of a competitor for both market share and talent. It's like a very expensive head-hunter + relocation package. Considering acquisitions are expensive (not just in money, also in time and corporate resources), I'm usually skeptical of this second case as the primary motivator, despite the noise in the interwebs... but it's a nice bonus.

Unfortunately, TFA has scarce information on either the deal (price tag, # of employees, next steps) or the founder's background, etc - so it's hard to say if this is really about either of these two factors, or it's all bloggers reading tea leaves on other blogs.