I'd call it just a tad obsessive, myself.

And, yes, I've worked in the restaurant business and I know all about not letting raw chicken get on or into other things.

Because anything that doesn't work out the way we expected couldn't possibly represent a free market.

Thank you, kind Sir/Ma'am/Fido. That's the funniest thing I've read all morning.

Nice way to miss the point, which is: Paul hasn't done diddley-squat with any of the power already entrusted to him.

Let me connect some dots for you, fanboi:

Stock price is an indicator of how much a company is expanding.

In American capitalism, the only metric that is deemed to matter in determining a firm's value is its growth.

By this metric, Apple is currently a failure. Next quarter, it might not be.

"Rediculous"? One diculous wasn't enough, then?

As a fellow ex-journo, I salute you.

Nice work there. Thanks for digging this out.

Acerbic political commentary from APK.

Only on Slashdot, folks.

If you think saying, "I don't consent to this search," makes the search illegal, I've got some prime ocean-front property back in Phoenix that you might be interested in...

Thank YOU for your intellectual integrity, something which seems sadly lacking in many of these discussions.

And you might want to check and see where American politics fits on everybody else's political spectrum.

Only in the US is Obama regarded as "leftist". Elsewhere, he's considered a bit to the right of centre.

Bush the same as Nixon? Don't even try to make that comparison.

Nixon was a crook, yes. But he was also a smart, effective, and sometimes courageous politician. He was not afraid to spend a lot of the political capital he'd accumulated during his Red-baiting days by going to China and meeting Mao.

That took balls, something which neither of the Bushies ever had in the first place.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to keep someone who's been shown to be criminally irresponsible with firearms from having access to them. Ever. (But then I am about as anti-gun as they come, make of that what you will.)

The real cause for concern here is that drug offences that shouldn't be offences in the first place are treated as felonies, so that anyone with a personal interest in changing the drug laws is effectively silenced. And of course, anyone who's read a bit of history knows that drug laws (those of the US in particular) are not much about public health and very much about identifying and neutralising non-conformists.

And let us not forget that marijuana was outlawed specifically because it was seen as a "Negro" drug...

BTW, once you've done your time, you can apply for re-enfranchisement. I'm not saying it's always granted, but it does happen.

Am I the only one who's reminded of the end times at Sun by this?