Sounds like somebody hasn't actually studied history. The company stores - the only place you could spend your company scrip, often charged several times as much as the public stores down the street. Nobody in their right mind would rather get paid pennies on the dollar, even if it means avoiding taxes.

A number of years ago, France was looking at doing something similar, using a number of large Mylar ballons, so they could celebrate an anniversery as the satellite passed overhead, which would glow brightly. This was finally nixed when astronomers made mention that this would destroy their equipment, as it would be difficult to plan for this object to go overhead, and its brightness would fry sensitive photocells.

Again, someone trying a project like this. The fewer items in space, the better. With countries starting to shoot down satellites, it is only a matter of time before the Kessler Syndrome rears its ugly head, and getting past low earth orbit would be impossible.

Dear space organization in India, There is a new target for you. Please fire at will. A space billboard already is space junk.

Love that definition. I can sign off on that. Everyone would be better off.

And on a personal note, if I ever needed a reason to boycott PepsiCo products, there it is.

I don’t quite understand how did this comment get rated 5. An anonymous user rants about what languages they hate, without any explanation. Maybe start a conversation by diving a little deeper into reasons why a given language is not your tool of choice, then acknowledge that there are possibly cases where the given language would be a good choice. Or something along these lines.

its built by the same people that built This

Go away. Don't pollute our beautiful skies like that.

Yeah, but I would be responsible for the damage as well. So the rest of your rambling is trash, even if I agree with it. Me being responsible for the damage is the ballast. The libertarian boogie man is not going to get you.

Ownership implies control - if every non-executive employee of the company owns stock in the company, and they all agree that a certain policy must be changed - how likely is it that the policy will change?

If they actually owned the company, that would approach 100%. In reality, it's probably closer to 0%, because the company is owned primarily by a small group of wealthy investors, and all the employee stock combined amount to a rounding error.

If you want a hybrid system for (partial) employee ownership you almost need to give employees a different class of stock, exclusive to them, that combined has majority voting control. Zuckerberg has something sort of like that going on for himself, owning privileged "class B" shares with 10x the voting power of normal "class A" shares, which gives him an untouchable 75% voting control despite owning less than 10% of the company.

I'm pretty sure bail jumping could be settled with a fine in the UK and in his case it would be pretty easy to make that argument in an unbiased court. He had pretty valid reasons for skipping bail.

I suspect the reason some people think this is remarkable is that a bunch of projects (like the Linux kernel) make a big deal out of staying on v2.

My homeowners association covenant agreement says that cops need to tell you is they are parkd on the street secretly surveilling your house for illegal activity. So I know I'm safe from the cops when I deal crack out of my garage. I can't beleive it was so easy to do. All you have to do is write down in the EULA for the HOA street that cops can't bust you and youre home free.

No year is going to be "the year of the Linux desktop" precisely because of the nature of how Linux is used.

This speaks nothing about the quality of the operating system as a whole- Linux is still the gold standard for server applications, for moderately computer-savvy people who have junk computers and no desire to buy a license of Windows it's a perfectly fine desktop.

The bevvy of options you have to decide on for Linux is just not worth the effort for most normal people. Even people who just need a web-browser and email, going beyond "yeah just install ubuntu" will have their eyes gloss over the instant you try to explain the concept of other distros/window managers/etc. And the first time their hardware/software doesn't work for whatever reason, they're fucked because the community on the whole isn't welcoming and the solutions to their problems (while almost certainly being well documented by someone else and having bullet-proof instructions) will confuse/spook people into not even trying recommended fixes. The instant a normal human trying Linux has to break into the commandline and learn Linux they're out- that's not what they signed up for and I don't blame them.

This really pisses me off. Sometimes the models aren't just different sizes, there can be very significant differences and the still mix the reviews.

Yeah. They want to design a new jungle where they live in the trees and someone on the ground throws food up to them. Pie in the sky I think it's called.

Because he is that deep into popping children. Especially boys. He worries about the cops every time. Not enough to stop it. He owns the government.

While personally I hate the general process of law enforcement in the current era. To my knowledge stings etc... are legal, considering how often I see unmarked cars pulling people over, hearing about undercover cops buying drugs etc... Also kind of weird that EFF is actually working more towards Facebook cracking down on anonymous accounts. IMO they should however be more fighting towards CONSISTENT rules. IE treat law enforcement sockpuppets discovered the same as if an ordinary joe is caught using a fake name. IMO facebook shouldn't be treating cops differently, IMO if they catch John Doe using a fake account, I don't think they should be telling all his friends that he's actually John Smith. Nor do I like the idea of telling the Mafia that the person they were negotiating with was actually Officer Jim Johnson and can be found at 123 Fake St.

Police have been going undercover for many years all over the USA.
What is so special about social media?
Why should criminals and illegal immigrants feel free on social media?
Law enforcement groups should be all over social media all over the USA.
Why should any company "rules" protect people from their nations police?
Social media is a utility that connects people. Is social media now the "publisher"/"owner" of peoples comments, links, video clips?
What does social media want to be? Have total legal control over everything in users accounts?
That would make social media the "publisher" of a lot of peoples work, video clips, links, art... crime?
Perhaps social media should stay as a utility connecting people.. Users who are responsible for their own content and crimes.

Or, you can beat the shit out of the contingent workers and burn down the plant. That was how labor progress was won. Oh, and mobs showing up at the owner's house.

Here's a crazy idea: if you are doing things that would make the police want to spy on you, don't accept random friend requests on Facebook? Better yet, maybe don't do/post about said things on Facebook in the first place? And if one of your friends/acquaintances sends you a friend request, call them up first to make sure they actually sent it.

And of course, we all remember the first rule of the internet; the men are men, the women are men, and the children are FBI agents.

Are there any real people on social media these days? Seems mostly to be a lot of simulacra marketing something at you.