If only we could get Lamo to draw a picture of Muhammad...

It is quite different. These services do not charge you for their use. If, on the other hand, the HP ads would come with an offer of free ink in exchange for your attention, then your comparison would be reasonable.

"Their investment" originated mostly from taxpayers, in the form of DoE and NIH grants.

Without getting into the argument about the notability of the term (I think it's quite notable, but I'm biased), "Malamanteau" should not have a Wikipedia entry because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as Wikipedia will gladly point out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTDICT

First time I hear of a molecular property being described as pathetic.

Nonetheless, you are wrong. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_content_of_biofuel) is kind enough to show us that the specific energy density of hydrogen (120-140 MJ/kg) is much higher than that of hydrocarbons (55 MJ/kg, Methane). The low density of hydrogen makes it less energetic only in volumetric terms

Furthermore, the crucial advantage of hydrogen is the lack of carbon atoms, its combustion (or catalyzed oxidation, as in a fuel cell) resulting only in water.

Good point! Because that's exactly what Wikipedia has been waiting for an opportunity to do: get their hands on some money so they can completely subvert their creation system and ultimately prove that their model is flawed, or at least limited.

Joking aside, people have to start understanding that the collaborative nature of Wikipedia is not a transition phase to success that will allow them to morph into a traditional publisher. It is the core of Wikipedia and, frankly, I'm one who believes they've gone beyond proving that their system is much more effective than having hired experts as content creators.

The fascinating issue is that the Wikipedia model is still so counter intuitive to so many people. For a nice analysis of the topic and a parallel to Darwinian Evolution and prediction markets, see this article:
http://karmatics.com/docs/evolution-and-wisdom-of-crowds.html

Although questionable, what they are doing seems not to be fraud if they inform the buyers that they are editors compiling Wikipedia articles.

From Wikipedia:
"All text in Wikipedia was covered by GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), a copyleft license permitting the redistribution, creation of derivative works, and commercial use of content while authors retain copyright of their work, up until June 2009, when the site switched to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-by-SA) 3.0."

It appears to be just like burning Linux copies into CDs and selling them for outrageous prices, something you can legally do without problems.

... that the next time Ballmer gets up in front of an audience to tell us what the future of computing looks like we should keep watching YouTube videos on our Android phones?

Your perception is based on the flawed assumption that Microsoft is a common competitor in the browser market. MS has been found by the European Commission to be a monopoly abusing its position to stifle competition. They were fined over 1.6 billion Euro and the "promotion of the competition" is nothing but MS's own strategy to reduce that penalty.

That certainly explains why NY cab drivers threatened to go on strike when the City mandated GPS devices in each car.

The way I see it, there are two classes of Apple fanboys and the company is in trouble with both.

The first comprises those who had a fondness for Macs from the beginning and started to deeply love it once Apple became an underdog and then a niche product, mainly because they saw that the reason why Apple lost relevance was that Microsoft was run by assholes who care about a business model first and the quality of their products in a distant second (it works...).

The second class of Apple fanboys are just a fickle new bunch who loves shiny things but, most of all, the coolness of getting shinny things first. These people do not have loyalty to Apple, just to coolness and glitter, and catering to them requires giving the constant impression of innovation, an ability which recent lawsuits show Apple is losing. If Apple thinks it can relax its R&D efforts by keeping its competitors from trying to be cool, it will realize that the world is full of shiny things to steal fanboys class 2.

On the other hand, fanboys class 1 are a different breed altogether. They are smart people who will not get distracted by a pretty new Vaio with pretty new Win7, because they know deep down what these products are and where they come from. But, as Apple moves from being an underdog to being a dominating, oppressive and abusive force in the market, class 1 fanboys are finding it harder and harder to ignore that Apple is everything they hate about an industry that drove them to Apple in the first place.

Apple needs its fanboys more than any other company, and it's not looking good to them.

That's right, wait a few months. No one should make the life-changing decision of spending $12 for the one-year subscription in the heat of the moment.

Fantastic conclusion: Science does not belong in schoolbooks. I can only feel for your children.

I would strongly suggest you to start frequenting better colleges than the likes of Brigham Young University or Liberty University. Maybe then you would agree with the study by Larson and Witham (Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham: "Leading Scientists Still Reject God." Nature, 1998; 394, 313) which indicated that from 1913 to 1998, the fraction of leading scientists believing in a personal god fell from 27.7% to 7.0%, whereas the fraction of atheists grew from 52.7% to 72.2% (the remainder is composed of agnostics).

This is the same old christian misrepresentation of the point against creationism that only christians believe carries any weight. Evolution quite simply denies a creator or intelligent designer not by disproving it (which, of course, would be infeasible), but by providing a verifiable mechanism for the speciation process. The result is that a creator's actions are deemed irrelevant within Biology, as it has been made irrelevant in the physical sciences. And reason naturally compels reasonable people to discard a "theory" that has no explanatory power or measurable outcome in reality. Long day "theory" is nothing but a pathetic attempt to twist the clear words of the genesis in order to adjust them to reality. The only real requirement for such adjustment to be possible is the gullibility of the reader, which, in the case of christians, would be enough to convince them that the true answers to the origins of the universe are in the pages of Alice in Wonderland.

For the sake of the endless discussion on biases from the mainstream media, it's important to clarify that news outlets have leaned towards different sides of the political spectrum for centuries, in all parts of the world. We have always had editorials after all. Whether or not this constitutes bias, the criticism Fox receives is not due to some ideological inclination, but due to frequent and intentional misrepresentation of facts in name of that ideology. The best compilations of Fox biases on the net tend to focus on their factual errors, rather than their choice of subject or tone.