A great read on team owners and how they get cities to publicly subsidize their investments via stadiums is "Field of Schemes: How the great stadium swindle turns public money into private profit" If I remember correctly one of the big problems is that there is federal legislation that prevents muni's from profiting in certain ways off of such deals, which makes the team owners the defacto profiteers in the whole shebang. This is the biggest problem that I have with modern sports. I'd be refreshing to see more muni's that actually own the teams, such as the Green Bay Packers. I'm not against subsidizing sports, but I am against it when it becomes just another mass of public money going into private pockets.

"Vista today, post-Service Pack 2, which is now in the marketplace, is the safest, most reliable OS we've ever built. It's also the most secure OS on the planet, including Linux and open source and Apple Leopard. It's the safest and most secure OS on the planet today."

Umm... what planet are they on?

The solution is much simpler... Limit access to who can send e-mail to the larger distribution lists.

This is actually a good argument for state-run insurance agencies. Safer intersections are much more important to a government that is insuring drivers than to one that isn't. Some canadian provinces already do this.

"Right-to-work" refers to state laws that prohibits an employer and a union from agreeing that union membership will be required as a condition of employment. They have nothing to do with non-compete clauses. I made the same mistake when I first started researching "right-to work" because I signed a non-compete way back in the day before I knew any better.