Given a choice, I'd rather have Natalie Portman than a car analogy :)

You can turn off Google Instant using the Settings link.
(and Yahoo search is powered by Bing now)

Yes, and it ended with him getting paid pretty much the same (and having way better job security than the new hires with their technology-du-jour).

There was a disagreement between the higher-ups how critical the project was, and if it was ok to pay the new hires more then the existing people. The VP said 'they will never find out anyway', and moved forward based on that naive assumption.
IMO whoever is most valuable to the company should be paid the most, whether it is a new hire fresh from college or a senior developer. From this article my only conclusion is that the VP is paid too much.

No, your boss should be asking if more work is getting done. Getting work done is only a secondary goal as an employee, for your boss it is the primary goal. Getting compensated for the hours put in is an employees primary goal. It's nice to get work done, but I can think of better ways to spend my time than working...

The GPs options (direct pay, ownership/indirect pay, or else...) make more sense as an employee. If getting work done is a primary goal to you, and you think you won't get more work done by working longer hours, you can always tell your boss to go fu^H^H^H^H^H reconsider his request.

Like McD has given us something with which to compare fine cuisine, Windows has given us a way to differentiate between those who are and aren't IT literate.

Just because it won't die, doesn't mean it's a success.

They were not worried about being liable for the content, they were worried about the (future) content putting people in jeopardy. Since the content they were worried about was not published yet, that in itself that was not a valid reason for the takedown IMO. The fact that Wikileaks doesn't own the rights to then content was the main reason they stated. You can argue about that as well (legitimate purposes for publishing, freedom of press, etc...), but that was their reason.

The point is that Amazon did not lie in its statement. That doesn't make their reasons valid, but they did not lie.

Fair point; that last part was unnecessary and over-interpreted the statement made by the parent. Of course Slashdot posters know open source, and many even know how to monetize it (even when that is 'just' as a salary). It was the tone of the parents message which I interpreted as 'of course we are the right people to criticize McNealy' that triggered me to post that last statement. But I should have read more carefully.

But he admits that, doesn't he?

Now, if you can share your insight on how to build a multi-billion-dollar-company, please do...

And which makes you feel better about yourself if you are not rich and powerful?

The summary is incomplete. Somewhere else in the interview he mentions that one of his regrets is not open sourcing Solaris earlier, claiming it was better than, and could have beaten Linux. His point is that they didn't have a good business model and didn't make enough money from the open source, but he also clearly still believes open source can be profitable, and open source was the right direction for Sun.