This was my misconception as well until I read this on Wikipedia's "Legal Tender" page:

There is, however, no federal statute that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in cents or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.[26]

"They HAVE to accept cash."

Actually, they don't.

There is, however, no federal statute that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in cents or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.[26]

This is from Wikipedia's "Legal Tender" page.

There is, however, no federal statute that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in cents or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.[26]

Agreed. Reminds me of the case of a guy who got caught picking up a hooker in his wife's car. I don't recall if it was a sting, but he was arrested, and the car forfeited even though it was completely his spouse's property. He could have been driving his company's car, or a friends...it just didn't matter.

I'm guessing you're one of those folks who purchased gold based upon all those silly commercials we've seen on TV over the last few years.

This is not an example of free enterprise by any stretch of the imagination. Public utilities are tightly controlled, with virtually no competition.

So, while we can debate the virtues, or lack thereof, of public vs. private efforts, utilities fall into the grey area in between.

There are over 11 million reasons that say you're wrong:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/us/immigrant-population-shows-signs-of-growth-estimates-show.html?_r=0

Any idea what the names of those are? Maybe you have a better source, but I don't see any listed here:
http://www.shanghairanking.com/SubjectCS2013.html
or here:
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2013/computer-science-and-information-systems
or here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/best-university-computer-science_n_2439697.html
or here:
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2011/sep/05/top-100-universities-world-computer-science-and-information-systems-2011

Keep thinking that, and look at their financials. Here's a 5 year chart.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=YHOO&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=

Okay, I'm somewhat off-topic, but I've gotta ask what you have against this? I've personally had the experience of a former GF's 4 yr old opening a back door while I was cruising down the road.

FTFY

So, Yahoo probably doesn't give a damn if it has the 100% solution. It's about getting more eyeballs to their site, not about getting all of them. There are certainly more "normals" than "gearheads", so for Yahoo, this looks like an improvement. On the other hand, those of us on /. probably won't visit them much.

Well, there's some global warming that we could ALL agree on!

So, they have defective sprinklers. No sprinkler should be going off at 50C.

Slippery slope fallacy. No one is saying the religious institutions don't have to provide insurance coverage. They are saying that they should not have to pay for services that violate their religion.

Why should you have the right to force your boss to violate his beliefs? No one is forcing you to work for a religious boss.