First, I wasn't making an argument either way about whether the killing was justified or not, I was only talking about the narrower issue of whether he was really a US citizen or not. And on that point, the Yemeni legal system is not directly relevant to whether he is a US citizen or not; someone loses US citizenship only according to rules spelled out in US law. It's possible that a Yemeni court might not recognize his US citizenship but a US court would.

Presumably the parent would have assassinated Hitler before the Nazi rise to power, not in 1939, on the assumption that doing so would stop WWII from happening at all. Seeing if that were so would be a fun experiment!

Indeed, not only forcibly conscripted but in countries that have mandatory military service for all citizens a dual citizen (e.g., someone born overseas of US parents) would be expected to perform that service when they reach the appropriate age. That happens to people born in France of US parents, for example, who have both US and French passports.

Did he legally renounce his US citizenship? It's not enough to simply say, "I renounce my citizenship" to make it effective. It's actually a fairly involved process (in part, to prevent people from simply giving up their citizenship to avoid taxes). So he may in fact have been a US citizen, even if he denied it.

You don't search too good. Try here.

Why? It's not like the police have no experience tracking down homeless people.

Antitrust maybe, but the First Amendment only protects you from government restrictions on speech, not from private individuals or corporations.

I'm sure the parent meant "severe vendors."

Of course there's no purely objective search. But if Company A builds into their algorithm that their own pages will always appear among the first five results, for example, it seems perfectly sensible for a Company B to point that fact out and say "We never do that. We rank all pages on the basis of a formula that does not consider who provides a particular web page," it would be a selling point for at least some consumers.

Your definition of cooking is not the only, or even most, reasonable one. Sure, a search company can devise whatever algorithm it wants, but I think people have come, rightly or wrongly, to expect a baseline of impartiality in results from Google. If we define "cooking" against that expectation, it could include any tweaking that biases for or against certain pages because of Google's other interests. Ranking their own services higher in the results than where they would appear if a single algorithm were applied across the board would then be "cooking."

The question of what to do about this is a separate one. I might, for example, decide that the best course of action is to publicize Google's actions so that users of their search will be aware of this bias. There's no need to leap from pointing the practice out to legislating a master algorithm.

No. The DJIA and S&P 500 track each other pretty well over the long term. Look.

There's a third reason: Linux systems have far lower sales volume, so the cost of, e.g., configuring systems, preparing documentation and figuring out drivers is spread across fewer units. If it costs Dell $100,000 (including salaries, test machines, training support staff, etc.) to prepare this for a given model, divide that by 500,000 machines sold with Windows vs 10,000 sold with Linux and the differences add up. Anything sold in smaller volumes is going to be more expensive for this reason.

A similar effect can be achieved by analysis of photon leakage through amorphous silica, aka looking through your living room window.

Last time I checked, ics, CalDAV, WCAP.

Actually the system would still be useful for public health data even where there is no insurance system as such (e.g., under a nationalized health scheme or in military hospitals where all medical services are covered by the state and no third party is billed).