then only you have defrauded yourself.

Ooo! Can we call it the Moonernet? Altho the Lunanet seems more likely.

I'm curious to know what ear, nose, and throat specialists think about this, or rather I'm interested to hear their collective excuse for not ever noticing at all what's described as a "macroscopic" set of organs on their turf.

I bet dental hygienists have known about these for years, but no one listened to them.

Obama's stated justification for commuting Chelsea Manning's sentence but not granting clemency to Snowden was that Manning faced justice for her actions, while Snowden fled.

While I do think Snowden's disclosures were ethically defensible (moreso than Manning's), I had to admit I found this logic pretty compelling. Clemency shouldn't even be a question for someone who has completely escaped responsibility for their actions, regardless of what those actions were.

Having exiled himself, Snowden chose the life he wanted to lead. If he wants to be considered for a pardon or commutation, he should first have to return to the United States without preconditions and face the music.

There's more than one effect these stores seem to be having, but the situation is being oversimplified for political reasons. That isn't a "research brief," so much as it is a propaganda pamphlet from a lobbying group. These organizations spam editors of news aggregation sites, like Slashdot, with this drivel.

Some of the points made in the Guardian article that the pamphlet cites as a source are good ones. It sucks when a locally-owned retailer is blindsided by a large corporation that comes in and, dangling "jobs," manages to convince the local government to give it tax breaks that amount to an unfair advantage. From the perspective of the local-government, it will be counter-productive when the less-efficient local grocery (that employs more people) to be replaced by the hyper-efficient national chain that doesn't need as many employees, but the national chain is sophisticated in marketing itself, and politicians are shortsighted. From the perspective of consumers, the increased efficiency makes it cheaper to buy the same stuff, although they might end up with a more limited selection.

Sometimes, too, these stores aren't replacing much of anything, because there wasn't a store nearby. It's a complex mixture of bad and good effects, and one-sided pamphleteers from the "Institute of Local Self Reliance" don't help you to understand. It doesn't help to simply demonize efficiency because it means a company doesn't need to hire as many people, any more than it does to argue against economies of scale. That's a losing battle if ever there was one. Regulation can help to ensure desirable outcomes, but you can't enforce the perpetuation of outdated business models.

Has Microsoft explained how "Window 10 on ARM" is going to be different from the quickly-abandoned Windows RT debacle?

Astronauts Cosmonauts Taikonauts Aussienauts?

I'm sure there is some truth to this, but according to this story, Boeing is citing "slowing sales" as one of two reasons for the layoffs. How can that be the case, if demand exceeds production capacity?

The other reason, "increased competition," seems all the more reason not to reduce the workforce responsible for developing the products in competition, if you can afford not to. Otherwise you're being very shortsighted, making yourself ever less competitive.

There may be some detail to explain this situation better. Maybe there are subtypes of engineering specialty they no longer need due to changing technology or outsourcing certain skillsets to suppliers, et cetera, but that isn't at all what they're saying.

I wonder how this report squares with the one from late February that "Boeing and Airbus Can't Make Enough Airplanes To Keep Up With Demand". Poor workforce management? One of these two stories must misrepresent the truth.