So their users should be paid for letting themselves get taken by a phishing scam? In that case, I am totally changing my password to PAYDAY$$$.

I still have concerns about the long-term effects playing pac-man had on me. I still can't watch any of those ghost hunter shows without getting a little hungry.

I actually worked in logistics for a while. Trucks are actually rather inflexible, when you think about it.

To ship product to multiple locations, a truck would need to drive to location A, unload, drive to location B, unload, etc. This also requires that a human being be engaged for the entire duration. A truck can only be at one location at once. Its size is also fixed, meaning that if there is slightly more product than the truck will fit you need another truck. On the other hand, if there isn't enough product to fill the truck the cost of the delivered goods increases relative to a full vehicle. This last one was a major problem for my company.

With an automated tube-based system, the same human could place product into transit at their base of operations and simultaneously have product move to locations A, B, etc while they would be free to prepare more shipments in the time they previously spent driving a vehicle.

Trucks will certainly still be useful, but a system like this would be absolutely phenomenal for small-scale shipping.

The real shame is that they let all those delicious euthanized critters go to waste.

Every time a story pops up about another company trying to figure out ways of monetizing personal information people get up in arms about privacy. I have mixed feelings on the subject, since advertising is what pays for a lot of free services. Between hulu, pandora, and gmail I am happy to be in the cross hairs of advertisers. That said, I do wonder precisely who this information would be valuable to. Imagine a potential employer being able to drop a few dollars to pick up data on your browsing history, buying habits, and memberships on different web sites. "Sure, we were going to hire you... but then we noticed you tend to post on slashdot during work hours!"

A jury is only present to enforce the law, not interpret it. Otherwise lawyers could manipulate the outcome of cases simply by appealing to individual senses of justice. I don't imagine anyone on that jury felt like they were doing something they wanted to when they awarded those damages.

Geeks know this. To really make the public understand the issue, though, they need to make a movie out of it.

"Mr. President, sir... it's our internets! They're leaking. At the rate we're losing data, our country will be buried in a syrupy mass of LOLcats, pictures of people's junk, and non-specific teenage angst within the month!"
"Can't we shut it down?"
"No sir... trying to plug the tubes now would just make them burst."