In nearly every country surveyed, government leaders were less trusted to tell the truth than business leaders.  However, European countries were far more likely than countries in other regions to say they do not trust government leaders at all to tell the truth. In fact, French and German citizens were among the EU markets with the lowest trust in government leaders, with 66% and 65%, respectively, saying they do not trust them at all to be truthful.  We have already seen how France’s lack of trust in government leaders can influence a government overturn. Now, with Germany’s already vulnerable state, this lack of trust may have serious implications on Chancellor Angela Merkel’s tenure.   And now that business has the opportunity to lead again, will they be able to take advantage of it?

Siri obviously isn’t worthless, but this commercial sure makes it look like it is.

What computer would you rather use? A MacBook running Windows 7, or, say, a Lenovo ThinkPad running Mac OS X 10.7?

For me, the answers are easy. It’s the software that matters most to me. I’d pick a Nokia Lumia running iOS 5 over an iPhone 4S running any other OS, and I’d pick the ThinkPad running Mac OS X over a Mac running Windows. No hesitation.

For me, the answers are easy as well—I’m writing this on a MacBook Pro (connected to a 27” Apple Cinema Display) running Windows 7. OS X is nice, but I can’t think of one reason to run it. When I’m just using my Mac as a laptop, I’ll run OS X, but when I need to get work done, it’s time for Windows.

Admittedly, I use Office all the time and I hate Office for the Mac with my whole soul. But I still don’t see a case to be made to run OS X or any other Apple software. iTunes, for example, is the absolute worst program on my computer. I use it because it connects easily to my iPhone, iPads, and iPods.

I love, love, love the hardware that is the Macbook Pro. The touchpad is perfect and the keys are great, but I just don’t get why people like the software.  

From MEMRI:

Following are excerpts from an interview with US Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which aired on Al-Hayat TV on January 30, 2012.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: It is a very inspiring time – that you have overthrown a dictator, and that you are striving to achieve a genuine democracy. So I think people in the United States are hoping that this transition will work, and that there will genuinely be a government of, by, and for the people.

[...]

I met with the head of the elections commission. I think that the first step has gone well, and that elections have been held for the lower house that everyone has considered to be free and fair. So that’s one milestone, and the next will be the drafting of a constitution.

I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation, and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world.

[...]

Let me say first that a constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom. If the people don’t care, then the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference. So the spirit of liberty has to be in the population, and then the constitution – first, it should safeguard basic fundamental human rights, like our First Amendment, the right to speak freely, and to publish freely, without the government as a censor.

[...]

You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution – Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?

This was the right choice, even though the circumstantial evidence suggests that Armstrong used performance enhancing drugs (ie. all of his main rivals were busted for doping). Nothing is gained from an inquiry into Armstrong’s team, or into possible doping by Armstrong for the simple reasons that 1) people were not hurt by Armstrong’s possible doping and 2) Armstrong has retired. Pursuing him now only wastes U.S. taxpayer dollars that could be spend going after the kind of criminals that hurt people.