The recently reported three day e-mail blackout experienced by the consumer internet customers of Hughes Communications Inc. (NASDAQ: HUGH) has ended. Although the system has not swung over to its new enhanced version, it appears that Hughes technical staff has opted to reawaken the previous e-mail application to restore that service to its customers. Personal comment from the company regarding this situation was unavailable as of this writing.

What little preview I received of the attempted e-mail upgrade by HughesNet was enticing. It looked streamlined, intuitive and was definitely appealing to the eye. When the company completes its adjustments and makes the hoped for upgrade available, I'll provide my full assessment of the new service for our readers.

For the purposes of this examination, let's set aside the fact that you can find reliable clinical research that shows that tobacco smokers cost the insurance industry less over their lifetimes than svelte nonsmokers do. This is simply due to the fact that we tend to die sooner. But that's a matter of insurance industry/government/pharmaceutical hijinx, to possibly discuss another time.

That aside, the item I'm bringing forward today is how the issue of lying smokers should be pursued by Whirlpool Corp.(NYSE: WHR). I'll not take issue against Whirlpool's insurance plan demanding a different level of premium payment from smokers. I'll not take issue against Whirlpool asking smokers to document their participation in the addiction. I'll not take issue against Whirlpool taking action against smokers who lied when claiming that they don't smoke. What I do argue against is the ludicrous notion that Whirlpool employees have turned on one another. It appears that's what the company expects us to believe.

Whirlpool management wants you to believe that they had 39 instances of one employee reporting another for serving their nicotine addiction in violation of what should be a confidential declaration of status. Whirlpool expects you to believe that these company "rats" know which smokers lied on their paper work and which didn't. Whirlpool expects you to believe that all policy violators are of hourly status and that violations by management staff either don't exist or aren't yet worth pursuing. Whirlpool expects us to believe that the company itself wasn't at the root of this all.

In the April 23, Wall Street Journal, Senator Sherrod Brown, (D) Ohio, made a realistic assessment of current government trade policy and how it is diluting the strength of our country. I think that Senator Brown was just a bit gentle with his words, and understandably so when given his position. Suffice it to say that I agree with him for the most part, but he should have just cut to the chase. The American working class has been sold out. He also failed to make one critical point about NAFTA. It was his party and the guidance of Bill Clinton that navigated that document into law.

Partisan politics aside, I believe that current American trade standards are something we need to be ashamed of. As a free market capitalist, I have nothing against the survival of the fittest in the worlds of manufacturing and business. However, we're beholden to good sense to provide a level playing field and to maintain benchmark standards. In that regard, American workers have been shorted. Our trade deficit is a testament to the decline of the American Dream. It's a dream, while not referred to by that name, that resides in the hearts of workers the world over. Every parent wants their children to have a greater degree of opportunity and safety than they had.

The following story came to me this week from a reader who's sentiments may be shared by a lot folks. If I am the last one on the planet to have seen it and it has been circulating around the web for a long time, please excuse my redundancy.

The story pokes fun at business bureaucracy, mismanagement, corporate fairness, employee relations and more. Finding this type of story more often in your in-box displays a kind of recession fatigue and growing cynicism.

A foreign company and an American company decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race. On the big day, the foreign company won by a mile. The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.

Their conclusion was the foreign team had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing. Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion. They advised that too many people were steering the boat while not enough people were rowing.

So you've been on the job for three years but the boss won't cut you a raise. Is that your problem, friend? Perhaps the solution to your problem rests in your own hands. If you can prove you're deserving of a raise in salary and you take the appropriate steps to get one, an increase in taxable income just might be in your future. Take a look at the following informative video to gain some insight on effective paycheck building strategy. If you employ the tactics discussed in this video, and you still can't get a raise, it might be time to seek a new employer. I believe that you have every right to expect appropriate compensation for exemplary job performance, even if that means getting it from a new company.

There is never a shortage of jobs. Some people have two or three jobs. The classified adds have thousands of jobs all the time -- always. If someone is unemployed there is a reason and it is definitely not a lack of jobs.

Sometimes it is a regional lack of jobs, General Motors (NYSE: GM) and Ford Motor (NYSE: F) in the rust belt states of Michigan and Ohio have downsized, but foreign manufacturers Toyota (NYSE: TM) and Nissan Motors (NASDAQ:NSANY) in the Southeast have up sized. This does not help the states where jobs are leaving, and indeed causes other massive problems like weakening the tax base and pushing housing and other elements of the local economy down. However, from a national unemployment standpoint that does not count.

In our discussions of unemployment and the economic picture we attempt to understand the government figures and attribute some meaning. We know the government is prone to put things in their best light (lie) sometimes and there is discussion about what a true measure would be, but does that really matter? It is more important that whatever criteria is used remain constant so that we can use the data for comparisons, not that it be altered often as people become concerned about the exactness of the figures.

It might be time we need to account for a new set of metrics. What are the costs of retraining? How could these costs be distributed without expanding government -- not something I would support. We know that some people are not employable or are only marginally employable because they simply do not have the capability to do many jobs. I have numerous jobs, although generally speaking, I have created them myself over time. Clearly education and training are a factor, along with over all aptitude.

An extensive report in the Atlantic that concludes many suburban developments may turn into slums discusses the role reversal occurring between the city centers and their outlying communities. They attribute a wide range of factors leading to this conclusion. These include a shift in demographics and life styles, the economy and sub-prime loan debacle, driving times and fuel prices, and the over supply of product and tighter lending practices.

The post war baby-boomers are an ever decreasing factor in the home market as their kids move out. Those kids are getting married later in life and having smaller families so demand is shifting.

Traffic congestion and commuting long distances is right up there with taxes and mosquito's in terms of being unpleasant, so those that can afford to move closer to work are doing so. This is also being stimulated further by the rapid increases in gas prices affecting all of us. For many years developers have been building homes in the suburbs because of cheaper land costs, but rarely has there been parallel growth in local jobs so most people had to hit the roads.

Finally! Needing a place to park with your laptop but too far from a Panera Bread (NASDAQ: PNRA)? Finally, you can enjoy the soothing environment of Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX) for free ... well, for the price of a latte or two. The coffee king of Seattle is ending its Wi-Fi partnership with T-Mobile and linking up with AT&T (NYSE: T). The new deal is expected to roll out gradually beginning this spring.

The new plan, while not perfect, is certainly better for those of us who want to pop in for a quick email check or blog update. It provides each customer with 2 free hours of WiFi service per day, with additional 2-hour blocks available for $3.99. Monthly subscriptions will cost $19.99 and provide access to AT&T hotspots in other locations in addition to Starbucks branches.

If you are already an AT&T broadband customer, you are eligible for free Internet access at more than 7,000 Starbucks locations in the U.S.

Still in need of WiFi that's free all day, every day, regardless of your at-home broadband provider? Look for your closest Panera, or use an online Wi-Fi hot spot finder that can direct you to local coffee shops, book stores, and even gas stations that have the service.

Beth Gaston Moon is an analyst at Schaeffer's Investment Research.

According to a report by Basex Inc. the pressure put on us by technology to respond immediately to emails, text messages, and IMs cost the US economy around $650 billion in 2006. They say that the human brain is not hardwired for paying attention to several things at once or for handling constant interruptions, and due to this there is lost productivity. Sounds nutty to me. Email, text-messaging, and IM'ing save tremendous amounts of time and travel. For a businessman these tools save tremendous amounts of money. Having questions answered in a split second brings much more efficiency to a business, and to the world.

Is it better if I go grocery shopping and I get an SMS message to pick up another gallon of milk, or would these researchers say I should go home and then have my wife tell me to go out again and pick up the milk? That doesn't sound too efficient, does it? I was literally on a conference call, that just ended, which took much longer than expected. Lucky for me, I was on mute the whole time, and via email, I was able to take care of about 45 minutes worth of work, all while on the call. That doesn't sound to me like a cost to society.

The whole point of technology is to free us up to be more efficient, to have more time to do other things. How can this possibly cost society $650 billion.

Aaron Katsman is the lead Portfolio Manager and Managing Director of America Israel Investment Associates, LLC. and Senior Editor of IsraelNewsletter.com. Disclosure: Writer has no position in any stock mentioned as of 12/27/07

From today's (subscription required) Wall Street Journal:

Employers who provide health insurance often use financial incentives, such as contributions toward premiums, to encourage workers to participate in wellness programs like smoking-cessation courses.

Now some employers are wielding a stick as well as a carrot. Employees at some companies who are overweight, smoke, or have high cholesterol, for instance, and who don't participate in supplementary wellness programs, will pay more for health insurance. In extreme cases, employees' insurance deductibles could rise by $2,000.

Of course, this is generating some scandal and talk of possible lawsuits.

It reminds me a little bit of my favorite scene from favorite scene from Spinal Tap, where Nigel Tufnel explains to an observer that the band's amps go to 11, rather than 10. The incredulous man asks how that really makes them go louder -- they only go to a certain volume, regardless of what number it's labeled.

Similarly: Charging a premium for engaging in an unhealthy behavior is not different from offering a reward for not engaging in the same behavior in any sort of meaningful way.

This seems like one big labeling issue, but it should give trial lawyers something to keep them busy.

This post was part of AOL Money & Finance's Best & Worst of 2007. Voting has now closed and readers have chosen globalization as the most overused buzzword of the year. Be sure to let us know in the comments if you are pleased with this result.

We all have our pet peeves in the evolution of language. Mine is the misuse of "quality" as an adjective, as in -- say, "that's a quality mullet you have there!" Quality is a scale of measurement, people, not a unit of measure.

That being said (which should have made the list), we have a quality set of annoying buzzwords as our candidates for the most overused in 2007.

#1. Take that offline; as in, quit embarrassing yourselves by engaging in an IM flame-war and solve your problems in a face-to-face slap-off. We would prefer that those who use the term "take that offline," would, um, take it offline.

#2. Globalization. Also flat earth, global integration, global supply chain, etc. We get it that we put on pants made in Thailand, shoes from China, a shirt from India, get in our car made in Romania, and drive to our office to work for a Belgian company selling widgets to Indonesia. No mas, por favor!

In a typical business district in a typical town, deep within the walls of a cubicle farm, one employee affably calls another a four-letter word. Another responds with an "F-bomb," as the self-censoring kids call it these days. Phrases that would make the FCC blush bounce back and forth between the walls of the world's companies, and it's surprisingly good for business.

According to a recent study by researchers in the U.K., regular swearing among employees can "boost team spirit" among co-workers, allow for better self-expression, and form social bonds. While using taboo words in front of customers or senior management should remain frowned upon, an enforced moratorium on swear words can have negative impacts on morale and motivation, the research suggests. Such rules could also drive a wedge between the leaders making these rules and their support staff.

According to Agence France-Presse, Yehuda Baruch -- professor of management at the University of East Anglia in England -- hopes that "this study will serve not only to acknowledge the part that swearing plays in our work and our lives, but also to indicate that leaders sometimes need to think differently and be open to intriguing ideas ... the challenge [for managers] is to master the art of knowing when to turn a blind eye to communication that does not meet their own standards."

The full contents of the study -- Swearing at work and permissive leadership culture: when anti-social becomes social and incivility is acceptable -- is printed in the latest issue of the Leadership and Organizational Development Journal. Seek out a copy if you are interested in further details. Frankly, I don't give a damn.

Beth Gaston Moon is an analyst at Schaeffer's Investment Research.

Let me see if I've got this straight: former trader Andrew Tong is suing hedge fund giant SAC Capital Advisors LLC because his supervisor Ping Jiang ordered him to swallow estrogen pills and wear women's clothing in order to make him more feminine in order to become a more successful trader, according to The New York Post.

SAC vehemently denies Tong's allegations, which the Post says are being investigated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Tong also now claims he was sexually assaulted at work, a claim an S.A.C. flack told the newspaper was "scurrilous."

A couple of questions come to mind. First, why wouldn't Jiang just hire more women instead of making a man take female hormones? And could estrogen makes someone a savvier trader of stocks? None of it makes a lick of sense to me.

Wall Street's culture clearly isn't for the faint of heart. Sure, you can make tons of money, but the pressure to perform is enormous. People get chewed up and spit out at firms like S.A.C. fairly regularly. I have no idea whether the allegations against Tong are true, but I can tell you this isn't the first report of weird behavior among Wall Street's elite, and it won't be the last.

It's a birthday that all of us can celebrate. Today the smiley face formed by tying a colon, hyphen, and parentheses is 25 years old. At 11:44 AM on September 19, 1982, Carnegie Mellon University professor Scott E. Fahlman typed the symbol on an early online message board, proposing that :-) be used to to denote a comment meant to be taken lightly.

Now known as emoticons, these smiley faces have dozens of different variations, and messaging programs like AOL Instant Messenger transform ;) into a colorful figure that can be customized. I have Groucho Marx smiley faces. Pretty cool stuff.

Smiley faces have even crept into more formal business-related communications as the New York Times notes:

Tell me something I didn't know.

Los Angeles and Orange Counties reign supreme when it comes to the amount of time we residents sit in traffic jams. (We're at or near the tops in housing prices and foreclosures, too, but that's fodder for another post).

My BloggingStocks colleague Tom Barlow weighed in on the Texas Transportation Institute's newly released study just today. But because I often actually sit in this traffic, I couldn't muster his same sense of mirth. Or is that schadenfreude?