So, there was no Bonus Army? no Hooverville? no Food Riots in 1931?

I guess the New Deal was just something that sprang from no where for no reason at all.

No, I'm implying that the sensationalist stories are easy to find, but are comparing apples and bowling balls.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that "non-essential" means 'surplus' or 'extra' or 'not needed'

"essential employee' is defined by statute (i.e. a law passed by congress) and is typically used when closing offices for events like Hurricane Katrina. "non-essential" employees are sent home or told not to come in.

You are most likely considered a "non-essential" employee by your own employer.

"Essential employees" typically have jobs related to safety or security. Non-essential do not.

If government shutdowns weren't political theater, then ALL employees would gone. The borders would be open, the airports would be closed, etc.

"The biggest problem you're facing down the road is when some bureaucrat decides that keeping you alive is not cost-effective"

Can you clarify your position?
Are you saying that you believe in spending money in a non cost effective manner, i.e. wasting it on ineffective end-of-life care?
Or are you saying that not only should we spend money ineffectively on futile end of life care that actually makes dying people miserable and suffer by inflicting invasive care upon them that actually doesn't accomplish much except waste their last days on God's good earth, but also we should spend *every* dollar of medical expenses ineffectively by by wasting large amounts of each medical dollar on grossly inflated industry 'profits' that occur due to the huge market inefficiencies, the intrinsic in-elastic demand curve for urgent and emergency medicine, and the opaqueness of medical pricing (aka 'trade secrets')?

It's easy to find someone who had a plan that didn't actually cover anything (but it was cheap! oh so cheap! only $x a month in exchange for a nebulous nothing) and now can only find plans that meet the minimum coverage requirements and therefore costs more.

Yes and No.

Drugmakers, Insurance Companies and Medical Device makers all are forgoing some of their profits (e.g. the medical device tax) in exchange for the larger volume of people with coverage.

It's just one of several mechanisms in the law to shift costs and benefits around in our broken health care 'market' via regulation.

For the AP that was probably true (that the Internet was a deadly competitor). The AP represents one of the major things that is wrong with the newspaper business.

You look at a print version of some newspapers and it's filled with cusinarted AP articles. They've been butchered to fill empty column space. The newspaper that I actually read cover to cover has zero (0) AP articles in it.

Perhaps everyone who needed Yahoo Groups to be different had already left. By forcing current groups to change they didn't necessarily give them any new functionality that they wanted, and might have taken away functionality that they did want.

Just another example of sacrificing current users on the altar of UX. Funny how changes to improve UX so often piss off users.

After reading the article, it's clear that they mean that this leak by itself is a Level 3 incident. Not "Fukushima" is a Level 3 incident.

Remember the Boston marathon bombing.

They had several specific pictures of the suspects and the quality seemed pretty good.
They had the guy's photo in their system due to a prior terrorism related investigation.
They had several days to match the photos, i.e. not in real time

They failed.

... or you could have written it in Java the exact same way and kept recycling a large buffer over and over without any garbage collection whatsoever..

So.... I have to give out my personal data to a site that I don't know is legitimate because they won't show me the security image because they don't know that I'm legitimate?? Who's going to blink first?

Commerce has proven time and time again, that not only can't they adequately plan for problems that they anticipate happening, i.e. their disaster contingency plans fail when used, e.g. Monsanto's GMO wheat crop destruction plan obviously failed. But they also fail to identify all the actual problems in advance, and therefore they weren't planned for.

Some of these problems are blindingly obvious and yet completely ignored. For example, a class of flame retardants is determined to be too toxic and is banned, and is replaced with another chemical without testing it for toxicity. Said chemical is later determined to be even more hazardous than the chemical it replaced. Who'd have thought that two chemicals with similar desirable properties might also have similar undesirable properties, right?

I'm not keeping track of as much by letting the damned browser keep track of it for me.

History is useless until they keep it absolutely ordered.
By date has the site alphabetical by date.
By last visited only keeps track of the most recent visitation.

Bookmarks are for long term persistence or recent context that needs to be indefinitely parked (and I don't like needing to do that).

Tabs are for all my "recent" context. I just ran X searches, researched and culled down to the useful results.. why would I throw that away? When I don't need those search results anymore, then I'll close that batch of tabs.

Sports is also their weakness.
Cable companies pay a fortune for sports content, a fortune that they then ask their customers to pay. Which is one of the reasons I'm a non-sports consuming *former* customer.
At some point you get tired of paying more for less watchable content.