I think it's interesting to draw the comparison between the Wi-Fi data harvesting to the News of the World --a Murdock owned news media outlet-- hacking controversy. The two aren't apples to apples comparisons, but at a basic level they both have the similarity of large companies accessing information for which they did not have authorization. Many have called for an outright boycott of Murdoch media, even in some cases a ban thereof. On the other hand, while we've seen a lot of criticism of Google's actions, we haven't seen the same volume of public outcry of boycotting Google or restricting the operations of Google enterprises. Most of the action discussed enters the realm of penalties and fines. I wonder if two forces are at play here. One, have too many become so dependent upon Google that they hesitate to support any action that would make Google services unavailable? Two, has intense dislike of Murchoch media reached a level where the application of a different standard is acceptable to many? Full disclosure, I'm a user of gmail and a viewer of Fox News, not exclusively thereof for either.

Boost is generally the R&D cutting edge of C++. As mentioned in other posts, it generally serves as the testing ground for what becomes part of the C++ ISO. You can see much of this in C++11. Some of the boost developers actually sit on the standards committee. In my professional work, Boost has provided some very vital functionality that my teammates and I didn't have to create, but could simply use. And in all cases it worked very well for us and continues to do so. Do you have specific reasons for describing it as an unholy mess? If you have encountered genuine pitfalls with the libraries, would you share that info?

You forgot one caveat: strip clubs now have to affix digital card readers to their employee's legs. "Please hold still, miss." :-)

First, I will admit my first reaction to this is a sentimental one, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. A currency's appearance --the artwork people, places, and events depicted-- demonstrate the identity of a nation. Canada's $5 bill has hockey players on it. Another bill has the queen of England for historical and even current international relations reasons. We in the US have our dearest founding fathers on our monetary notes. (Side Note: I'd really like to have some bill introduced with Frederick Douglass on it.) I'm not opposed to the idea of digital currency. Heck, we pretty much have it with our banking system now. Second, I wonder if a 100% digital currency in the US would make it easier for the Fed to engage in quantitative easing. My first guess is that it would. And if keeping paper and coin notes in circulations at least slows down the Fed's ability to do so, I'm all for maintaining physical currency.

I think if your company is basically asking its employees to voluntarily "like" the app in the spirit of trying to help the company, I find that completely in bounds. Of course, each person who "like"s it, to preserve the perception that he/she genuinely likes it should probably have at least some experience with it. On the other hand, if you company is expecting this as a condition of working for them or treating employees who do or don't do this differently, I think that's crossing the line from professional life into personal life, and hence not in bounds.

I'm not sure how this relates to preventing businesses from requesting facebook passwords of personal accounts, as the law Maryland has passed, because they don't need that information to necessarily see what you as an employee "like". They do, however, have to have you "friend" them, assuming that's information you keep private. And requiring that is definitely crossing the line that divides professional life from personal life. So at this point, since such a law is about passwords, my best guess is that a judicial court would interpret the intent of the law such that it would prevent a business from requiring that employee or perspective employee "friend" the business.

On those grounds, I think you could take a fairly strong case to your HR department that a requirement. However, I'm neither a lawyer or a judge, so keep that in mind. :-)

Again, more baseless assumptions. There's a lot more media that calling these conclusions into question beyond those under the Murdoch umbrella. So why hesitation to post a citation? Afraid you may expose your predisposition to biases sources? But really, your tone is that of a 12 year old, not an adult, and certainly not of a scientist.

I'm not sure where you're going with this and "admitting ignorance".

I'm not "forced" to continue re-evaluate my thoughts, I pursue it. If every person were forced to do so, all of these threads would be intellectual discussions rather than some of the smug, confrontational, and insecure lambasts I've had directed at me. Just being a new idea doesn't make it a better idea. Science must provably demonstrate an advance by some measure. For instance, no conservatives have ever favored continued use of the vacuum tube over more advanced technology, right? ..unless we're talking about guitar amps. As for your academia comments, I see both of those to be true.

You've put your finger exactly on the point I'm trying to make. You don't know much about me, so if you're going to take the time to read my post, I'm taking it on face value that you'll believe me when I say I have read on this subject. The facts are that dissenting opinions have met great hostility for simply being dissenting opinions, and that's not science.

What I've written in that paragraph is a summary of what I have seen via my own experiences and study where the roads of engineering and public policy cross. You have a certain perspective on this; I know. But my experiences are mine, and that's what I've seen. However, if you think that I'm calling engineers and scientists un-compassionate, you misread what I wrote. I am one myself, and I work with many. Most of them are very sensitive, caring people. The point I stated is that when engineers and scientists solve problems, they can unwittingly forget that the _system_ they are trying to create is made of people who may have values, dreams, and desires that the problem solver doesn't account into his system. Finally, I have not called science inhumane, nothing near it. And I don't appreciate have my words restated as such. Caution and skepticism, however, are as important to science as curiosity and human intelligence.

My "precious ideology"? Excuse you, but you don't have any more insight into my personal ideology beyond a single slashdot post, so spare us all from your foregone conclusions. (side node: pattern here?) If you think something critical is missing from this discussion, share it or don't bother to get involved. If you're posting to one-up somebody else to inflate your ego, I beg you to consider posting somewhere else, because slashdot isn't the venue for you.

A very typical attack on conservatism. All insults. No facts. No intellectual discussion. Just a hint, your smug attitude isn't lending credence to your statements.

Understood. Evolution is a theory, not proved, and I don't mean to suggest somebody isn't smart for not believing in it. I, on the other hand, do subscribe to it.