Depends on how outlook was configured. Ideally the backups of the PST file should be stored on the user's share via Documents, but if the shared drive was getting too bloated with fat PST files because of retention policies (yup) I would not be surprised at all if the PST file was re-configured to be stored in the local drive instead.

Naw. The GOP might be hyperventilating over the IRS doing their job of making sure that tax exempt organizations are, you know, not actually political organizations in disguise, but in the end all the right-wing organizations that got extra scrutiny ultimately passed and got their tax exempt status. Meanwhile, a few left-leaning organizations were denied tax exempt status after the same extra scrutiny.

This is like howling about the extra biopsy your doctor ordered to make sure that lump wasn't cancer.

This isn't even incompetent government, this is just standard IT processes not being applicable to government processes, and no one questioning it. Data retention rules exist not just to save critical emails, but because Outlook servers get clogged as hell with utterly useless junk without them. Most backup processes aren't concerned with archives of things as they were three years ago, because it's far more important to have a backup available of things as they were yesterday. Even at the hospital I worked IT for, we deliberately drive nails through and smashed up dead hard drives because HIPPA rules required that we do that!

The standard come-in time for my office ranges from 6AM to 9AM depending on what department people work in. I shifted my down 30 minutes from 8:00 AM to 8:30 AM because it matches my sleep schedule better and because sure enough someone is going to have an emergency at 5:05 PM at least once a week.

They are also lied to, or at least whipped into a state of FUD, on a daily basis by their own primary news sources and their so-called representatives. My in-laws are proud Tea Party members (and a prime example of the GOP's base - Protestant, white, and elderly) and 90% of their conversation is whining about how the country is going to hell in a hand basket thanks to Obama. He's a convenient scapegoat for having been lied to by their own party, as you've pointed out.

Naw, a reduction in your potential consumer base is never a good thing, unless you run a mortuary or make coffins for a living. Also, fear of death erodes consumer confidence.

What issues are we demanding to get "our way" on that the right has offered to compromise on? Please enumerate.

True fiscal conservatism is often at odds with social conservatism. True fiscal conservatism isn't a bad thing - I think many Dems would actually lean more toward a purely fiscally based Republican party, but the social issues keep everyone split into their respective camps despite the similarities in fiscal policy. For example, a true free market conservative has no problem with abortion clinics. They provide a service for which there is a demand. No federal dollars are permitted to go to abortion services, although the clinics also provide everything from well baby services to OB/GYN services in rural areas that require some community funding to fully support (since it's not profitable to operate a small clinic in the middle of nowhere that only half the population + children will use.) Still, it makes monetary sense to fund those clinics at nominal levels rather than have pregnant women dying because they were unaware of ectopic pregnancies, so again, it's government money well spent. A social conservative looks at the clinic though and sees a horrible infestation of sin upon the world and has the urge to bomb it.

Another example would be the mandatory drug testing put in place in Florida for food stamp benefits. After the pilot program in which less than 2% of those tested failed the drug test and were denied benefits, it became clear that the state was losing money and the program should have been halted. (I believe it cost them $100,000 more than they saved to test everyone, even charging some people a fee for the test.) A business minded fiscal conservative would have killed the program because it cost more than it saved. A social conservative would freak out because The Undeserving could get free food if the program was cancelled.

It's this divide in thought between the two wings of the party that drives the fiscally conservative Democrats crazy. They might be willing to compromise with the Republican fiscal wing on some things, but the social wings of either party cannot compromise because they each think the other is Satan.

This is what I've heard as well. 30% approval rating throughout the district. He failed to keep up his end of the bargain as a Representative, which is to, you know, actually represent the interests and needs of the district. When two thirds of your constituents hate your guts, it's hard to win any kind of election. You can do it with one third hating your guts, one third liking you even just slightly, and the remaining folks barely knowing your name. But when an overwhelming majority of voters absolutely despise you and go to specifically vote against you (and the ones that like you assume you will win anyway so fail to turn out) it's a nice recipe for a humiliating loss.

You mean you're NOT already targeted? I get about fifty emails every day along the lines of OMG HELP US WITH THIS ISSUE. I'm too lazy to block them.

Whatever happened to "Give me your tired, your poor, your labored masses yearning to be free?" Heard a story about the approximately 40,000 children who came to the US without their parents who are current being held in custody because we have little legal framework for dealing with cross border teenaged runaways. Deport them? They're minors, and some of them are claiming outright refugee status because they feared for their lives at home due to gang violence. Send them to orphanages? They have none of the paperwork for that. It's a total clusterfuck right now. We can either pretend these kids are here to steal our freedoms, or or we can tackle the reality we're given and stay true to the promise of America.

My ancestors came over to the US as 16 and 19-year-old brothers with nothing but the clothes on their backs and a wish to own their own farm. A century later and we're a family of doctors, lawyers, educators, and software developers. They spoke no English - now I speak no Russian or German. They formed their own ethnic enclave with others like them out in the midwest, but my generation has become mobile and we've fully scattered and integrated across the country. Why did my teenage ancestors deserve that chance, but these kids don't?

Yeah, I'm thinking if they start using the equipment they charged you for already, and the service they charged you for already, to provide public wifi for people who are not you, they should refund you the equipment cost and completely lift your monthly cap. Otherwise, If they require your username and password to access the network, then ding the person who is utilizing the network for the data, not the person whose network just got hijacked.

Yeah my first question was whether or not it would be strong enough to repel the Romulan's attacks.

I do! I just recognize that what I'm reading doesn't have to have any deeper meaning to be enjoyable. I don't have to ponder the symbolism of red glass dishes or Doric columns in front of someone's house. I can simply enjoy the play of language for its own sake,

The argument for tenure is that a professor needs insulation from the politics that inevitably comes about when they touch on prickly subjects. It's even more of a problem these days when you have helicopter parents harassing professors who gave their 19-year-olds a C and the 19-year-olds complained that the teacher was pro-union or talked about evolution, which went against their personal beliefs.

All tenure means if that some student or parent makes a complaint like that, the professor gets a hearing before being fired. Even tenured professors can get fired for serious infractions, like sexually harassing a student or committing a crime.