That's what these morons get for demanding resumes in .DOC format instead of PDF. I don't need someone else editing my resume, especially an employer I'm submitting it to. So why do they want it in an editable format rather than a format which is specifically designed to be read-only and to appear exactly the same no matter what device you view or print it on?

Wow. Give us what we want or we will fuck you even harder.

Are you in the habit of erecting obvious strawmen, or was this particular bit of off-target re-interpretation just special for me?

Although it does apply to this group -- they're telling the government, "give us what we want, or we'll try to hose some good science" So perhaps your post wasn't a strawman after all. Perhaps you're just confused as to who the culprit is in this situation.

Many schools ban bare-shoulder outfits, anyway.

That's like saying "many people try to force others into doing stupid things, so anything I want to try to force you into is good, right and holy."

Some dumb-ass school rule stands as absolutely no legitimate justification for pop-culture repression of personal and consensual choice.

All this particular interest group is doing by going against good science is making is less likely they'll get what they want.

The world goes the way the most powerful choose it shall go. So it has ever been, and likely will continue to go for the foreseeable future. Going against the good things the powerful do is just one more very efficient way to get them to consider your desires irrelevant -- a really poor way of trying to get the powerful to use said power in your favor.

These people are not "natives", either. They didn't evolve there. They're immigrants and descendants of immigrants. just like all of us on the US mainland, basically anywhere but (probably) Africa. Perhaps what you meant to say was "descendents of the earliest known settlers." Or perhaps "invaders" is more accurate.

Another thought along the lines of the powerful do what the powerful want to do... do you think the earliest of these folks took the time to see if the other local life forms wanted them and their changes on and around these islands? Did the fish want to be speared, for instance?

It's all a matter of perspective and power. These people seem to have neither.

Good question. The main problem with all of these is proof. How do you determine intent of a dropped packet? Was it congestion, a hardware failure, or did the ISP have it in for that packet specifically? The guy screaming "I'm gonna kill you!" is the top suspect when someone turns up dead, but the cops still have to prove he did it.

When Comcast was using Sandvine Comcast denied, denied, denied that they were doing anything to degrade their users' internet experience. It took the EFF and a massive coordinated traffic logging effort to prove that Comcast was lying about intentionally disabling Lotus Notes (and BitTorrent) connections.

a costlier service

There is very little technical reason for a byte of amazon to cost more than a byte of wikipedia. Once those packets reach the backbone networks (a process that Amazon and Wikipedia both pay for through their ISPs) they're essentially identical, except in the fact that Amazon has more money and they have more to lose if something were to happen to that packet, and that would be a real shame.

The original plan was simply "neutrality". All bytes are equal. More bytes can cost more money, but those additional bytes are equal too.

And that's where it started falling apart. Bytes delivered by copper all cost the same, bytes delivered by fiber all cost the same, bytes delivered by avian carrier all cost the same. Bytes delivered wirelessly... well, they cost the same too but some major neutrality players were doing deals with telcos to provide some services free on phones. Which was more important to them, neutrality? Or getting wikipedia to the mobile masses with no data charges? Well, as long as the net was mostly neutral (except when it suited them) it's a good thing, right? But hypocrisy is the moral rot, and rot spreads quickly.

Personally, I have two horses in this race: in my personal life I'm an internet user, at work I develop web applications. I had my experience with value-subtracted ISPs years ago. Before Time Warner traded an agreement not to compete here with Comcast for an agreement from Comcast not to compete elsewhere, one of our customers had Time Warner Cable at their office. One day I get an angry call from them that we're down. I check the status of our servers and say "no, we're up" and they insist we're down and I ask them if we're down why are they the only customer calling me. They insist. I do a traceroute from the development server and everything looks fine to me. They continue to insist. I remote into their computer and sure enough, the application isn't loading. I open a ticket with our colocation facility to let them know that some routing is fucked up specifically between IPs A and B. It's closed: nothing wrong. I tell them to call their ISP. TWC insists its on our end. I roll my eyes and mirror their database on the development server and call it a day. Day 2: we're "down" again. Neither the main server nor the development server are reachable from that customer now. TWC insists its on our end. I set up a mirror on our mail server. Day 3: we're down again. We have a three-way call with TWC. TWC insists it's on our end. I tell them that every single one of our customers using DSL are having no problems at all and offer to pay the cancellation fee so our customer has internet that works. (By this time I had reviewed all of our server logs and discovered that they were literally our only user in the city coming from TWC, everyone else had DSL). Tier 2 support is on the phone in 15 seconds. Now, this is probably about a decade or so ago, so these are not the exact words used but I won't forget the general gist of it any time soon:

Tier2: We changed a setting in their router to allow them to access their "business application". Everything should be fine now
Qz: Thank you. For future reference if we have other customers on TWC what setting is this so we can make sure it's configured correctly and avoid this problem in the future?
Tier2: Oh, it's not a setting that the customer can change.

So, what is the intent of a setting that blocks access to an ISP user's commonly used websites?

Maybe the IT's security policy doesn't allow that.

Maybe, but I think you're overestimating the power of the workers. In Mozilla's case, Eich stepped down voluntarily (at least that's the public story), because of all the bad press that was happening, and that was coming from the users and the general public, not from the employees. While his views on gay marriage obviously suck, he's probably a fairly decent guy otherwise and wanted what's best for Mozilla, something he's worked on for a very long time, so to him it was probably better that he remove himself from the situation so that Mozilla could thrive again.

But for other companies, they really don't care about the workers, and large numbers of workers are not going to leave because the CEO is a douche. We've seen this in countless companies. Look how long Steve Ballmer ran MS for instance. CEOs get kicked out when the board disagrees with them; that's the bottom line. It's usually over a disagreement in how to run the company (direction), or unhappiness with the choices they've made, but it can also be over the CEO's personal life making them look bad (scandal).

Good. Now we've gone from "they're all scum" to "some of them (possibly including Rand Paul") are good and trying but the Repubican machine and its operators will block them."

At this point we're mostly on the same page.

Ron Paul is clearly one of those good guys. And the Neocons controlling the R party machine (one of the four major factions) steamrollered him and his supporters (sometimes violently), and changed the rules to make it even harder for a grass roots uprising to displace them.

Two debates are going on right now. One is between working through the R party (is it salvagable?) or coming in with a "third" party - either an existing one or a new one (is that doable or do the big two have too much of a lock?)

The other is whether Rand is a sellout to the Neocons or if he's just more savvy than his dad and trying to look non-threatening to them in order to get the nomination. Andrew Napolitano, who knows him personally, says he knows him to be a genuine liberty advocate, and I trust A. N. on this subject.

by telling carriers that they can't charge more for premium levels of service

Close.

The original plan was to tell carriers that they can't make Vonage and Skype a premium level service (add the voip package for only $15/mo!) to prevent them from competing with their phone service (only $9.99!). Or make Netflix an unusable service to stop customers from cutting cable. Or make browsing Amazon difficult because Barnes & Noble paid them to. Or sell 90% of the bandwidth they sold to me to their "fast lane" partners, while the sites I actually want to see get the last 10% of the bandwidth I paid for.

Much like the Occupy Movement, nobody took control to keep the message on point and eventually the whole thing devolved into a flaming mess, helped along by the telcos themselves spouting bullshit about how network neutrality meant you couldn't pay more for faster internet.

Curb the H1B problem, we probably will curb the recruiter spam problem

I disagree. These Indian recruiters all live in India, they aren't H1-B workers. Basically what's going on is a bunch of Indian companies have figured out that there's a good demand for engineers in the US, and that recruiting isn't exactly rocket science, you just have to have people who speak passable English and can sit on the phone for hours calling candidates and companies and matching them up. The recruiters don't even have to be very good, as long as they have an acceptable success rate to justify their pay. Since they're in India, they're not paid much relative to US salaries.

I hate how much I like Visual Studio and C# in general.

It doesn't matter when it was done.

If Hobby Lobby's CEO used to act in gay porn movies years ago, and someone dug that up and posted it on the internet, he'd be fired too.

Most of us hold at least one opinion that is not the majority viewpoint

Irrelevant. The "majority viewpoint" doesn't matter, only the viewpoint of the Board of Directors of a company. If the CEO doesn't fit with that, then he's out. It doesn't matter if it's some progressive-politics-espousing company like Apple, or some conservative Christian company like Hobby Lobby; at either one, if the CEO get involved in some publicity that makes the company look bad to its preferred audience, he's out. At Apple, if he comes out as a homophobe, he'll be fired, whereas at Hobby Lobby they'd consider that a good thing, and would fire him if he came out in favor of gay marriage.

This is the whole problem here; all these conservative Christian Slashdotters are butt-hurt because someone got fired for being anti-gay-marriage, but they'd have no problem if some CEO at a conservative company got fired for being pro-gay-marriage.

So you're saying your work should be able to control your religious beliefs. Sure...

Yes, when you're CEO, it should and it does.

Will Chick-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby hire a CEO who isn't Christian?

It doesn't matter.

If someone digs up some dirt on Chick-Fil-A's CEO and finds he used to do gay porn movies, he's going to get fired because that makes the company look bad to its customers (conservative Christians).

This is no different.