Did you actually read what you quoted? Seems like either you didn't or you want to define "social welfare" in your own special way. It doesn't mean charity and it doesn't mean "agrees with your political views."

See, for example a social welfare organization: Organizing for Action, aka Organizing for America, aka. Barack Obama 2012 re-election campaign, aka Barack Obama 2008 election campaign. Same organization restructured repeatedly and finally into a 501(c)(4) tax exempt entity.

Additionally, you don't just get to claim to be a 501(c)(4) and start acting under that umbrella, you have to apply and get granted that designation. So your whole paragraph about organizations abusing this status is BS, not to mention the falsity when you suggest both "tea party and progressive" groups were equally targeted. The delays and intrusions were almost exclusively against conservative groups.

It's clear though that you're not actually interested in the truth, merely trying to obscure malfeasance and leverage the power of the state to manipulate the results of elections. I'll just finish by pointing out you are a partisan liar, your posts have the barest relation to reality, the IRS targeted conservative groups, it likely affected the 2012 election, and here is Wikipedia's summary of the scandal.

You are so insistent on maintaining your view that you intentionally avoid learning anything. I linked to a page on wikipedia that describes the different types of 501(c) tax exempt organizations. One of those types is a charity, 501(c)(3) which is religious and charitable organizations. Another one is 501(c)(4) which is not charitable. Organizing For America (the left-overs of Obama's campaign organization) is of this type. And it is exactly this status the the various groups you are castigating applied for.

Repeat to yourself as many times as necessary: A tax exempt organization is not necessarily a charitable organization.

Whether you agree with the organizations or not, it should outrage you and make you want to throw up a little bit that federal government workers are using their power to influence the outcomes of elections.

If that's what you think is going on then you need to educate yourself. Start by learning the difference between the different types of tax advantaged organizations. Then stop making completely false equivalences; no one was claiming that their PAC was a charity.

In this day and age you've no excuse to be this ignorant. You could start here.

That education should happen on the first day they are working for you and if they aren't willing to follow procedures then they aren't aligned with your business interests and have no reason to be working for you.

You didn't make an argument, you just said people will ignore the rules. And those people should be fired. The reducto ab absurdum of your argument is that we shouldn't have any laws against murder as there will be murderers. And that we don't need knowledgeable and skilled surgeons as it's easier to be ignorant and unskilled.

The reality is that in certain environments, good security craft is as much of the job as good software development skills -- and I'm not saying writing secure software, to help clarify for some readers. The developers need to be experienced and aware of the appropriate security measures and be willing to implement them in their day to day actions. If they aren't, either experienced or willing, then they are unqualified regardless of how good they might be at developing software or hardware. It's a like washing your hands after going to the bathroom (not doing which is also a perfectly good reason to be fired.)

Propping a door open can lead to tens of thousands of dollars in losses at the low end, say from a simple equipment burglary to total failure of the company from trade secret loss. If someone feels that their need for convenience the greater issue, then that person has a fucked up sense of priorities that makes them unqualified to work in that environment. That's just a basic fact. E.g. if you can't be bothered to wash your hands before cutting someone's head open, you're not qualified regardless of how steady your hands are.

The people taking short cuts need to be fired immediately. Protecting the company assets as at least as much of the job as creating the assets.

Must be pretty sweet having someone else feed, shelter and clothe your family so you can be pure in your devotion to science.

I love that movie, but every time I hear him talking about his heart and how it's supposed to fail at some point and he talking to Uma Thurman and says "but mine is 30,000 beats overdue." I can't help but do the math and think, "oh, he was supposed to die earlier that morning?"

30,000 beats / 60 bpm = 500 min = 8 hours 18 min.

Sometimes I hate my brain.

Or does the submitter not see the apparent logical flaw in the way the described this process. If you're going to line up each image so that the asteroid is a single sharp pixel and the stars are streaks, doesn't that suggest that you already know which pixel is the asteroid? In which case you don't really need to search for that particular asteroid, no?

At a minimum the submitter or the editors need to think whether their description of the procedure is good.

Assuming your description of me as open-minded and non-bigoted is not literal -- a safe assumption I think based on your closing sentence -- that's some sweet political correctness you have there. I said nothing derogatory about any of the hypothetical people from the post. The words I used are the exact right words to describe the subjects of the story.

I fully support your decision to ignore my posts or disagree with my positions.

As I mentioned in another post, when I said "the rest of society" I meant as individuals each making their own decisions. Not as a single rule that all have to abide by.

There's a serious disconnect between "I'm free to be anonymous and express opinions but everyone else has to provide me the soapboxes to stand on and an audience to hear me." Someone who believes in liberty and freedom would see that to begin with.

The rest of your post I'll skip commenting on because mostly I agree with you and I think you are assuming I hold positions that I don't.

Here's my position wrt this story:

Everybody is free to associate with who they please. This includes people who run online forums and services. In the marketplace of ideas either anonymity or known identity will become dominant because the supporters of those ideas will successfully convince the rest of society of the value of their position. Personally I will decide on a case by case basis whether the service I want to use is worth whatever conditions they put on that service. If most people agree with me then I will find that I can use most services I desire to use without compromising my beliefs. If most people don't agree with me then I may find that I cannot use most services, but I have no right to force the service providers to bend to my position.