Way back when I was in my teens, I would always add 10 to my real age and so subtract 10 from my real birth year.
Makes it real easy to remember the lie and be able to make match even years later.

Of course when I was 15 the web wasn't yet a year old and we still got our 8-bit gif porn from FTP that didn't/couldn't age check, but for BBS profiles it worked great.

Never came up against such a validation myself however, at least not that I ever noticed. But I'm just a bit surprised this is my first time hearing of such validation in practice.

At least the site/service you use doesn't require a credit card to "prove" age.

But if you ask me to do any version of C, I'll be asking other people what to do.

Frankly, the concept of 'computer skills' is pretty much the same as spoken languages - meaningless unless you specify which language.

According to the film studios, adding subtitles creates a derivative work and the distribution of it a copyright violation, and the person doing it a horrible human being that should be burnt alive after being fined a hundred trillion dollars for damages.

He should have just sued the MPAA instead, then everyone wins! :P

I hate to be the friend that has to break this to you, but your smug sense of superiority isn't all that impressive :P

*clicks your dislike button*

I agree that Ideally people should stand up and refuse to work at a place that asked these questions. But sometimes people are not in a position to refuse such work - to quote Richard Prior from the Toy:

"It's that bad out there? ... Worse."

Try switching nouns - consider this possibility. Given the limitless potential of humans, don't you think it is possible for a human to eventually create a bicycle capable of reaching the moon?

Yes, we reached the moon - but with a rocket, not a bicycle. Bicycles are too limited, it took a much better vehicle to reach the moon.

Some day we may create something that is as intelligent as humans. But it will be much more similar to a human than a computer is - to the point where calling it a computer would be like calling a rocket ship a bicycle.

1) Set up a personal web page - a blog, works, but it doesn't ahve to be one. You can put whatever you want on it. This gives people something to check online - but gives YOU the full control over it. No one linking to you, posting to your page, no advertisers steeling your information.

2) Maintain weekly contact with your friends by hand. Pick a single day - Sunday, whatver - and email (or call your good friends) all your actual, real friends about what you are up to and ask questions. If they are really your friend, they will email you back.

3) If a potential employer asks an inappropriate question be polite but call them on it in a way that makes you look good. "How often do you drink?" should be responded to with "I don't drink at all at work - do you have a problem with people drinking on the job?" Any question about your sex life should be politely taken as if they hitting on you. "I really don't think it's appropriate to date potential coworkers".

4) Be ready for questions about Facebook and have a good answer to it. Something that sounds sane, rather than crazy. If you are female this one works VERY well "After I found out an X stalked me on Facebook, I decided to delete my account. I get so much more work done now." It also works for men, but not as well.

Be prepared to lose some fair-weather friends/work. Just as a TV Producer would lose jobs if he decided to no longer watch TV. But your real friends and most worthwhile jobs will still like you. (Except with Facebook - if you want a job with Facebook, JOIN FACEBOOK)

But it can't do a task it doesn't already know how to do.

A human child will have far fewer facts that the computer at easy hand - but can figure out how to do anything, if given enough time. While some things may take years, most will be learn-able very quickly.

Intelligence does not depend on the facts you know, but instead on the skills you have that let you learn new things.

There are basically four kinds of jobs:

1)Super - Essential jobs that we all need to live in an area. Specifically jobs that provide food, water, heat, clothing, etc. At one point in time, ALL jobs were that. But long ago we filled all those jobs and we honestly have not increased them significantly. Few people get them anymore.

2)Essential jobs that would cause some but not all people to die if we stopped. Sewer worker, doctors, firemen, cops, soldiers. There are again a limited number of such jobs but occasionally we come up with new "essential' jobs - new types of doctors, pollution monitors/reductions, etc. Most developed countries have filled these jobs, but in certain locations they are unfilled. Why? Because of monetary issues.

3) Supportive jobs. These jobs help the rest of society do their work. Teachers, engineers, manufacturers, etc. They consist of the majority of our jobs and we are no where near the limit. We quite honestly do not have enough money to pay for all the supportive jobs we need. The old and the autistic need help (not prison - nor a prison that is called help). The jobs might have a limit, but we can't see it.

4) Luxury jobs. This includes both research and pleasure producing jobs. They make people happy and more importantly, CREATE NEW JOBS. There is no limit to these jobs and there never will be one. There will always be room for more scientists and more musicians.

First just to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with your analysis, I agree it is completely spot-on.
If anything my counter is directed at Nintendo and this choice of policy (not that anyone there would be reading this nor care if they did)

The thing with this line of reasoning is that there are many people like myself who aren't willing to purchase something we can't see or know anything about before buying it.

If I can't see screenshots of the amazing graphics, videos demonstrating the game play mechanics, see the first impressions from reviewers I respect the opinion of, or otherwise get some idea the game may be something I would enjoy playing and get value out of - I simply will not be purchasing it at all.

I have no problems paying a high price for something I believe will be of high value to me.
I also have no problem paying a low price if the value is expected to be low but still there.

What I do have a problem with is paying any price for something of unknown value. I simply refuse to do so.

Not to mention if it was a smaller less recognizable gaming company, going out of your way to hide all details about your game before getting my money strongly implies they know they are peddling garbage, and I can only assume such a purchase was designed to be a scam to take my money while providing no value.
It's worth noting that even the large companies like Nintendo are not immune from this gut reaction feeling. Only their past track record keeps me from assuming the worst.
But I still have to question what they are trying to hide, and why they can't be honest about their product so I can make an informed purchase.

Despite the fact their behavior is intended to prevent lack of sales, the reality is their behavior directly results in a lack of sales.

How? Please be detailed.

He upheld the laws of the USA, upheld his oath to the US government and the NSA.
He violated no conditions of his oath what so ever.

The NSA can not require someone to swear an oath to break the law and betray the US constitution in any legal sense - yet that's exactly what they tried to do.

Breaking a promise to be a criminal does not make you a criminal.

The oaths required from the DOE, DOD, and DOJ all explicitly demand you do not follow illegal orders, do not break laws without explicit exception, and to report to the higher authorities any illegal orders given - all of which Snowden did to the letter of the law and his oath.

In short, if you demand I follow an order of yours, do not bitch and claim I'm a traitor to you when I do exactly as you demanded from me, because then everyone will see your demand and accusation as the bullshit it is.

That must be why Nintendo partnered with Playboy to promote the Nintendo exclusive release of Bayonetta 2.

http://wiiudaily.com/2014/10/nintendo-partners-with-playboy-to-promote-bayonetta-2/
http://bayonetta2.nintendo.com/
http://www.playboy.com/galleries/pamela-horton-nintendo-bayonetta/slide-1

But if you haven't locked out the persons accounts BEFORE they state their intention to quit, you have already 100% failed at stopping Bad Things(tm).

Part of doing Bad Things(tm) is not to pull the action movie cliche of laying out your evil plans to the good guy before leaving him bound yet quite alive to escape and use that very knowledge against you.
You plan and execute your Bad Things(tm) while you still have the ability to do so, not after the time where there is an equal-to or greater than zero percent chance someone could prevent it.

Hypothetical - If you intended to murder someone, would you:
A) sneak up on them unexpectedly to assure the best chances of success? or
B) inform the target of your intentions so they can take steps to protect themselves and/or steps to prevent you from doing so?

True you may get lucky that the one doing Bad Things(tm) is stupid and does just that, but that isn't 100% either, and isn't something one should put themselves in a position to have to bet on either way.

The only sure fire way I am aware of to predict the future regarding when employment will be terminated is if it was initiated by the company.
You'll note in the case of terminations the above policy is almost always followed as a matter of course already.

But unless you can read minds, it's probably safe to say you won't accurately predict an employee leaving before they themselves decide that is an option and choose to act on it.

About the only exception is if the company is making that employees life so miserable already that quitting is the only logical choice - but even then I would argue that is the company initiating it, even if it is an indirect, round-about, and dickish way to do so.

Since you are way too late by this point to do anything to stop Bad Things(tm), why harm the professional relationship further? Treating them as a criminal can't possibly help you or the company in any way, so why cause a non-zero percent chance of harming you or the company by such actions?