And even more about crappy reporting. This has NOTHING to do with Turing or his test.

That's not the only thing that doesn't make sense. From the summary:

"What's the case for...not just world language is good, world language is well-rounded, but world language is so super-duper-duper good that you should spend two years of your life doing them and specifically better than something else like coding?"

It's NOT "two years". It's ONE HOUR a day (Monday-Friday).

You can take other classes on those days. INCLUDING CODING CLASSES.

Imposing the same approach on private schools seems like overreach.

Why? It's not like infections only happen in schools. Or that students spend 100% of their time at school. Look at the Disneyland outbreak.

Also, HepB shouldn't be in the schedule of required vaccines to enter kindergarten given its method of transmission.

I think that you are under the impression that it is ONLY transmitted via sex or needles.

The first problem is that this is not about correlation or causation. TFA is just a mess. Here's an example:

There were quite a few other striking differences in leadership:

Men tended to achieve better results than women in companies with up to 1,000 people, however in larger companies, female CEOs averaged 18% higher revenue per employee than their male counterparts

Companies with female CEOs were more likely to work in the B2C space, while male CEOs were more likely to work in B2B

There are more women in healthcare and non-profit organizations, while men dominated the manufacturing and construction space.

None of those three examples have anything to do with leadership.

That's "apples vs oranges" not "correlation vs causation".

I suggest you check what that actual advice was.

Sugar is a carbohydrate. You are not going to be healthy on a diet of "Twizzlers" even though they are low fat, high carb and vegan-friendly.

You CANNOT go by what some article says about what "science" has now "found" about X.

The idiots writing the articles are idiots AND they're writing the articles for maximum sensationalism.

Dude! Use your BRAIN!

Seconded.

Has anyone else been through those "motivational" seminars that were popular back in the 80's and 90's?

They were all about YOU being "invested" in the company. YOU should be open with management about anything and everything. YOU should be 100% committed to your job.

But it was never about management being invested in YOU.

If management decided to ship production to China, the workers would be the last to know. And the workers would be escorted off the premises by security. But as long as they were giving 100% to their jobs right up to that point ...

A shorter version of TFA would be "if you want good people then treat them like good people AND BE A GOOD PERSON YOURSELF". Don't make excuses for why you "have to" be an asshole to the workers. They aren't stupid. They will know when increasing your profits are more important to you than investing in your workers.

This is my sockpuppet. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

My sockpuppet is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.

My sockpuppet, without me, is useless. Without my sockpuppet, I am useless.

The truth is that many firms simply don't have the staff and budget needed to support an internal SOC. They also don't have the budget for an MSSP. With that, Mike Rothman of Securosis noted that these firms are "trapped on the hamster wheel of pain, reacting without sufficient visibility, but without time to invest in gaining that much-needed visibility into threats without diving deep into raw log files".

In my experience it is not the budget but the politics.

Is your company's security worth the expense of an additional tech? Or are office politics the reason you cannot get an additional tech?

Does whomever is in charge of your technology have the authority to say "no" to requests from other departments? And the political capital to make it stick?

I've seen too many examples of companies "suffering" from the problems their own decisions/environment created.

Retrofitting security is not the answer.

The Army alone has about 500,000 soldiers. A lot of them are in support roles but a private military also needs support.

Where are the families of the people in the private military? Because if they have to go back to the USofA (the "enemy" in this scenario) to visit Mom and Dad then there's going to be a problem. So you'll need room on the uber rich estate for the families of your military. And your support personnel.

Which brings up the infrastructure to support those families. Schools, hospitals, etc. Which means more support personnel.

Which means more schools and hospitals, etc.

Of course you can skip that if you want to. But remember who has the guns.

I'm sure that they have the best of intentions. The problem is with the underlying assumption that there is some kind of conspiracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenatchee_child_abuse_prosecutions

Once you accept that there is a conspiracy, there is no end to it.

If they were just interested in cataloguing the various cases then that could be done by scripts and Google news. If something is not getting media exposure then it is more likely to be because of lazy "journalists" than because someone is trying to bury the story.

The problem with that is whether your promise would also apply to your heirs.

Once something becomes worth $X there will always be people trying to make money off of it. The larger X is, the more people like that there will be.

So, in their quest to be like Facebook and Google by snapping up technology for obscene money, they forgot to do "due diligence", and now they are pissed?

At $10 BILLION I don't think there is any "forgot" here.

Even at the time of the deal the price was questionable. It was 10x more than Autonomy was possibly worth.

I would say "follow the money" but it is sounding like someone did not complete their part of the deal.

HP used to be such a great technology company, until they switched to the printer ink scam.

Yeah. This sounds more like an attempt to loot the company that didn't pan out.

You know who has trouble with "bad cops?" The people who don't respect authority in the first place.

Maybe you can do a little research (Google) on cops accused of rape.

Or just look at cops sentenced to life imprisonment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Eppolito_and_Stephen_Caracappa

I am still here, still free, and still have my privacy.

No, you do not.

Not being interesting to the authorities is not the same as having your privacy intact.

And I would rather not die.

If you live in the USofA, you are in more danger of being killed by someone in your family than by a terrorist.

But there comes a point where I need to balance that with other things such as seeing my daughter grow up.

The question is whether you believe there are more terrorists in the USofA or more bad cops/contractors/other-people-with-access-to-track-your-daughter.

Once you sign away her privacy she probably won't be getting it back.

And she will still be in more danger from her boyfriend/husband (and ex-boyfriends/husbands) than she is from any terrorist in the USofA.