My second thought was, if their budget is cut all they have to do is reduce the scope of their mission.

They can't. The scope of their mission is defined by Congress. They are tasked with carrying out what Congress says. They can't unilaterally say, "We're not going to do what we're told to do."

That said, if they wanted to reduce their mission scope they could always ignore trying to collect money from people who didn't hand over their money to private companies since this has nothing to do with the collection of taxes.

What I am presuming the GP is going for as an analogy is that there was a real Saint Nicholas, but that there is also a false legend surrounding the real man that is far grander and more common.

Not perhaps the best analogy.

"I believe that the Earth is getting warmer, however I do not find sufficient evidence to show that this will be a net bad thing for humanity. Further I do not believe that the proposed measures are the wisest course of action, and we should be investigating alternatives such as geoengineering. In any case we should not act yet, as we do not have a solid enough model of what will happen and the net impact on humanity."

They can easily find a way to say "I support science, but think that this issue isn't clear cut."

Goes double if the people who are doing the vote try and make it a black and white issue. If they try to make it an issue where you either have to support everything they say, or you are an evil denier of all science, it'll be much easier for people to abstain and have a good argument.

Science is just a process for knowing about the natural universe. It never gives us guidance on what we should do, it only tells us what is, and lets us predict what will be. What to do is always policy and politics. You can have a matter in which there is complete agreement on facts and theory, yet a disagreement on what we should do about it. While a solid scientific theory backed by good facts could tell us what is likely to happen if we take a certain action (or if we do not take an action) we then have to judge that result and how we value it. We have to look at the benefits and costs (everything has costs) and decide if we believe it is the best course of action, and on that point people may disagree.

That is, I think, a flaw many people make in talking about the AGW argument. They believe that since the facts (things like temperature and CO2 measurements) and the theory (the causal explanation of the relation of the facts) is solid in their estimation, that the course of action they believe should be taken is therefore scientific. That because there is a scientific theory at the core of what is happening, that means the conclusion they have reached is also scientific.

That's just not the case. Policy and politics aren't science. They can, and should, use science heavily to have good information as to the policy that is decided upon, but that policy is always a human construction, always a value judgement.

and they charge their customers a small transaction fee in the form of an exchange rate difference.

So you lose money each time you use it? That sucks.

I don't have that problem when I use real money. If something costs $10, I give the person a $20 bill and get $10 back. By your logic I might $9.95 back.

What a horrible deal for the person using this crap currency.

how does empty space have energy?

That was my question as well until I read Brian Greene's explanation in his book, The Fabric of the Cosmos.

In short, the Higgs Field. Long answer, think of what we call space as a fabric (hence the title of his book). The Higgs Field is the fabric upon which everything else "sits". Even if there are no particles in a given unit of space, it is not empty because the Higgs Field is still there.

Start on page 254 of his book and work your way through as he describes the field and how it (supposedly) permeates everything.

Come for the filth, stay for the hivemind. An amazing amazing thing.

These days, yes. I suspect that there was a point about 3 years ago when moot got a visit from some TLA agency, and has been on a short leash since. I'm guessing they have finally taken him off of the dog collar he's been on since (redacted) and he is getting the hell out of dodge.

Either way, I predict a massive revolt about 365 days after the upgrade is released.

I also predict a massive PR push by various Linux groups starting about 300 days in.

Seems like you missed the news on that.

Last May, as part of Glenn Greenwald's book, the NSA's process of supply-chain interdiction was exposed. They would intercept shipments of Cisco hardware, install the back doors, replace factory seals, and put it back into the shipping chain. One story. And another.

Cisco's response was somewhat curious. It wasn't outrage. It wasn't a lawsuit. It wasn't an emotional response. It was a calm, publicly released letter addressed to President Obama about trust and confidence. Nowhere in their public statements do they say anything about surprise, or about lack of knowledge that it was happening, or that they were not complicit.

Nope, it is an open letter asking the government to restore trust and confidence. It reads like the company was asking "please don't let these secrets go public again."

It is widely believed -- and documented -- that government agencies have already inserted various backdoors into Cisco corporate security products. It is also likely that the companies know full well about their products being intercepted and modified by the government, and that Cisco and others are helping the various agencies by tagging the products to be modified.

always
never

Seriously? Is Python THAT GOOD?

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.

Iâ(TM)m not exactly sure why Saudi Arabia would want to harm Islamic State. ISIS is Sunni, fundamentalist and they are tearing apart the Alawite and Shia pro Iranian states in Syria and Iraq. You would almost figure some Saudiâ(TM)s are funding ISIS under the table.

ISIS is undoing some of the damage George W. did to Sunni interests by toppling Saddam and unleashing a wave of Shia ascendence in Iraq.

More probably plunging oil prices have wiped out the Iranian governments revenue stream. There is speculation that one of the reasons Saudi Arabia is continuing to pump oil and crater oil prices is to cripple Iran, a bitter Shia enemy, and defund programs like uranium enrichment, missile development, their miliary in general and their support for other anti Sunni groups in the Middle East.

The other speculations for continued Saudi efforts to crash oil prices are to wipe out frackers in the U.S. so they can regain more political control over the U.S., to wipe out expensive offshore and artic oil exploration, to punish Russia at the behest of the U.S. or because Russia is a key benefactor of Iran.

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.