OMG, that must invalidate everything I have to say!

Sorry, been there, done that, been through all the logical fallacies you can lob my way.

The point is the exact reverse of what you are saying.

This is not about whether the Germans or Japanese should have incorporated "backdoors" that any external entity would have required.

This is about the fact that US adversaries, today, as you and I speak, are using the EXACT SAME systems, networks, devices, services, OSes, and encryption standards and protocols, as you and I and innocent Americans and many others in the world. THAT is the issue...does this fact put those communications off limits?

Please. Your comment proves just how deep the misunderstanding of this situation actually is.

Good for you. And if you are a non-US person outside the US (which covers about 99.9% of the communications that foreign intelligence agencies -- key word being foreign -- actually care about) engaged in activity that is a national security threat to the US, as defined by the valid mechanisms (even if you personally disagree with those mechanisms) that democratic nations such as the US develop, then we will try to access your communications. I don't see how this is possibly shocking. Shocking, perhaps, if you are a US adversary, or someone who believes that it's all an overarching plot by the US and other free Western nations to illegally access everyone's communications, especially that of their own citizens to solidify power, or serve corporate/elite/shadowy overlords, but otherwise...yeah, no.

1. "Secret courts". The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is the very court whose sole purpose is protecting the rights of Americans under the law and the Constitution in the context of foreign intelligence collection. Secrecy is required for the conduct of foreign intelligence, even in free societies. That you may disagree with this does not invalidate this fact. That you may see 3-4 pieces of a 1000 piece puzzle and believe you have the full picture does not invalidate this fact.

2. "Spying on everyone". Not sure what you mean, but if you could possibly be referring to metadata collection, that has been affirmed by a Supreme Court ruling that is 35 years old.

And if even the US Supreme Court ultimately renders the phone metadata collection "unconstitutional", it won't mean that it was unconstitutional, or even is unconstitutional at this very moment. The program, to date, is factually lawful and constitutional as the law and existing case law stand -- even including Judge Leon's ruling, which he himself immediately stayed, and was countered by another federal ruling of the same standing.

What an unconstitutional finding would mean is that things aren't the same as they were in 1979: that, with the rise of digital communications and the ability to track not one, or dozens, but hundreds of millions of call records easily, and because large amounts of metadata can often reveal as much private information about a person as communications content, the balance now runs afoul of the reasonableness doctrine of the Fourth Amendment.

And that would be a perfectly valid finding...which does not in the least impugn NSA's purpose or motives. It is not NSA's job to second-guess the law, case law, both houses of Congress, two Presidents from opposite parties, the Attorneys General of said two Presidents, the courts, and the very court established explicitly to protect the rights of Americans under the law and the Constitution in the context of foreign intelligence collection.

It is NSA's job to conduct its missions as aggressively as possible within the law and its resource limitations. My personal prediction is that, because of the nature of modern digital communications, this kind of mass collection of metadata will be found to be unconstitutional. The interesting thing is that people who think it is "clearly" unconstitutional seem to think things are innately or inherently constitutional or unconstitutional, ignoring incredible and fantastic complexities that already exist in interpretations of the Fourth Amendment, to say nothing of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Things aren't magically constitutional or unconstitutional. They are so based on the application and interpretation of the law and the Constitution by the courts, even in the simplest of circumstances. Certainly basic rules applying to things like, say, vehicle or home searches are well-tested and the officials who implement them (e.g., local LEOs) are well-versed in these topics. But when there is a question, it is the courts that decide -- NOT individual peoples' whims, feelings, or opinions.

The current, indisputable fact is that phone call metadata, as a "business record" provided to a third party, does NOT have an expectation of privacy and is NOT covered by the Fourth Amendment. There is no gray area, and that case law, as embodied by Smith v. Maryland, applies just as easily to one phone call, as to 10, as to millions. Certainly in 1979 SCOTUS never imagined that this principle could be applied in a blanket fashion touching any American with a telephone; conversely, SCOTUS probably also never imagined that terrorists would plot devastating domestic attacks using our own communications systems within our own country.

In any event, it seems likely that bulk metadata collection will no longer be allowed, and NSA and the IC will simply figure out ways to do their jobs within the confines that our system of government prescribes. That's fine, and that is the way our system works. But for people to say that NSA is "obviously" breaking the law or that metadata collection is "clearly" unconstitutional -- when both are not only subjective, but provably false, statements -- is highly offensive to people who see the care that goes into these efforts, all of which are designed solely to protect our Nation and its people.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: adversaries of the United States, be they terrorists or nation-states, increasingly use the same systems, networks, services, providers, operating systems, devices, tools, encryption standards, and so on as Americans and much of the rest of the world. To have the "capability" to target the one necessarily implies the capability to target them all. The distinction is no longer the technology or the capability -- it is ONLY the target; the person on the other end. In a democratic society based on the rule of law, it cannot be the capability, but the LAW, that is paramount.

What he "wants", when US-based companies hold data that still can technically be accessed for legitimate foreign intelligence purposes supported by our system of law, is that a legal framework should allow for it. When it can't be, it's up to NSA to determine other mechanisms to access that data.

If you actually care about our system of government, or that of any Western governments, then you would support that, too.

If, on the other hand, you live in a world where simply crying "Encryption!" is some kind of barrier that magically sanctifies the underlying data, and that it then cannot and should not ever be accessed by anyone other than the data owner...well, then I would ask what you think about the German and Japanese codes in WWII?

Oops...now the the fact is that US adversaries no longer are using their own custom software/hardware/encryption/etc. and now share the same technologies that Americans and the rest of the world use does not magically place these technologies off-limits for exploitation or targeting. It would turn modern intelligence gathering -- yes, of even free nations -- on its head.

The law and Constitution (as interpreted and implemented by our system of government) are the constraints -- not specific technological capability. That these constraints are erroneously believed to not be effective, or that the press and public willfully misunderstand the legal landscape alongside the big picture of SIGINT in the digital age, does not mean the constraints don't exist. The level of constraint on our activities, even activities conducted with respect to non-US Persons exclusively outside the US, rises to a level that I can only compare to a bad joke. An even worse joke is when people believe NSA is operating rouge, with virtually no constraints or oversight (at least any meaningful oversight), juxtaposed with the reality we work in every day.

If we're essentially saying that it was only okay for the US and our allies to, for example, break the German or Japanese codes during WWII simply because Americans weren't also using the same codes, and therefore that is the only reason that the government could be "trusted" to not misbehave or abuse its powers, then we have a serious problem on our hands.

So, take your message content and apply that to yourself. Thanks!

The Westgate mall attack wasn't a bomb. It was armed gunmen, and 67 people ended up dead with over 175 wounded.

Other posters have given several solutions, just collecting and adding my voice to a few of them:

in a pinch:
Google docs: lightweight and simple, with limited functionality and a light learning curve
Sharepoint: simple to use, full of hassle to administer, limited functionality, gets expensive
mediawiki: like sharepoint without the licensing problems, but gets limiting beyond simple document collections

More serious solutions:
Alfresco: serious document/object management and workflow, free version to start/pay for support if you like it (spinoff of Documentum)
Documentum: elder god #1 of doc management, excellent repository, workflow, project management functions. rather expensive
Opentext Livelink: elder god #2 of doc management, excellent repository, project management, nice Visio-like workflow development that makes sharepoint devs cry, also rather expensive.

TLDR:
Google docs if you need a fix today, Alfresco if you have a month or two to fix the problem and want it to stay fixed.

MSOffice has NEITHER version control NOR document management built in. Word/Ppt/etc provide track-changes internal to a file, which is a very nice feature for tracking edits and incremental rollback. However, this shouldn't be confused with file/object version tracking, repository functions, checkin/checkout or other functions external to the file objects. Sharepoint provides some of these, but it's still basically a wiki for content management. OP is looking for a solution to "fix the wrong file version" not "fix a bad edit."

Arguing about a bottle label? Now you're just trollin.'

Homeopathy is a system that claims to treat disease. A homeopathic preparation "made in the standard way" incorporates those claims, even if the FDA/equiv prohibits printing that claim on the bottle. This is because the preparation and method have been subjected to rigorous scientific and medical examination (for over two centuries) and found to be fake medicines before the fact.

Herbal supplements also claim to treat disease, and some of them have been found effective through scientific and medical examination. An herbal supplement (or any other medicine at all) that doesn't contain the specified substance is found to be a fake medicine after the fact.

I suppose the difference is "can't work" versus "doesn't work." Now if you're arguing that I ought to trust homeopathic preparations to actually be pure water when the entire system's basis has been utterly debunked.... that boils down to trusting a systemic liar to be consistent (and not to include harmful stuff). That's somehow better than finding incidents of lying (and possibly including harmful stuff) in a consistent supply chain? Really, really, no.

No. One claims to do something it does not.* The other claims to be something it is not, to the same outcome.
Both mislead the consumer, both are equally as useless, and both may be dangerous to a person believing they have treated a condition when they have not. Barring extra harmful substances in the fake pills, the only substantive difference from homeopathic remedies is _when_ the lie is told.

*Specifically, the idea that a homeopathic potion "is what it claims to be" is wrong, in that it claims to be a treatment for a condition or to effect a change in a condition. It absolutely does not and cannot, unless one throws out basic laws of physics and chemistry. Homeopathy is solid bullshit from roots to branch, and it occasionally kills people.

What's the difference between this surreptitiously fraudulent store-brand crap (does not contain stated ingredients unproven to work) versus purposely fraudulent homeopathic crap (explicitly does not contain ingredients for the stated purpose)?

They're all placebos, and they are a genuine danger to ignorant people who need actual treatment for actual medical conditions. It'd be interesting to see a solid study of how many people are killed each year through opting for homeopathic flu and pneumonia cures, instead of actual treatment.

According to the Montgomery County school website, having the kids walk a mile with a sibling is within normal community standards, and in line with guidelines set forth by the county itself.
(See www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/parents/basics/transportation/ )

In Montgomery County where this occurred, school bus transportation is only provided for elementary school children who live further than 1mi from school, and for middle schoolers (11yo+) further than 1.5mi. The county's guidance for elementary school kids walking 1 mile or less is "Younger walkers are encouraged to walk to and from school with siblings, older children from their neighborhood, or parents. At many schools, Montgomery County crossing guards help walkers cross at busy intersections near the school. In most elementary schools, student safety patrols guide younger children in crossing smaller neighborhood streets."

I don't see how CPS has a leg to stand on here; the children were simply practicing what they are expected to do by the county school system itself.

Because parachute recovery is a method of salvage, while "crazy rocket landing" is a method of full reuse without refurbishment.

Keep in mind that refurbishing the waterlogged shuttle boosters ended up being 3X more costly than original estimates, much of the nozzle apparatus was completely trashed each time, and the whole process took months to turn around a single booster.

SpaceX is working toward an airplane/airport-style refuel-and-refly-immediately model. That autonomous landing platform is actually a fuel depot, with the eventual intention to refuel first stages and relaunch them immediately for short hops back to a proper launch facility where they can be fitted with a new payload within a day. Crazy? Maybe. Wrong? I don't think so.

Hey, as these things go, this was a very very good failure. Consider that we've just progressed from the old reality's typical "the vehicle will splash down somewhere in this 500-square-mile area of the ocean," to Spacex's new reality of "we accurately flew down to a 0.0018-square-mile platform, and borked the touchdown on this first try."

I'll take that kind of progress any day.