It's better this way. The free market determines who stays and who goes, who gets hired and who gets fired. When I've worked in union environments the relationship between workers and management has been bad. When employers are obligated to do things they wouldn't choose to do or keep people they wouldn't choose to keep it makes for a very screwed up adversarial relationship. Someday tech workers may not be in demand and there may be a reason to unionize, but for now I'd much rather work and know the companies that hire me, value me and continue to employ me because I deliver some value they want.

Less Google, more cowbell. I consider it a win for society that we are not just running out to buy gadgets to wear on our faces. It was an interesting experiment, but it doesn't belong in daily life. I can't rationally justify why it bothers me, but don't ever expect me to be OK with people walking around with those on their faces. I prefer to live in a camera free zone as much as possible and not be confronted with one strapped the the head of some jackass at Starbuck's.

I would think CPS could be allowed to take such action on face value, but were the parents to petition a judge it could be very likely to result in a stay order or injunction on CPS as the case is an unusual and not well tested overreach. That of course means parents without ability to obtain a good lawyer would be screwed.

Any logical use of resources would be an improvement. War games can make sense, but only when focused on real world threats to things Government is actually supposed to protect. If they are trying to "strengthen the West's tarnished reputation following the Sony hacking scandal" that isn't the right approach. Private industry generally has to provide it's own security and there is nothing about attacks on Sony that couldn't hit any company any time from any source for any reason. Government could do well to have some robust and well developed defenses and procedures available to defend at the national borders, but that has limit use cases. Corporate America is on it's own and will only defend itself as well as it chooses to do so. People are still the weakest link in security and determined attackers will exploit the greatest weaknesses with the least path of resistance. Business is going to have to come up to speed in that it must be accepted that one user or one computer or one service WILL be breached. The question is from there, will attackers be able to cause a cascade of subsequent breaches with unchecked ability to steal data and damage systems completely undetected until the impact becomes obvious? I think any company can see the answer to that without too much analysis. So how import is it that it doesn't happen to you? Government cannot defend business from their own insufficient security and I personally don't want to pay the tax bill for them to try.

It shows up on mine. I did not previously, but from what I understand it depends on the tower to which you are connected as much as the phone. I have already done Verizon's opt-out which of course does not turn it off, but rather just stops them from selling the data.

Anyone have good reason to believe there is an alternate carrier that actually has decent respect for privacy? I'd like to ditch Verizon as soon as my contract is up.

I'm not convinced that Americans making less money would significantly better the lives of people in other countries. It is ridiculous I'm not convinced that Americans making less money would significantly better the lives of people in other countries. Much of the world economy depends on the US middle class spending every dollar of those inflated salaries on goods and services sourced from all over the world. I realize saying I want more for workers throughout the economy while acting to protect my own privileges seems like a self-congratulatory contradiction. If I'm an asshole for not being willing to take less on the off chance others can have more, so be it. Americans cannot end economic suffering by accepting more suffering themselves. I believe it's more practical to support economic activity in other countries and support rising wages globally. Restricting competition for local jobs, even if imperfect seems to me to be less ethically flawed than most of our trade practices where business often seeks win-lose deals rather than the win-win deals were both trade partners reap substantial benefit.

( Being anti-H1B isn't protectionism.) Especially when other countries aren't just throwing their gates open to Americans. Last time I showed up to do a project in Canada I had to lie about the scope and they were clearly less than thrilled about my arrival. All developed countries that I'm aware of are at least moderately, if not highly cautious of allowing foreign workers. A playing field that isn't totally level, in this case is better than the alternative. We're busy telling our young people to go to college and get STEM degrees. We owe it to them to protect the jobs we are telling them are there and for which they are needed. I'm all for a robust global economy were all workers can earn a living in dignity, but not at the cost of losing the American middle class.

I'm sure perverted ax-murders love Facebook. The cretins left on Myspace wouldn't be enough of a challenge. I've been with my girl for years and we are still not friends on FB. A social life is possible without FB, but it is hard being the last to find out a loved one died or your niece got married or had a baby. I plan to solve this problem by creating my own social network and allowing others to do the same. Perhaps the potential dates you speak of would have more respect if you could say "I'm not on Facebook, but you can join my network if you like", rather than having to say you can't come out from under your rock because you're afraid of corporations and the government or losing your non-conformist street cred.

Will I begin contemplating idiotic reasons why I need one of these in my car? Yes, yes I will. I don't know why in the age of laptops, tablets and GPS enabled smartphones, there is still some nerd sex appeal to the possibilities of trunk mounted PC. What possibilities at my command, what freedom from the confines of the factory "infotainment" system.

They have already proven beyond all doubt there is no good reason to trust them. Why would anyone share the details of their professional life or business contacts with them? For some businesses this will be useful, but for the other 95% this is a terrible idea. It's a security risk that can't even yet be quantified. Data will leak, employees and customers will be poached, Phish will be speared. Nice try Facebook, but seriously fuck off.

If communication is critical and false communication could result in the loss of life, twitter is not an appropriate resource. I'm sorry it's the only way to share info in a way the masses will listen, but it's just reality that there is no way to make consumer social media communications safe for state sponsored critical communications. In order to be remotely sane you'd at least have to have and extremely long complex password, 2FA and you need some mechanism where two authorized parties have to approve any message before it can be sent. Even at that without some special access and change audit controls and alerts it's a risk to involve a third party in communications.

Intelligence measurement seems to me to be too focused on speed to be a good measure for everyone. I've never been very fast myself, but it doesn't limit the complexity or scope of what I can achieve. I haven't taken an IQ test since my teens, but at the time I remember being annoyed that I had to settle for a lower score than I felt I could have achieved simply because I ran out of time. A math tutor once told me he was a genius not because he could do something others couldn't, but because he could do the same steps very quickly. In my mind speed is one form of intelligence which can be very valuable, but it's a shallow measure. Particularly when judging student ability, speed can be a bad measure because students who are bored are often not remotely mentally engaged by the task at hand. That is where the grit factor comes in to play, by achieving the results even if it takes longer or proves more difficult in the focus and execution.

While I don't find my life in America to be lacking, you are correct about the general brain washing. If you collect enough media pundits and politicians who believe their own bullshit it's possible get people to act completely against their own interests. The remaining population that understands the games they are playing is stuck piecing together the fractured and incomplete truth of our own reality. We can't really agree on anything in time to act on it and we don't have the ability to get any sustained momentum to affect change. The brainwashed are convinced that life would be good like it was in the 1950's if only we stopped writing welfare checks, lowered taxes on businesses, quit the socialist overreach and interference in the god given rights of the corporation, got the coloreds to know their place, deported the illegals, brought democracy to the world and got right with Jesus.

It is something we have to approach cautiously, but it makes a lot of sense to look at the practical application of ideas. It's not unlikely that we will get to the point where something must be done and it will come at at time much to late to fix the issue by changing current carbon output. I don't know if it's possible to have an impact without a significant downside or insurmountable costs, but it seems like one the best areas to focus practical research.

A good hitman might appreciate it. Got a high profile target, what better way to achieve real time anonymous attribution prior to payment? This technology has no place outside the military. I'm a strong supporter of gun rights, but I see some serious risks to allowing this technology outside the military and every time a gun is used for evil it hurts the cause of protecting their legitimate ownership and use.