I apparently know better than you what a typo is.

I regret thinking you had any intention of arguing in good faith, and shall not make that mistake again.

I used to browse the web on a Palm Treo with almost the same number of pixels as the Apple Watch has.

  I didn't have the Treo but I seem to remember the screen being a lot larger, and it also had a keyboard too...

It's funny because they acknowledge that a really cool and fundamental feature

If you see a browser on a watch, they have failed.

Facebook was a typo. Please excuse my brain for substituting one social networking site for another one. Do you get so easily butthurt because you're an oversensitive moron, or because you're a troll?

I know perfectly well why it's a stupid thing to do, regardless of whether one has a security clearance or even any significant access to trade secrets, export-controlled materials, or anything similar. I can't convince strangers about that, though, and I haven't been on the receiving end of such spam, so I don't have a solution for the general problem. I do think it is spectacularly stupid to jump, as you did, from "LinkedIn has an entirely optional way for you to give them control of your email" to "DOD employees should not be allowed to use FaceBook, period". My way of fighting that particular stupidity is to call you on it.

Are you getting those invitations from people with security clearances? If so, try letting their security officers know -- security@example.org, or whatever domain name they used. They will almost certainly get a dressing down, will probably get written up, and everyone else at the site or company will get a sternly worded reminder (in addition to their annual training) never to share their passwords with anyone, for any reason.

You complain loudly that people with clearances shouldn't do that, but so far you have not even asserted that they have done that -- only that some people on the Internet do -- much less provided so much as an anecdote to convince anyone that they gave their password to LinkedIn. That's most of why I called you and your argument stupid. The other part is that you jumped straight from "LinkedIn lets you do something stupid" to "I simply cannot fathom any DOD employees being allowed to use LinkedIn, period", and that's missing a whole chain of implications to support the conclusion.

DC has a moderate number of non-cleared (and even mostly unrelated to government) jobs in IT and engineering. They pay much closer to the national average. A while back, a recruiter I talked to seemed very surprised that a software development manager with 10 years of progressively advancing experience and a secret (not TS or poly) clearance could make $140k/year. Salary-survey web sites seem to say IT and engineering fields average $100k-$120k/year, which seems low to me; maybe I haven't looked at all the non-government-related jobs enough.

What do friendly countries do when they have US citizens working in facilities or on systems that the friendly countries have classified? There is probably a quite elaborate (social/management) protocol for reciprocating security clearances, supplemental background checks if deemed appropriate, and who knows what else. There would not be much point in distinguishing between "releasable to (country list)" and "not releasable to foreign citizens" without something like that.

You must be one of those stupid people who are going to be stupid, because as someone else explained to you even before my earlier comment, LinkedIn does not require its users to submit any password for any email account. You are making entirely unwarranted (and stupid) assumptions about what other people have done, and then using those faulty assumptions to argue about what people should be allowed to do.

The stereotypical reason to offshore a job is to reduce costs, so pointing out that offshoring these jobs would increase costs is not a tangent -- it's an explanation of why they are unlikely to be offshored. Besides, that BAE Systems logo doesn't mean that it was developed outside the US. BAE owns a huge number of US locations, which are operated mostly independently by a subsidiary incorporated in the US.

Companies don't automatically make profits. You can start a new business, but you are still going to face competition from overseas. Most new businesses fail, and those that don't require the founder(s) to stay super-busy for quite a few years before the business starts to operate well. Of course, it might never operate that well; the owner might make less than they did before, but just have more control over their schedule and work. Starting your own business neither prevents offshore competition nor ensures financial success.

Being afraid that your job will be taken away by "overseas workers," besides its vaguely racists and xenophobic connotations, is just the latest flavor of a very old fear.

Back in the days of the industrial revolution, it was automation that was going to take away the jobs. And in a sense, it did. But the population of (for example) the United States is larger today than at any time in its history, and most people still have jobs. Whahoppen? And yet now some of the people who weren't even alive during the industrial revolution are worried that robots and other machines will take their jobs away. Or foreigners.

The best wait I can explain it is that you should never approach an employers with the idea that you are a consumer asking the employer to give you something, in this case a job. You should think of yourself a a business resource -- which is what you are, and in fact the most valuable one that exists on the planet. When you apply for a job, you are OFFERING an employer something. You are not the consumer. You are a supplier. So as an autonomous resource who has control of your own destiny, how do you increase your own value so that you are more attractive to your current and future employers? It ain't gonna happen by you taking a job and then sitting down at your desk and pretending you're going to do the same job for the rest of your life.

If you're afraid that you've got the kind of job that your employer could just hand to somebody else tomorrow -- somebody you've never met, somebody who's never met anybody on your team, somebody who maybe doesn't even speak the same language as you -- then my first question is, don't you like money? Why are you in that job, when it can't be worth what they pay you for it and you could already be doing a lot better for yourself.

A lot of tech workers seem to get confused and think their value to their employer is in the skills they have. That's true, partly. But I'd say at least half of being successful at any job -- and maybe even 80 percent -- involves interpersonal skills. How well do you work within the team? How able are you to anticipate what the business needs and act on that? In cases where there's a leadership vacuum, can you fill it? And then when it's time to follow directions, can you still do it?

Or how about this one: Do you LIKE your job? Do you show up every morning feeling good and ready for work, because you feel like what you do for a living is something worth doing? I've talked to a lot of people who don't feel that way, and honestly I feel like a lot of that is on THEM. Going back to the idea that you're not a customer, you're a supplier ... you've gotta stick up for yourself. For most of us (hopefully) nobody has stuck a gun to our heads and made us take ANY job. It's true that they wouldn't call it work if it was all fun and games, but many of us spend more of each 24-hour day at work than we do sleeping. And certainly more than we do spending time with our friends and families. My advice is to spend that time on something you think is worth doing -- not something that a 10-year-old could do for you, if that was legal.

Do that, and you're already ahead of the game. When you're in a job where your real value is not to some nebulous economic concept, but to the people who make up your business, then you're in a pretty good spot. You can outsource Worker X but you can't outsource Dave Johnson, because there's only one of him.

So don't be Worker X. Maybe it sounds glib, but that's really the whole game. That's your life.

Citation needed on why it doesn't work so well. For one thing, railgun tech probably isn't all that highly classified. For another, offshoring to other members of the Five Eyes isn't going to reduce costs much -- and highly classified stuff generally couldn't be offshored anywhere that is much cheaper than the US. For a third, some highly classified stuff is NOFORN (not releasable to foreign nationals, even if they otherwise have appropriate security clearances and otherwise might have a need to know).

If I'm relaxing on the beach and a bunch of drones keep flying over me to deliver crap I'm not going to think its very awesome at all.

Even if they are bringing you drinks?

But really there's not a problem, you simply augment your trip to the beach with a Hololens and headphones. The Hololens literally can erase the drones from your by painting over it with sky, while the headphones cancel out all noise from the drones leaving only pleasing ocean waves and the sound of the 4000 other people around you on the beach you get to hear today.

OK, this presumably isn't the word you're thinking of, because 1) "the means of production, distribution, and exchange [being] owned or regulated by the community as a whole" doesn't necessarily mean that there will even be a minimum wage, or wages of any sort and 2) you don't have to have "the means of production, distribution, and exchange [being] owned or regulated by the community as a whole" in order to have a minimum wage with a given level.

So, either 1) the word in question doesn't (solely) mean what the OED entry in question says it means or 2) that word isn't the name you had in mind. Which is it?

Think about ALL of the political sites you have seen - they all have one thing in common. They like to ridicule the "Other".

Only to do so, you end up reading both sides.

Now it's true your first source is going to be pushing you to believe something a certain way. But rather than only seeing things you agree with, instead you are CONSTANTLY reading things you disagree with in order to laugh at or complain about it.

The end effect is basically no bubble whatsoever, at least in terms of input. Ideologically people drift further one way or the other than they used to, but it's not because of lack of information but rather a surplus.