The real problem is software that is being used to automate so much of HR task. Writing a resume to get past an HR drone is easy. "Check all that apply" then "penalty of perjury", that's harder.

Sorry, that's wishful thinking.

SS is almost self funding. If you assume that the SS fund balance invested in loans to the Treasury will be paid, SS still shows a deficit on the 20-30 year time scale unless something comes along to knock off the 'boomers' early. SS can probably be made self funding with some tweaks to how the payroll taxes are done, but there is no political will to fix it and 20-30 years is a long way off in the land of politics. Of course, the longer they wait, the harder it gets.

Medicare has even bigger problems. [CNN] In ~12 years, any trust fund will be exhausted and incoming funds will fall short of expenses. One estimate that I have heard is that to make it self funding with existing benefits, we would need an additional 10-12% payroll tax on top of the current levy. Bear in mind too that medicare (and its bastard stepchild medicaid) generally under pay for services forcing costs to be shifted and creating additional costs in other places.

I am all for cutting a big slice out of military spending - we are far too willing to engage in wars at great distance for little benefit - but please do not ask me to pretend that the entitlement side of the federal ledger is in good order.

The approach of law enforcers in the 21st century is to assert that nothing a person might do with digital technologies is protected by the need for reasonable searches. We see this with dragnet monitoring of cellular networks, with casual roadside searches of personal electronics, with the FBI attaching a f***ing tracking device to a car and asserting that this should be allowed without oversight, and so much more.

Law enforcers assert that theu need these powers to enforce the laws and to catch the law breakers... and they're right. Bad police behavior is simply more efficient. It allows the Bushes and the Obamas and Merkels (and Camerons and Blairs and Assads and Ahmadinejads too, but there's another place for that discussion.) to make more laws that would take more money to enforce reasonably and constitutionally. Since the money isn't there, the enforcers must get more efficient, which means rights and ethical behavior must go by the wayside.

I've moved beyond which laws we need or don't need when considering civil rights. I firmly believe that every time Congress passes a law or Obama signs an order, no matter how well meaning, civil rights are violated. It's just like the kitten meme - http://static.portent.com/images/2007/08/God-kills-kitten.png . This applies to state legislatures, governors, mayors, HOAs...

If we ban or regulate or protect less, our rights will be violated less. Think about it. Think of the children. Think of... the kittens. lol

1. knowingly and without authorization, harbors, either directly or indirectly
2. knowingly and without authorization, protects, either directly or indirectly
3. knowingly and without authorization, gives intelligence to, either directly or indirectly
4. knowingly and without authorization, communicates [with], either directly or indirectly
5. knowingly and without authorization, corresponds with, either directly or indirectly
6. knowingly and without authorization, holds any intercourse with the enemy [Woohoo! - kidding (same thought here...)], either directly or indirectly

There are really 12x OR cases here.

If Wikileaks were the enemy, that would be giving intelligence to the enemy 'directly' (meeting condition 3).
If Wikileaks were not the enemy, but through them the enemy ultimately obtained the intelligence, that would be an 'indirect' giving (meeting condition 3).

I suppose he can argue that he was authorized.

Comma and operator delineated lists are sometimes difficult to parse in English. English Legalese is even more difficult as the commas and other operators are sometimes inferred. Please let me help.

'Corresponds' is cleverly concealed behind an 'or' operator and is therefor not necessary to satisfy the condition.

[Anyone who,] without proper authority, knowingly...gives intelligence to...the enemy...indirectly...shall suffer [as much as possible].

His best defense would be that he was too... stupid... to knowingly do anything. I suppose he could argue that he was sleepwalking the whole time, but I don't think it'll work. 'Indirectly' own him here.

I work in K-12 education. We are considering a large deployment in our 5-12 student space. Rationale is as follows:
  --District already has "free" Google Apps for EDU; chromeOS 'just works' in this environment
  --Hardware is mostly low maintenance
  --Devices are at least as durable as ipads and similar devices
  --Devices cost same or less than laptops, ipads, etc
  --Devices have keyboards and so will be more useful for testing
  --Google is a sturdy enough organization that it'd take years for them to fail if they did - probably longer than our hardware cycle.

These devices do not meet every need in every space, but if you want to put a browser, keyboard, office apps and internet literally into the hands of a large number of people, it may well be the best option.

Keep it classy Dice.

Crackers.

Already commented elsewhere here or would use mod points. Mod parent up!

The problem is not the diplomat's limo, but getting there. Equador doesn't have a private limo port that could be considered part of the embassy.

All of these 'situations' assume embassies that look a lot like the embassies that the US or Britain might normally have in foreign capitals.... Big mansion-like buildings surrounded by a fence... certainly something with a nice private place for a limo to pull up and still be on embassy grounds. Equador doesn't have one of those.

Equador has a bit of office space in the middle of a building that has other office space. There is no private helipad or carport or other place to try any of the 'situations' that anyone has suggested. You can safely assume that he elevators/doors/stairs/windows are under surveillance. There'll be no sneaking.

How much is an acre-foot? Is it like a football-field-hand? American or Brazilian or Australian Football? How many hogsheads is that? Or Troy Ounces?

By that logic, there is no such thing as climate change. CO2 emissions do not change the underlying system, and were they do stop completely, the system would, in time, revert/adjust. By your logic, climate change can't exist unless thermodynamic laws (or whatever) are changed.

Anyone who thinks that the deployment of [technologies] across large portions of Earth's surface will not have significant impact is delusional. Don't be that guy.

All "clean" energy, whether wind, solar, hydro, coal, fission, etc. is merely "relatively" clean. Wind kills birds and warms areas downstream. Coal makes smog and dumps carbon. Hydro kills fish and and alters local climate. Fission makes giant lizards emerge from Tokyo bay...

Let's stop software developers from testing their work as well. Be serious.

Testing is not the "problem" and is probably not the "solution". If you do not check for progress, you cannot know whether your effort (in teaching, programming, rocket construction) has been successful.

I seem to recall we saw this a while ago:
http://boingboing.net/2011/12/27/the-coming-war-on-general-purp.html
Odd to hear it so clearly from MS now.