So was IPv4

Usually it's not so clear-cut. Who do you prosecute:

-The manager who was told by the lawyer it was legal and he didn't know the full extent of what was going on.
-The lawyer who was doing his best attempt to interpret law but came to a different conclusion then the judge
-The individual executing the wiretap under order from management and who received compliance training from the lawyer who misinterpreted law.

I would say reprimand the manager and remove him from leadership. Rotate lawyers so they don't get complacent. Finally reprimand the individual and require he have oversight by a coworker for a period. Then conduct retraining of whole office by legal.

The real problem is when you try to go to the very edge of the line every time, sometimes you'll accidentally cross it with no maliciousness. That's the difference between a novice and an experienced bowler. When it happens it's probably because the individual wasn't trained well enough or didn't have good enough access to legal. I think it's a case of Hanlon's Razor.

Your post is now the #1 result on bing for that search. Too bad Bing doesn't have an "I'm feeling lucky" you could have linked to a search that would have taken you directly back to your post.

You can define 1 atmosphere, you just can't quantify 1 atmosphere. You just have to do it based on real world conditions without assigning it a number. Those real world conditions will shift far more then the reference weight though.

First off "expected" has meaning in statistics, it's simply the weighted average.

Also you're using a rare event as an example. Six dice rolls with uniform distribution would only roll each side exactly once at approximately 1.5% chance (calculation below). Evenly distributed means even probabilities, not even outcomes.

In fact getting six different rolls in six throws would be evidence that it is not evenly distributed (that there might be an outside influence) but at such a low confidence level that it could (and should) be disregarded.

6!/(1!^6)*(1/6)^6 =~ 1.5%

PS. 600 dice rolls is much less likely to give an exact even outcomes. 600!/(100!^6)*(1/6)^600 =~ 1 in 4million

The bigger mistake by GP is to not understand the word "distributed" in statistics. It doesn't mean "how far apart" like in common usage. If you deny climate change, you believe there is equal probability for each year to be picked as an outlier year, a uniform distribution (or as he says it, evenly distributed).

Given the values one can calculate a confidence level that it is NOT evenly distributed. Presumably that's what the researcher did, I've never known journalists to publish confidence levels.

Here's a hint from the real world. You don't learn new skills to bring value to a company, because they won't give more then a pittance raise. You learn new skills to leave the company for a better position. It's a broken system. Companies should do more to encourage moving positions within and reward training.

Learning new techs doesn't get you a raise at any job I've been at. It just means you're more marketable to leave the company. Perhaps companies should provide incentives to learning if they want it. Heck I've seen a coworker earn his Masters degree while working fulltime, he went to boss to ask for raise. When they refused, he left a few months later.

I can understand both sides. If you're fulfilling same role why should a company give a promotion? But it just leads to an unhealthy workforce with high turnover.

Thought experiment: I want to transfer data with you. I have Cable, you have fios and they have a peering agreement. We transfer roughly same amount and things work great. Then one day our business relationship changes and we both want me to transfer 10x as much data. My cable plan allows it and has enough bandwidth to handle it. Your fios plan also allows it and has enough bandwidth. However the interlink between cable and fios networks can't handle the new surge of traffic.

Who should pay for the new interlinks?

That's what this issue is about. This isn't about net neutrality because comcast isn't targeting netflix. It's a problem of raw amount of traffic and who pays for it. Traditionally it's been the sender (not the requester, these are big backbone networks and don't have the capability to track state of billions of connections). This is because it's cheaper to add bandwidth to servers then clients. A server can be colocated, clients can't.

Net neutrality definition is heavily debated but I define it as discriminating how you handle traffic based on:
1. Source and/or destination
2. Protocol or Type of service
3. Content

Which Comcast is not doing in this case. Comcast is an evil evil company, but I'm afraid they're right in this case.

And if you click Keep, you have to save that setting somewhere. If I'm going through the trouble to do an plugin install (for the good of my users of course) why would I not save that setting (it saves my user a click). If someone wants to add a toolbar to firefox they will make it happen. They'll patch the binary, they'll clobber configs or setting files. Why? they're doing it for the users of course. Those users want your dancing hippo buddy and why should a bunch of unix hippy nerds stop them.

Keep in mind, toolbars existed before browsers implemented toolbar capability. They didn't do it by cooperating with the browser.

The part you don't understand is a lot of travelers aren't afraid of TSA. They're afraid of a government free to ignore our constitutional rights. They're afraid of people disappearing in the night and ending up in secret prisons.

No thank you. 9/11 was a nuisance. Tyranny would be a real tragedy. Maybe you should get over your irrational fear of "terrorism" instead of telling people their fear of the government is irrational.

What purpose do these security screenings serve except to inspire a culture of fear. I have trouble differentiating the TSA from Al Qaeda in that regard.

Bah first rule of digging up pirate treasure is that you don't tell people you just found pirate treasure. Just be glad you didn't know the truth or they would have had to run you through with a cutlass (which they also found).

They get to lock customers in. They convince media giants that their DRM is secure and should be used for all digital releases. So the media will say it works on Windows Vista/7 only.

With the current state of TSA any business that requires an employee to travel by air should be sued for sexual harassment. Since they're ordering their employee to pick between naked pictures or being groped.

I disagree. If you're programming the OS it might be true (with narrow hardware compatibilities). However as soon as you write an application for a user, theory is useless. Users do the strangest things to their OS. One user might throw away all RST packets at the firewall because they read about sandvine when comcast was throttling. Another user tried to fix his own windows box, deleting important windows registry keys, so explorer freezes randomly. Another user overmounted a directory over /etc, so now there are users logged in that don't exist in /etc/passwd. All of these will break even the most basic assumptions an application programmer would have.

If your theory is broad enough to cover real-life scenarios with real screwed up people then "In theory" is the same as "In practice". But if your theory is that good then there is no point in testing software.