Which is an interesting statement, since to date no-one has said that the *kid* was the source of a bomb hoax. He didn't stick it in the washroom. He made no threats. Which makes me wonder - exactly how is someone mistaking a clock for a bomb the fault of the kid?

I mean, what they're trying to tell us is that this kid made a fake bomb, that he didn't tell anyone about, didn't place, and kept on his person the entire time. So... are we supposed to believe that he's a really shy faux suicide bomber?

Or you simply call directory assistance and get the number from the operator. Seriously - it's hilariously easy to get help finding a number. I used to do it for university fundraising.

The difference is twofold today. One, it's easier to disseminate the info - once one person has done the legwork, it's just a post and everyone has it. Two, people can hide behind *their* anonymity to harass you from a distance, which makes them bolder (and lets more people do it, because they're too lazy to drive over and egg your house).

Doxxing is a problem; it's just not a *new* problem. Like patents, it's the same problem with "on the internet" attached to it.

Another possible solution is to remove the perks of being a cabinet minister. You're supposed to be there serving your country; why do you need a raise? If the money is why you're there, then go back to the private sector.

To be clear, this is separate from the budget needed for the department to do it's job - obviously the PM has some travel requirements that the typical MP doesn't. But I think every MP, regardless of position - government, opposition, leader, minister, backbencher - was hired to be a Member of Parliament, and should be paid the same accordingly.

Well, I'll begrudgingly spot the teachers on calling the cops - I don't expect an English teacher to recognize electronics. (I do wonder where the science teachers were during all this, though.)

But I would expect four police officers, among them, to know enough to recognize a bomb. Or more properly, the absolute lack of one. And I expect those teachers, once informed that the kid is right, it's a clock, there is nothing boom inside it, to have the honesty to admit that the kid did not threaten anyone, and never claimed it was a hoax bomb or any such shit. Yes, you don't know, call someone who does. But don't suddenly decide that it's the kid's fault that you didn't pay attention in science class.

Slightly off-topic, but related - is it possible to buy/make a piece of luggage that is TSA-resistant? (Defined as "they don't have easy access to the necessary tools, so it's easier to ask you to open the bag")

You have an incompatibility in your premise.

You know that your students are going to have difficulty getting a computer (and several of your cheaper suggestions ignore the need for a monitor and keyboard and mouse, so that laptop is likely the bottom end for someone starting from scratch). But you're requiring all your assignments to be typed and emailed.

So, my hopefully armor-piercing question to you is - are you teaching English or Computer Studies? If the latter, then the 10-15% are just SOL. If the former, you should be making an allowance for hard copy submissions (for folks without email, or who perhaps have an old typewriter they can use - don't laugh, they still exist!), or for handwritten submissions. It wasn't that many years ago when you weren't allowed to type up your essays, after all - made it too easy to use the computer spellcheck instead of learning to spell yourself.

Simple and silly example: HR brings in a game console for the lunch room, encouraging people to play on their breaks.

Every single person who used it for any length of time ended up getting talked to by their boss because they were "getting a reputation for slacking off". Basically, taking HR up on their "perk" was taken as a signal that you were a bad worker.

At the same time, even though "lack of communication between departments" is perennially at the top of the feedback from employees, and management insists that they want to "break down silos", heaven forbid you actually spend time talking to other departments - that's time you could be working!

I'm not even in a tech company, and we rely on business uptime by ensuring that we *can* generate our own electricity if need be. (UPSs to guarantee the critical machines don't die, which includes certain workstations), and then a generator on-site to power the building until the utility company sorts their problems out and switch back over.

The difference you're making is "are you trusting your core business to an outsider who won't suffer as much as you if they fail"?

So, tell his parents to buy him a Faraday suit to handle his disability. Schools don't have to supply wheelchairs or white canes. If they're concerned that their kid has the WiFi heebie-jeebies, then they should protect their kid.

Of course, I would love to hear their explanation for why TV and radio signals don't affect him. Or cell phones. Or cordless phones, microwaves, police scanners, or light bulbs in general.

And ignoring the GamerGate angle, I wouldn't be surprised if some voters looked at a guy who openly attempted to rig voting so that his publishing house was "guaranteed" a Hugo and decided "yeah, let's not".

Alternately, it was proven that while you can game the system to force your choices to be nominated, you can't force the voters to like them.

If that don't work for you, it's a reminder that stacking the nominations means squat unless you also manage to stack the voting.

And how much of that is because how welfare is set up? I've known someone in the position you're describing, and it's nothing to do with "comfort zone". It's the strict financials of doing the math and realizing that taking any job below $X actually *costs* you money, because you automatically lose your healthcare and other benefits. And depending on how assholean your local system is, taking even a part time job (you know, something to let you exercise your skills, build your resume) triggers the loss. And I would say there is a special place in hell for whoever came up with the idea of clawing back benefits *faster* than you're earning the money.

But to sum up - there are certainly people who are falling into depression, but it's because they've found themselves in a place where it sucks, but they'll be punished for trying to do something about it - so they spend their days knowing they'll never be able to get out.

And let's not deceive ourselves here - this isn't a case of paying the cashiers a buck less an hour and Passing The Savings On To You!(tm). This is taking that forty bucks a week per person and plowing it right into executive bonuses. Throw a part of that to middle management for "controlling costs", and you end up with places where no-one knows how to make a hamburger anymore.

That's because the plot demands it - the counterargument is simple: until you do something, you're not guilty of *anything*. Thinking about something is not a crime. And police prevent crime not by stopping it before it happens, but by stopping it often enough *after* it happens that people think twice about doing it in the first place.

From the Google Docs, they had 2 this year.

They had 3 last year. The last six years is 2,3,5,9,3,2.

So while it's technically true that this was a good year, trying to claim that this is proof of *anything* other than being a very-slightly lower year is marketing BS at it's worst.