Garibaldi: Think they'll ever find that transmitter you slipped G'Kar?
Sinclair: No. because there isn't one.
Garibaldi: There isn't? Wait—
Sinclair: I lied. I figured if there were a transmitter, sooner or later they'd find it and remove it. But if I just told them there was, they'd keep looking. Indefinitely.
Garibaldi: Commander, do you have any idea of the tests they'll put him through, the things they'll do to him trying to find a transmitter that's not there?
Sinclair: Yes.

Actually, it was designed with the intention of taking humans up. The big hurdle in humans is the vibration and "physical displacement of occupants" for launch to space. The engines were designed and built with that in mind, and Musk intends to strap the engines onto larger rockets configurations (Falcon X and Falcon X Heavy IIRC). Musk's goal is Mars and he asserts that the Falcon 9H could, if assembled and launched from LEO, take us there. Last I ran the numbers base don estimated lift tonnage, it could do with a multiple launch mission profile and be launched from Earth. A few years ago when I was running the numbers on an orbital "assembly" mission profile, it would certainly work just fine for taking us to Mars. And while it does take more to go to the Moon than Mars (you actually need a bigger rocket to go to the Moon), the Falcon 9 heavy could probably do the same for going to the Moon.

It is these days. And why not? Open science is better than "protected" science, or "sanitized" science. The Science Establishement letting the people see what science is really like, and doing it in the open, is one of the best things we can do for science.

So "just lobbing hunks of metal into orbit" > "just lobbing meatbags to the nearest satellite"?? Talk about a perversion of difficulty and complexity. Successfully placing people on other celestial bodies and bringing them back is far more difficult than some measly hunks of metal, rubber, and electronics. After putting people on the moon and bringing them back, lobbing satellites is well .. just lobbing satellites. It's like winning the Indy 500 and then spending the next several decades bragging about driving 5 MPH over the speed limit. In town. In a school zone.

The reality of it is, NASA could well send people to Mars and back, and on it's current budget. The reason they don't? They are a federally funded bureaucracy. I'll elaborate a bit.

When NASA was about space exploration, and specifically human space exploration, they were focus on it. As the political will for it diminished they PtB looked for something else they could include so they could continue to exist. So they expanded their definition of what space exploration meant. This continued over the course of the last several decades to the extent that NASA doing "research" in terrestrial lakes is included in it.

Let that last bit sink in some more. Conducting research on terrestrial lakes is considered "space exploration". That certainly fits my criteria for a bloated agency. The reality is that NASA has a lot of "wasted" funding. If they focused their efforts on space exploration instead of "anything science related" they could actually get some real accomplishments under their belt instead of floundering in Low Earth Orbit for 30 years. If they put actual efficiency as a higher priority than "spreading the wealth among the congressional candidates" they could recapture the imagination, and dare I say hearts and minds, of the voters.

No, the reality is that objectively NASA's "performance" has plummeted. The rovers? They did not massively outlive their expected life. They outlived their requested mission duration. And it was stated back then the rovers were capable of far more than their window. And really, what was NASAs "science" in that? They were a carrier. They lobbed those hunks of metal and electronics to the "next satellite" of the sun. Oh and they provided some people to monitor them. We have automated rovers here on this planet, so the whole autonomous robot aspect is nothing new, and hence not an accomplishment to be proud of anymore than a team that wins the Superbowl can consider a victory over a high school team an accomplishment. Terrestrial weather research is not an aspect of space exploration.

NASA has shown year over year, time and again, that they -as an organization- are not interested in doing real space exploration work, just getting the money for it. They've had plans by experts (their own people even) that they themselves determine would be an order of magnitude cheaper, and many times safer. Yet hey turn them down because they don't constitute a large enough budget increase to appeal to a wide state selection of senators. Anytime the bigger ticket is the "preferred" option to a less expensive but safer journey with a higher ROI you've got a classic case of "just give us money so we can push pencils around". And we the people have seen it.

That isn't to say there aren't good scientists at NASA, they do exist. But they are held into a form of bondage by the bureaucracy that NASA has become.

And given NASAs *full* track record, don't count on anything they say they will do in the future, especially something 3 years out. Your selections too are biased in favor of their small tasks. When you look at the list of stuff they "tried" or "wanted" to do but then killed them off for non-space exploration stuff it really is severely unbalanced toward the "no significant accomplishments" side of the scale.

Ahh now we see the bias come out further. We could roughly double the NASA budget by shifting the money spent on corn subsidies to NASA, but you go after national defense. You think the PP is Obama or a member of Congress? It isn't "her/his" budget anymore than it is mine. Defense spending amounts are debatable as to when they go from needed/efficient to bloated (and ftr: I think they are very bloated currently). Subsidies, however, are fundamentally flawed and cause more harm than good. For the latest prime example look at health care: it is so expensive because of the subsidies it gets.

Second, perhaps if the government sponsored scientists would spend more time on useful science instead of things that are of no significant value, the public would not think (in many cases rightly so) that the government is wasting money on junky science. For example, spending taxpayer money on "why does the shower curtain suck in the way it does in a shower" versus say ... "how can we better stop rapid outbreaks of deadly diseases" the average Joe might consider supporting more scientific research by the government. When you take my money away form me, I expect a benefit to me. Satisfying your curiosity about why certain things smell the way they do with no practical benefit to me at all (even remotely) is not a good way to get me to give you more.

People (except perhaps the latest generation(s) who have not been taught history) understand the wave of technological, practical benefits the moon race *directly* brought them. From cooking foil to lighter vehicles and appliances.

But that doesn't happen these days because NASA isn't doing that kind of science. Only things you can't objectively measure and demonstrate their value. Like any "good" bureaucracy.

17 BILLION dollars isn't a small amount of money, and NASA isn't doing "amazing things" with it. We the people are basically getting ripped off to the tune of probably 16 Billion dollars per year by the NASA administrators.

And finally, your argument relies on the fallacy that we can, or should, continue to take more and more form the people who get out and are *productive* members of the economy and redistribute it around for such things as space exploration as opposed to letting the people decide for themselves. Really, NASA needs to refocus it's mission. Get back down to space exploration; do things the private sector simply isn't willing to front the costs for - if NASA is to *do* any of it. And NASA/the FedGov needs get the hell out of the way of private space exploration. We already have a private space launch capacity of many billions per year, well exceeding the budget of NASA. Hell, most of the satellites are launched on private rockets. Technically, the government didn't own the shuttle program; it just mismanaged it to the ground.

Yeah, violating someone's privacy is wrong. But does it deserve a year in prison? That is what people are objecting to...the overly harsh penalties assigned to crimes regarding computers.

No, slashdotters are reacting so strongly because, being slashdotters, they didn't RTFA and see that he didn't get a year in prison, nor did he get a year's sentenced for violation someone's privacy. The incarceration is for "obstruction of justice". This felony provides for a maximum of 20 years incarceration, yet the guidelines applied to this case recommend 15-18 months. The *total* term sought by the prosecution was 18 months. How is either the request or the result out of the range in the guidelines? Neither the notoriety of the case nor the perp can be credited with affecting the incarceration term. In this case the guy outright posted his goal was to "disrupt her campaign". The breach of privacy was merely a vessel to his goal, and the end punishment of a felony was for destroying evidence during a federal investigation of his criminal activity.

The misdemeanor penalty he got for the computer offense is apparently too small to be reported on, and/or is "rolled into" the 18 month request.

But would it have electrolytes?

Another source would include the possibility of freeze/thaw cycles. There is also another method suggested last year involving radiolytic H2reacting in a non-bioligic manner with CO2 dissolved in water. That process would be neither biological nor geological. There are other atmospheric/radiological possibilities too (such as UV interacting with the atmosphere).

Yet another method is one you throw out sarcastically. Last year, as I recall, there was a hypothesis put forth that meteorites released methane as they burn up on entry. They do, in fact. However, the problem with that hypothesis is that this source is not significant enough to account for the large volumes of Methane required to support the cycles shown in the data this report discusses (10kg/year compared to a couple hundred tons/year). Subsurface deposits melting were also proposed as a source.

So yes, that actually does narrow it down. It narrows it down very significantly, and further if you accept the hypothesis that Mars is a 'dead' planet geologically. "Geological processes" are not as broad as you seem to believe. Geology is a rather specific field. Mars is considered dead geologically. Thus, if you accept that all other sources of Methane have been eliminated you are left with the following two possibilities:
1) Biological - life of some sort
2) Mars isn't geologically dead, and it is a geological process.

Either result is pretty damned important. Though technically it could be a third option: Both.

Further, the bigger quandary isn't so much *how* it is produced, but why does the Martian air "lose" so much methane so quickly? It is removed from the atmosphere faster than the usual suspects.

Your analogy would work if rocks could be formed atmospherically, biologically, or radiologically.

So you get to buy a bunch more mercury-laden CFLs, yay for you!

I've spent the time to test out a variety of brands at various prices in real-world usage patterns. In the majority of use patterns, CFLs blow out 2-4 times faster than Incandescents. If you want to get real savings, step up to full on fluorescent bulbs. The ones in my garage ran for over a decade. But they matched the usage profile for FLs. Every internal light (especially bathrooms and hallways) Incandescents have outlasted CFLs by very large margins. Even if the CFLs were priced as low as incandescents, they'd still be far more expensive.

Banning Incandescents is stupid, wasteful, and nothing more than a special interest gimme. If you really want to cut your energy costs, nothing beats turning off lights that aren't needed. Second to that is matching the lighting to the task. Perhaps a lower wattage bulb right where you need it (or even an LED right there) instead of the "big room light" that has to be brighter because it is trying to fulfill every role.

This latter point is the single biggest problem in home (and office) lighting. The notion that one light is all you need for a room is generally false and wasteful. That is why we see a trend toward more lights - and why more "upscale" homes have dozens of lights in the main room, the kitchen, and sometimes the dining room. So now, I expect that we will not see a reduction in electricity demand form lights, because we will have even more lights per room. Just like low-calorie drinks leads to people drinking more of them - and resulting in consuming more calories because the human mind tricks itself.

But don't take my word for it, or the OP's word either. Do the math on your own home and usage.

Of course, that will likely lead to having a mix of light types (LED, CFLs, Tubes, Incandescents, etc.) in your house. And that is partly why the neoliberals don't want you to have the option.

Funny how Mercury is so bad for you (which it is) that you can't possibly be allowed to have it anywhere. Except for lighting your home where you are clearly not getting enough of it and Mommy NeoLib has to force you to use it.

There are two basic ways for us to lower pollution output: stop living our modern high energy lifestyles or have an extreme technological breakthrough. I doubt the latter is going to occur anytime soon, even if it was discovered today there would be no way we could mass produce it enough to effectively change over our lifestyles and infrastructure (and it would have to be massive gains for it to most likely be worth the energy cost of the constructions of the new technology and recycling the waste from the old).

The facts bely your claim. The facts are that in the US at least, our pollution out has been decreasing for a very long time. Not that it makes news (until a politician of any stripe wants to claim he or she is responsible for it), pollution has in fact gone down significantly over the last 40+ years. Same with water pollution. Meanwhile, energy per-capita has increased. Not suprising given that cleaner technology usually requires more energy (most recycling consumes more energy than it "saves" for example), and that we as a group mus thave enough "excess" energy available to use the cleaner technology.

Advances don't generally happen suddenly, a point you make. However you seem to forget the fact that advances incrementally over time lead to more improvement than single one-shot advances, Further, not all improvements are the result of improving technology. Often they are ways of being smarter about things. For example, carrying more cargo per trip reducing the energy use of the cargo over taking two trucks to deliver it. Indeed, as some research shows more efficient technology can lead to an increase in net energy use. The effect is similar to reduced-calorie foods. Cut the calories in half and many people eat more than double what they were previously.

As to the latter part of your statement, again the history of technological changes proves your statement false. As I've heard said "We didn't leave the stone age because we ran out of rocks". Nor the Bronze Age for want of bronze, nor Iron Age for lack of iron. We as a species and civilization do in fact continuously replace prior technology. The problem we face now is government distortion of costs through mandates and subsidies. These actions cloud the needed information of relative supply and demand, as well as the incentive to produce lower cost versions of "better" technology.

"I know, you'd think any kind of team like this would need a demo man, but in fact, at least 80% of the time, high explosives are not the correct answer to your IT woes."

"That server over there is spreading a virus" - C4.apply()
"We can't upgrade to HW that meets our needs when the existing HW is still mostly functional" - C4.apply()
"MS wants us to pay for each server that might be running Windows" - C4.apply()
"No need for Business Continuity Planning, our data center will never ..." C4.apply() "...fail"
"the printer still isn't working" - C4.apply()
"We've hired an intern for you, we'll need you to train him on everything you do. You know, just in case something happened to you." - C4.apply()
"The DDOS won't stop" - findOffendingRouter() && C4.apply()
"Hey, who put IIS on our public network?" - C4.apply()
Anytime sledgehammers haven't solved the problem - C4.apply()
"How will we get that rack through the too-small door?" C4.apply()
Someone keeps swiping your keyboard or mouse - C4.apply()

I dunno, seems explosives are a valuable tool that can solve problems at least half the time.

Even if we accepted your assertion that we'd only need high explosives 1 time in 5, that is still grounds for a demo spec. Remember, not all high-explosives make big explosions. A well shaped small HE charge can do wonders.
If that isn't enough to convince you, know that my team includes a demolitions expert ... and someday our paths may cross. <evil grin>

His statement is simple fact. If you want privacy, you do have something you want to hide, or know you might. That isn't a problem. The problem lies in thinking that having_something-to_hide == being_bad. Everyone has something to hide, and that is good. Quite frankly some of us have things the rest of us want you to hide. Remember, "Spandex is a privilege,not a right".

As long as the mindset that wanting to hide something is by nature bad, privacy will have a bad rap.

"what's the opposite of "privatize"? "
Bailout.

Actually given the predictions claiming it is essentially unstoppable even if we brought all emissions to zero, it make MUCH more sense to invest in means of limiting or avoiding the consequences through a stronger economy for all and better technology and reducing regulations that stifle or hamper these things. Stop subsidizing building in the alleged high-risk areas Start rebuilding coastal cities to handle floods better (hint: wealth countries in monsoon regions have been doing this for years). Increase the amount of energy available for things such as A/C and better insulation of houses and commercial buildings.

While I'm no fan of excessive building codes, the fact is that you could raise the bar on hurricane or flood prone areas (or tornado prone) leading to a price increase on par with the increased cost of disaster management preparation for the area. I choose these areas specifically because frankly these are problem areas with or without global warming (man made or not). The government should stop re-building people's houses in these *known risky areas*. Have a sliding percentage that is higher for lower risk areas, and lower yet the more times you've "cashed in" on it. But only available for low income people, say 400% or lower of the poverty line.

Over time people will move out of those areas, or not move into them, in as high numbers thus reducing both the risk and cost should it happen. If the prophets of doom are wrong, we haven't spent trillions of dollars on something that would be more damaging than doing nothing.

As to your question of how "working to increase efficiency and reduce pollution" can make it worse, I am almost stunned by your lack of knowledge or imagination.

First, new technology is expensive. Very. Expensive. Hell, even old technology is. Solar cells, for example. By all rational definitions a mature technology. Yet it is horribly expensive. Sure, it may be efficient in one measurement, but that ignores the rest of the system. The "ecosystem" surrounding solar is horribly inefficient. The costs to replace the existing system with houses and businesses power by the sun are, pardon the phrase, astronomical. Mandating such a change, even say as little as 5%, would destroy the housing market. New construction would be priced dramatically out of the current range, leading to a drastic drop in demand for it combined with a drastic increase in demand for existing homes. As a result we'd have a big housing bubble, or we'd have a long term bubble that would price a significant percentage out of the market. Since this would apply to business facilities too, the price of all goods and services go up. Unnatural inflation is a ten ton anchor on a rowboat to the economy.

In order to actually make the difference the global disasterbators say is coming, we'd have to completely stop almost all industrial development in the third world. Assuming it would be possible, it would prove disastrous for the very people they say are at the highest risk. History shows quite clearly that the more wealthy and healthy a society and economy is, the better we the people can handle disasters.

Claiming that "any" effort to accomplish the goals is beneficial is akin to saying that the local economy is better off if we have a bunch of people paid to keep breaking windows so the window replacement industry can hire more people to replace the windows and the manufacturers have more orders. It just ain't true.

Which should demonstrate the sever disservice our "driver's ed" programs and expectations are. Mechanized units in the military are the same way. We could eat, navigate rough terrain, pay attention to up to four radios plus the other people in the car and be on the lookout for the enemy all at the same time. Sometimes you'd add engaging the enemy into that. Talking on a phone while driving a car in traffic? Pfft. Child's play.

We have these things called "reckless driving" laws. When you are being reckless, you get busted. It used to be you could go to court and either prove you were not being reckless (good luck) or fail to or admit to it and pay your fine.

But no, now we want things so simple that we have to specify things that are not always reckless, while ignoring things that are. We don't make a law that says "doing cookies (sometimes known as doughnuts) in parking lots or in traffic is dangerous and thus banned", we have the cop cite or arrest for reckless driving. If a cop can't tell the difference between being reckless and not being reckless either it isn't reckless or the cop needs better training and experience.

I did a year long experiment where I kept the radio off in my car. Did I drive better? Well I can't quantify it because I didn't get into accidents or such activities before or during. I did feel more aware of my surroundings however. I bet money there are studies that show that your impairment while listening to the radio is "more dangerous". Indeed I've seen them claiming we should be listening to calm music because "active" music makes us drive faster. And studies that show that listening to soft music makes us more sedate and less alert and responsive.

How about we raise the level of ability of our species and train our drivers (of all ages) better? And leave situational things to the people on the street, as it were?

Several of your assertions are unfounded, despite the argument itself being near-sound.

First, I am one of those you speak of. We *are* the ones trying to be involved. To the extent that that has expressed as a "reason" against vouchers - we will not be in the public schools anymore being involved and that will make them even worse than they already are. However, we run into a problem many here can identify with. We are fighting against a well funded and legally entrenched and protected class - the (so called) teacher's unions. Said groups are supported by not only tax dollars (a travesty on it's own IMO) but by the companies that make products that could go into the mandated schools if supported by the teachers unions they then fund - much like politicians only messier.

Yes we are taking our ball and going home. And while it may shock you, that i snot only a valid tactic, it is working. I'm in a state with a high and still growing percentage of home-schooled children. As upset parents *in* the system, we were isolated and marginalized "dissidents". Now, as a separate group no longer participating, we are a distinct demographic. Plus, the school system a couple decades ago decided that schools will get funded based on the student-days - the number of students per-day and the cumulative total. So a school with 180 days of perfect attendance of 100 students would have 18000 days of student attendance.

By us taking our collective balls and going home, we wind up in fact "taking" money from the school we leave - and it is having an effect. Schools are beginning to realize they do in fact need to perform better and several are. As a result those schools are now among the "nice" schools.

This is key, and key to vouchers causing positive improvement. Do you think McDonalds would care about your complaints regarding their service (or lack thereof) to quality (or lack thereof) if they were still going to get your money anyway? If you do, feel free to change your name to Pollyanna. ;)

Now, onto your false assertions. The widespread belief that schools are paid for via property tax is false not only in my state but in many. Income and sales taxes account for the majority of funding for schools, and a majority portion of the remainder is from the federal government - which is not collecting property tax (yet). Funding from property tax is a small portion of school system funding. Thus, your assertion that it is "shared equally" is false on the face. Thus, it really is the "rich" paying for it.

Even if it were, the assertion would be irrelevant. We do not benefit equally from it. It is rather disproportionate in outcomes because so far at least the powers that be have not managed to provide the same outcomes.

We don't want to harm the public schools, and they don't need any help in that department anyway. It is hypocritical (and possibly mean-spirited) to say that those who want to pay for their kids' education are just trying to have more money but those who want their kids' education to paid for by other people are somehow virtuous.

The existing system is broken, completely. By way of example, in my state our budget doubled over the course of a few years. The "reason" trotted out was that kids in school doubled in that time. It was a lie. Our system is require to publish those numbers, and they hide it well on the site - and post after the political season is over. Yet the numbers show that the net increase in kids attending school had increased by under 200. In an entire state. That isn't even ONE school. The number of school-age children did climb quite a bit in that period of time, but the actual enrollments barely rose - barely a percentage. Certainly a couple hundred wouldn't justify the hundreds of millions of increase that was blamed on student enrollment increases.

If a private system did such things they would be sued, and would lose. But the courts have held so far that despite requiring your kids to be there for "an education" the state doesn't have a responsibility to actually provide an education. They could literally just sit there as babysitters all day and be meeting their legal obligations.

You've seen very few actual proposals on vouchers. I've never seen one that could be classified as a tax break for the rich. Why? All the proposals I've seen are a flat per-child amount, not tied to income at all. Thus, we would have a "regressive" tax cut in the sense that the more you make, the less of a break it is. How you conclude that giving a family making 18-24k a year 3k to send their kid to a school they want to is a tax break for the rich is beyond reasonable comprehension. The "rich" making, say 150k per year will get far less relative benefit out of that 3k. In the first case it is around one and a half to two months worth of income, in the second it is around a couple of weeks. Perhaps if you seen some that truly were designed to benefit the rich *and not the poor in greater effective amounts* it is because they were designed for the express purpose of making vouchers unpalatable as a concept. Around here we call that FUD.

Perhaps it is the case you have "rich == evil" branded into your psyche and can't take off the blinders to anything that doesn't hurt the rich.

We are all suffering from the degradation of real education in this country. I've got plenty of non-US friends, and I owe much of my good start to starting out in German schools while my father was stationed there. The fluff our schools spend so much time on is optional in countries that are eating our collective lunch, and their expectations are higher. They focus on performance, not a false self-esteem, and the results are self-evident. The education system we have today in this country was not intended to be educational, but controlling. At that is has been doing a fine job. But it is even failing at that now.

It is inevitable that any human organization of significant size will begin to fail and do so either spectacularly or slide into mediocrity under cover of darkness. In a free society and free market, these organizations get seen for what they are and get replaced. Yes there may be a short-term "crash" and in the short term some people will suffer from it. When this organization either is the government or one protected by it, this does not happen for a long period of time and a lot of people suffer for a long time for it - and lessons are not learned for preventing that particular mistake set again. Especially anything that is essentially an entitlement or taken as one.

Now, through this you might think me a fan of vouchers. That is partially true. Would I like to see a tax break for those without kids? Sort of. I'd like to see it not collected in the first place. But short of that, yes, yes I would prefer that childless people not be required to pay for other people's children's schooling. And in case you didn't catch on I am not in that group (have 3 actually), so it certainly isn't a break for me. But it won't happen. For it to happen the state(s) would have to essentially advertise what they are taking to pay for each child by putting that as the annual credit. That level of sunshine causes people across the board to get upset over the poor performance for high prices.

Short of dumping the government control of society through schools, I'd prefer to at least not force non-parents (for whatever reason) to pay for my kids to go to school. Short of that I'd prefer a strict yet simple voucher system. Take the cost per student and make that a voucher. Or even 80 to 90% of it. No restrictions on what school. Religious, secular, science focused, business focused, technical, or even arts of athletics. Your money follows your student. Not as a lump sum to the school, but in the per-attendance system so that parents who find the school isn't living up to the promises made can still leave for somewhere else. Home-school groups should be allowed to make themselves into a distributed school. The precedent for which is already established via the k-12 VIrtual Academy several states have joined.

To make it better, let public schools convert to private ones. Naturally by vote of the parties involved, and with perhaps even a super-majority required.

Your notion to require voucher accepting students is, even if unintentionally, specifically designed to make it worse. That is precisely the situation we have now. Our children are literally being told that the government schools will take them in regardless of what they do or don't do. Do you think that is doing them a favor for when they go to get a job and learn suddenly that hey guess what, that isn't how the real world works? The mandate to accept anyone is one of the primary failure points in the current system. The second flaw is your requirement to only be funded by vouchers. Again, how is this any different than the existing system? We would find that the level of government expenditure to manage such a compliance system would suddenly be ... about the sam as it is now, plus the costs to administer and police the system itself.

We want our children to be able to pick themselves up when they fall. We want them to learn from mistakes and move on with their lives. How can we expect them to do this when we take that opportunity away when it is the least damaging to make? The earlier you learn to see potential consequences (good or bad) for your actions and reason the likelihood and weigh the risks, the least painful it is and the faster you get better at it. How can we expect our kids to learn these things when we put them in an environment that discourages that learning behaviour by removing the penalties associated with the poor choices. We humans learn the best from our own mistakes, and tangentially from the mistakes of those close to us. We learn the least from authority figures telling us these things.

Over time you'll see a dramatic improvement in not just overall education level but in public schools as well. Competition drives results for all but those who are looking to freeload. Surely one thing we can all agree on is that we don't want freeloaders to basically mooch off of our kids. So let the freeloaders get kicked to the curb. It isn't like the kids they are "teaching" or "administering" are being benefited by what they have now. To handle fraud you handle it like any other for-profit or not-for-profit organization. Fraud is fraud.

But those who are freeloading are those in power. They are well entrenched and a legally protected. Even if it is morally wrong and constitutionally illegal to create such protected classes. Thus it is taking a long time to effect change.