Reducing alcohol-related (or soda-related) deaths simply spreads certain death among other factors. Some other cause will take it's place as the 4th leader. What's the point? Trying to get accidents and natural causes to the top, doesn't seem like a worthy goal for humanity, to me.

> an opinion

An opinion doesn't require a solution, especially since it doesn't provide any facts to characterize.

There's no evidence that the security industry has been failing by adopting tools and methods that quite a few people use. The fact that there are few critical systems (that I use daily) which use username/password as the sole security credentials is a huge win over my experiences in '00. I think the security industry has pushed hard and made a serious dent.

I participated in the Supermechanical/Twine kickstarter. Apparently lots of people are making this stuff.

Wait, Cisco wants to support a new network paradigm that would result in a market for new hardware, worldwide? This is America where lobbying new product lines into existence, is routine.

> In other words, the education system is about to get a whole lot more one-size-fits-all in California.

That was the whole point of the suit.

+1 insightful answer.

Nothing landed at 600 kilotons. That event would have been noticed, so I'm not sure about the purpose of the hyperbole.

> The downside of the method is that after a server reboot you will have to wait for three trusted people to log in before you can authenticate any of them

Or automate 3+X system-known accounts that the system randomly logs into, as part of the bootup process?

> I don't know why Republicans are so blind to the black and white numbers

I'm not a Rep or a Dem. I did vote for Clinton and Obama. That's irrelevant, so get your panties unbunched.

The sources you cited are about as credible as the CBO, which I can confidently say, hasn't been credible since Clinton came to office (maybe before, but I wasn't able to cross reference facts earlier). Bush and Obama have also had their way with it, so it's no big deal anymore. While everyone in finance is very much aware (despite the feeble talk about job or spending or any CBO report influencing the stock market), somehow political bulls seem to keep relying arguing over fiction. This is the American way of socialization. Repeat the same myths until a generation has passed and the lies become truth.

I'm not sure why people can't remember or don't actually comprehend one of the most obvious lies made by a Democrat (before Obama).

> Clinton actually got us to a budget *SURPLUS* briefly, but GW Bush took care of that!

Clinton laid out a plan toward a surplus, given the government made specific budgetary changes, including not increasing spending for 7 years. I can give the government a surplus too. Cut government spending by 100% There I just did it with the same optimism and power as he had to enact it (at the end of his second term).

> he was talking complete bollocks, but continue to talk bollocks. That doesn't change the reality.

That's right, it doesn't change the reality. Please present ANY evidence to the assertion that CCTV is used (even selectively) to apprehend criminals based on Citizen reports and requests for review. I would be very interested in what doesn't exist, because that is not what the CCTV is used for. CCTV is largely run by private contract, so there are fees associated with obtaining footage for investigatory purposes. It's not in the budget to chase down personal property theft...outside of vehicles and government property and vicious crimes where they are obligated to remit the relatively bad recordings by existing policy.

Studies conducted on CCTV after 2000, when there was data to be had:

Assessing the impact of CCTV (2005)
Data on London crime figures vs. number of cameras (2007 and the rehash Effects of Closed Circuit
Television Surveillance on
Crime - 2008)
CCTV and its effectiveness in tackling crime (2009 and rehashed in the aggregate review A review of recent published evidence
regarding the impact of CCTV on crime - 2009)
took about 10 minutes to find. The personal crime statistics, where they are referenced or exist, are of specific interest. Not that these show directly that there is a policy in ignoring citizen reports, but that there's evidence they are not acted upon.

Reliance on CCTV has led to falling numbers of arrests while crime rates have not changed significantly. The UK government is notorious for lying to it's own people (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-birth-rate-leaps-by-18-in-a-decade-9107483.html - magical!), so it's to be expected that some are so indoctrinated they actually believe any statistics now. You've supposedly lived in the UK through the period that CCTV has not been used for pursuing personal crime, so you're a liar or ignorant. Good luck.

> But lying about the uses it's put to isn't helpful.

> (Those personal crimes are not considered "important enough" to justify checking the video records.

He was specific and correct based on my experience in the UK of 2007.

Continue to troll away. That doesn't change the reality.

> Please explain typically means to give justification for a single statement

e.g. means "for example" (as opposed to i.e. "in other words")

When you said "please explain" it was not clear if you were not aware of the existing supporting documents and/or you wanted an explanation about how opinion pieces from that time "support" his argument. I gave a purely informative link because I certainly don't know what AC is thinking. I was just moderating and happened to see your post through +1 friend filter.

e.g. The Federalist Papers? - http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/docu...

> Did YouTube ever positively contribute to Google's bottom line?

Google bought youtube for about 1.6 Billion

Youtube annual revenue has been over that pricepoint for a few years. CPM on video has always been in dollars, not cents. CPAs frequently pass $10. With up to 3 ads per video, you can understand how google justified the first payments to content providers.

Ballpark numbers:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ti...

You seem ridiculously pessimistic for someone who hasn't done any research.