Generally it includes some language about the use of vacation that it has to be scheduled in accordance with schedules and supervisor approval etc. which . . . complicates matters.

errr. Silicon valley is not in Los Angeles, Hollywood is. Hollywood's support for this bill makes sense, silicon valley's does not.

But we don't. If only we did, to some extent -- the treasury could use the funds. I might go so far as to grant that we've helped some nasty people stay in power for various reasons over the years, but we still, always, pay MARKET PRICE for oil. About the only thing we insist on is that people sell it to SOMEONE (which admittedly, does help keep market prices down SOMEWHAT, but its still ridiculously high compared to the cost in most of the countries in the middle east)

LBJ's great society welfare and social security reform/expansion were after the Civil Rights Act . . .

That said, the reason the 17th amendment PASSED is because state legislatures had gotten so infamously corrupt on the appointing of senators that most states had already moved to direct election based on popular protest movements ALREADY. And, even today, I would argue that state legislatures tend to be more (directly) corrupt than congress. (Congress is indirectly corrupt, of course). For exemplars, since MA was used as an example, I point out . . . the bulgers. If you want an example of why its a bad idea, just look at what blagoveich (sp?) nearly pulled off in Illinois...

Also, the 17th amendment has nothing to do with proportional representation, and nothing to do with the two party system.

I can't speak for the UK, but in the US they regularly hand out grants for programs to increase child interest in reading....

Which is a wonderful 'free' software perspective. But from a legal perspective, the GPL IS a EULA, because rather than "does not limit your rights etc." legally it "grants limited rights" (that is, unlimited rights for private use, specific conditions to distribute.) Those rights have to be granted unless the work is in the public domain, which GPLed works very specifically are not.

The secret is not, as you observed, the amount. But the precise terms. In basic, what Mozilla and google exchange is pretty well known, but the precise terms are I'm sure something they'd rather not confirm. (does google pay by the click, how much? by quota? etc. etc. etc. is all information that google's comptetitors (and, for that matter, other advertising partners) would like to know. Personally, I've always assumed that Google intentionally "overpaid" on the initial transaction to help out Mozilla -- which would make them even more insistent on keeping the precise terms quiet.

Perhaps more to the point, one is arresting people. Since it is possible to have bots post things to youtube in an automated fashion, one needs to have bots to take things down.

Cell phones aren't the problem here. People are. The CORRECT solution to this problem is to stop letting people drive cars. I want to keep using my cell phone while in the car. What I don't want to do is have to be bothered with driving the thing.

So, really, two things come to mind:
1.) In whatever bug reporting mechanism you have (which should be easy to access in a 'help' menu or a hyperlink that's easy to reach or whatever, provide directions that give people an idea of what a bug report should contain. How long should it be? What type of information is most relevant? Etc. If this is a company-internal application, generally your users will have more incentive to help you than many other applications you could be using, so they'll maybe even read the instructions.
2.) Yes, you need a tracking system for every bug report that comes in... but that tracking system probably shouldn't, if you're accepting reports from the "general public", be the same as your resolution system. It seems like half your problem, from your post, is a process issue where "Bad" bug reports are mucking up your bug tracking/resolution system. This should be resolved by having someone vet the bugs, do the followup, de-dupe etc. before it gets into the primary resolution center. Granted somebody has to do this, but it can be a job for a helpdesk guy, a manager, or even as a way to teach a new developer to your team about the system. (yes a manager . . . if the number of reports isn't too high, when I'm leading a software effort that's in deployment, I find reading the raw reports can be valuable to give me an idea both of what's going wrong, and how my system is being used, and if I'm doing that anyhow, I have some time to do the basic deduping)

huh? In almost every state in the union you can watch the unofficial counts come in live to the secretary of state, and you can read the vote totals anywhere else you want.... Many voting precincts physically post the voter registration rolls on the walls, so you can estimate turnout just by looking to see who hasn't signed . . .

Don't get me wrong, fraud is hardly unknown in US elections, but it generally only comes into play when the vote is very, very, close. Electronic voting machine issues aside, which really are being worked, for good or for ill.

All that said, I don't think this study IS necessarily PROOF of voter fraud. Its indicative, but without demographic analysis of the precincts involved, etc. (for example a precinct in Checnya could easily be 100% turnout, and possibly even 100% UFR if its a military base) Likewise, in the 2004 elections in ohio, republican precincts, which tended to be wealthier and less urban, had higher turnouts than democratic precincts. While there are a number of reasons for this, including accusations of suppression that have, in my opinion, varying degrees of validity (I was part of a GOTV effort myself, on behalf of the democrats that year, since I was unemployed and bored), some of it was just the nature of the people and their circumstances.

Personally, I think, based on what we've heard, that there WAS fraud, and at least some districts need/deserve a new vote, but proving voter fraud statistically is . . . difficult.

getting one without a clearance, and most contractors have a marked preference for someone with prior military experience (because it demosntrates you're mentally and physically up for it). But beyond that, if you're willing to go, just send your resume to a defense contractor that does these things, indicating clearly your willingness to deploy to afghanistan. L-3 or Mantech have some of the biggest contracts I am personally aware of, but there are many others. However, its always hard to get your first job requiring a securtiy clearance, because many companies simply can't use you to do ANYTHING until you have it.

Some things to bear in mind: The money is good, but only with the completion bonus -- if you don't think you can do it, don't bother applying. The hours are BRUTAL (and that's part of why the money is so good. Even if you're 'salaried' you get paid by the hour and its 84 hours a week until your R&R. Oh . . . and don't assume you'll have an internet connection, although I know several people out there who banded together to buy their own satellite connection while in theatre, and in Baghdad, at least, they had their own private (free!) WoW server at one point . . .

Still requires location information beyond what we currently have available on satellites, generally

So you start to say there's nothing to stop them from doing it, and then, actually, very elegantly explain exactly what does prevent it. I would say that, at this point, our spacecraft technology would be severely taxed by multiple-vehicle interferometry. Multiple-vehicle cooperative satellite projects have been nixed for much less stringent stationkeeping requirements than an interferometer has, although there are ideas on the subject that have been discussed. Still I'd say we're a ways away from it, at this point.