^^This

The fact that a good chunk of the population has been repeatedly fed that scientists are every bit as corrupt as the politicians (and ironically enough, the big money backers) that they'd compromise their standards for cash has done more damage than and lack of personability or "warmness."

I'm not sure what you're going for on point 4, but the first three are at least interesting. If you could explain that, it'd be appreciated.

I'd expect that there would be a bunch of newly developed "hidden benefits," especially for those at the top of the larger corporations. An example would be the free housing and transportation that the executives and board would receive. That would need to be dealt with in some fashion too, but I like the start.

My comment is just a blow-hard edition of modding you up, but I don't have points.

Yes you can. That's what '||' is for.

That's no pool...

If they really wanted to shut it down effectively, they'd expire the PATRIOT act. It's a dog and pony vote because it's not actually making the activity illegal.

We know why it's in foods. It's cheap. It's really cheap. To make sure that choice is clear, labels would need a requirement that any amount is listed... and not allowing the "less that .5 gram" exception that exists today.

Of course, there's a part of me that knows that people won't think about any consequences anyway. I weigh freedom which allows increased public health costs (medicaid, medicare, Social Security Disability, whatever else) of allowing this choice, vs an outright ban that might make that serving of Oreo's cost an extra 10 cents a bag (no citation, it's just a guess). I honestly don't think there's a correct answer in this case.

I don't think it's a major violation of our rights to ban a substance that was designed to be redundant if it's markedly more harmful than the existing alternatives.

Mostly very fair points... But like the anonymous coward said above, Chelsea Manning's capture, detainment, and sentencing happened because of her actions after leaking the documents.

Could Wikileaks have handled things a little differently when releasing information? Sure.

Could Wikileaks have stopped Chelsea from talking with Lamo? Probably not.

Funny... Quick search for ustart.org... Looks like these guys work with virus authors and distributors to redirect people to their site. Classy.

I liked iGoogle, but I'm thinking that most of us should find a site that isn't ustart.

Fair enough it's like roads. It's also just like roads in that many of these companies have received subsidies to lay down their infrastructure too right? They're happily taking those payments to string out the last mile to a bunch of people still? I guess I'd be more sympathetic if I felt like us, as users, were using so much bandwidth that they weren't able to make a profit, or pay their workers. I also would be more sympathetic if the pricing they suggested didn't feel like it was a straight cash grab on top of the cash grab I feel like they're already charging.

I totally understand that the bandwidth I buy per month is oversubscribed. It's what I expect in a consumer market.

I also don't believe it's costing them more than 10% of what I pay to maintain/expand the capacity that I'm using. Show me the balance sheet if I'm wrong, and I'll happily admit it.

Here was the comment I was looking for. I've seen third-party ads attack from plenty of reputable (and not so reputable) sites. As much as I love piling on MS, Bing, and IE, I don't think it's wholly fair to single them out for this issue. Of course, anecdotes are worth little more than the electrons that carry the information to your eyes, but I'm fairly confident most of us have been called in to clean up an infection from [typical site used by many].

Now, if you want to talk about Microsoft's awful ad campaigns, that's 100% fair, and please proceed.

Maybe the tenured professors remember their pre-tenure days of being beaten down in reviews by freshmen who thought they should get an easy A in their class. Wouldn't surprise me if they look at the intro classes and just say to themselves, "F 'em, if they don't want to work, I don't want them advancing in my field."

You forgot to tell us to get off your lawn.

I'm sure your parents thought color was a novelty too.

You're right. I'm making an assumption based on what I'm reading here. It sounds like high-ups were keeping sensitive data in their home folders (or equivalent). It's possible that my assumption is wrong, and that these were stored in some locked/encrypted fashion. In that case, I'm happy to give him credit for being clever.

I've worked in environments where there was no way I was going to get at sensitive data without having my own credentials, regardless of my access. That's where the really sensitive stuff goes. There are still ways to protect items from admins' eyes, if it's important enough.

Once information is acquired, there's no stopping a non-trustworthy admin from copying something out to a thumb drive, and that's one of the assumptions the security policy needs to have.

I'm more worried that they're saying he was "brilliant." Those actions are trivial. I'm disappointed that's all he had to do to get that info.

Agree with his actions or not, anyone who declared him anything more than "some sysadmin who took some liberties with his access" shouldn't be in charge of gathering, investigating or protecting anyone's sensitive data.

Or, instead of making absurd arguments, you can disagree.

Please, by all means don't discourage taking that safety course. I'm all for more responsible owners being properly trained in protecting themselves and others. I'm just saying that the NRA isn't a gun owners advocacy group, it's *pretending* to be one, while getting lots of funding from the manufacturers.