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.

It was a gun owners advocacy group.

It's not anymore. http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1

The NRA does what it can to keep interest up in its members. I'm sure it does what it can to increase gun ownership to pick up new members. It also, very much, wants to make sure that more guns are sold. My basis for these last few statements are the change of heart they had regarding background checks, their reactions to shootings that make national news, and the people I know who belong to the organization.

You know what, you're right. We shouldn't be subsidizing any energy. Let's do away with oil, gas and coal subsidies, and reset the system from there. Once we establish how much energy actually costs, we can figure out what to invest in from there.

As for the summary and associated stories, I have no idea what the living wage is in Chattanooga, TN. But wow, this summary looked like someone with an ax to grind with the executive branch. Fair or not, I had to double-check to make sure I wasn't looking at the Washington Times.

Hyperbole aside, I have to acknowledge the gripes you have. Yes, the GPL is a funny license when it comes down to it.

IANAL, but my understanding is that anything that Sun, and by acquisition Oracle, contributed to the MySQL code can be changed to non-free licenses for newer editions. Obviously you can't say "That release from two years ago is no longer freely available." Anything in the project that is GPL code needs to have the source freely (or at least easily) accessible. So, any community contributions (yes yes.. I know... Both of them) are still covered by the GPL if the authors chose to mark them as GPL code. If they did not state any licensing terms with their code, well then I believe it became subject to Sun's/Oracle's discretion.

To properly reply to the parent that you are criticizing, they do have a point in that if the code that has been released isn't changed, it is still GPL code. That should remain publicly available. Any changes they make from here on aren't necessarily... But depending on how they make use of the GPL code they might cause a violation of the GPL license, which could be actionable... But we'll just have to see how this progresses.

So, in the case of the community, Oracle is essentially choosing to no longer license their changes under the GPL. The only real surprise in all of this is that it took them this long to do exactly that. Of course it bothers the community because someone just took their truck from the sandbox, and let's face it, Oracle ain't exactly known for playing nice in said sandbox anyway.

So have all sort of things. Look, I don't want to minimize the crime. I get it, they're really bad people, and they do really bad things.

The same can be said about gun owners, cars, airplanes, lightning... They're all more likely to kill you than a terrorist. Is that worth another Red Scare, or Salem? If you train the people to distrust each other, you lose your society. So, I'm all for being vigilant. If you see someone in their back yard trying to bring in a big bag of gunpowder and some pressure cookers, by all means ask them what's up.

But, please don't justify this as a "terrorists are bad so we should constantly report each other for suspicious activity."

In that case, how often does Adobe release a new edition of the software? It looks like (we'll be generous) 2 years for each iteration. So, if after two years you paid for about the boxed version, Adobe doesn't seem to come out very much ahead. Businesses will buy the latest one regardless, so it doesn't seem much different.

I'm thinking the benefit to them is the guarantee that there are only so many instances of CS available at one time to each customer. Businesses that over-license may save money (because they wouldn't be anymore), but the ones that have "one or two+ rogue installs" won't anymore. I'm taking a guess that's what's up here. Another poster made the point that the business customer gets to write off a "subscription cost of business" instead of an asset that has to depreciate over however long that is.

So, yea, it looks like Adobe wins in that they are guaranteed a license for every installation, and businesses get instant writeoffs (and built-in license compliance). Individuals, who might use the same software for 4+ years because of cost, get the downside. Adobe doesn't care because, individuals are a small part of their market.