the EPA can worry about the environment, leave NASA to what NASA is supposed to do.

The EPA is a regulatory agency, not a science agency. It's not the EPA's job to conduct the research on earth. Their job is to write rules and regulations.

On the other hand, it is well within the purpose of NASA and NOAA in particular to conduct various studies of things on earth. There should be no interference with scientific inquiry, just because the results might or might not be politically inconvenient.

I think the whole notion that humans are causing climate change is farcical, overblown, and possibly a fabrication, and yet I still say don't f*ck with NASA. They should continue their research. They should be given more funding to administer judiciously ---- that is, additional funds should be spent on materials and staff actually performing research and additional equipment, with demonstration of justification, not on more bureaucrats or raises/financial incentives for bureaucrats.

On the other hand.... the scope of NASA is pretty broad and specifically includes Aeronautics in the name. Let's not forget that Earth itself is one of the most accessible planets in space for exploration, and NASA can and should conduct scientific studies on earth that can be useful in understanding natural phenomena in general, and it may very well relate to observations of other planets, so that the study of earth can aid in investigating any planet(s).

Literally millions of people in the United States today have criminal records because they were caught smoking marijuana at a rock concert 10 years ago, accidentally bounced a check, or got into a shoving match with another driver after a fender bender.

Yeah..... but what about all the applicants for the same job who have a perfectly clean record and no recorded past lapses in judgement to be concerned about, And less risk to the employer of being sued because they 'knew' such and such person had committed that sort of crime before?

Maybe.... just maybe..... we should have a procedure for expunging such records, once all sentences/penalties for the offense have been concluded for at least 4 years, if the offense is a minor offense that did not involve the use of a deadly weapon in robbery or assault, vandalism or theft in excess of $1000, death or sexual assault of any person, if it was a first time offense, the individual was eligible for parole on any sentence, and the facts meets certain criteria, and some service is rendered to the community in remorse.

(Any future offense would re-open the record for at least 10 years).

Get an official "stamp" attached to the conviction/arrest records declaring it unlawful to make an adverse employment decision based on the existence of the record, and requiring all record brokerage companies to disclose only to the party, And forbid all employers, government agencies, and background check companies for reviewing or acting upon such record.

If you could easily get jobs with a criminal record there would probably be less recidivism. Making a law that forbids you from not hiring criminals would however be quite stupid. If you embezzle money, ....

If you have committed robbery, drug trafficking, DUI, sexual offenses, etc, we don't want you on our property, as our staff would feel uncomfortable knowing that their safety may be at risk due to having to work with some potential violent criminals, let alone trying to apply for a position.

We have customers who are schools, many employees need to visit their premises for various reasons, and they also require background checks on agents.

If we send some employee to a school, and they steal something, or commit rape or assault against a teacher or student, it is our company that would look bad.

Therefore, I think the idea of not discriminating against convicted criminals is insane.

Their jail term was their official sentence, but just b/c their jail term ended, does not mean that all members of society should be happy to accept them fully back into the fold with no questions, no restrictions, and the same level of trust as a 'clean' citizen.

Lenovo aren't the only ones who whitelist PCI cards. HP, Toshiba and others do it too. It's to help pass FCC testing

More like: it helps ensure their customers' compliance with maximum revenue for Lenovo. Ditto for HP. This doesn't apply just to wireless cards.... the devices from HP that have whitelisting require whitelisting of ANY miniPCIe component, not just WLAN cards.

Once the computer is out of Lenovo's hands, they have no burden with regards to FCC certification after the end user makes any modifications to the device. Manufacturers do not certify modifications to their devices. They are out of scope of FCC certification.

FCC certification pertains to the combination of wireless card and antenna.

Only the card that ships with the computer or is provided with the computer needs to be tested, not every card in the marketplace that might work with that device.

If it doesn't come with the laptop, then it's out of the scope of certification; there's no need to produce a computer that only allows cards certified with its antenna to be plugged in.

The burden of ensuring radiated power is within regulations falls to the end user operator, once they change antenna or transmitter.

Lenovo has also become infamous for BIOS Whitelisting, where if you attempt to upgrade your WLAN card, or switch to one more friendlier to your OS, but not Lenovo's OEM hardware, the BIOS arbitrarily decides, that since your PCI card isn't in the Whitelist, the BIOS is going to disable that device and prevent use of it with the system.

Except, this one just might..... Bitcoin is one of those scary new techie things the government officials will feel a need to reign in on. Wouldn't want Californians to get hurt

People in California are reproducing at a faster rate than people are moving, so the population isn't going to be decreasing.

I'd be worried than when they're done with it, registering a domain name will require permission.... setting up a website in the US will require permission. Maybe registering on a website could require permission.

Nope. A company should not be allowed to only serve Blacks in the back alley, nor have separate but unequal restrooms.

As long as I can give my fellow parishoners I see at church their 50% discount for being a good christian and keep those heathens who are atheists or potential jihadists/muslim terrorists out of my restaurant; I don't care what color they are.

WAIT.... it would be even cooler if they did that. You just turned the NES into a modular Blade Server chassis!

Imagine if you could pull that off on one of the dual-cartridge systems.

The only alternative now is to force people to turn over their private emails as long as they're government employees.

This sounds like a reasonable strategy. I would totally support and push for this. All government employees must provide the government information about all personal / non-government email accounts and provide access to all their e-mail messages upon request, even for personal accounts.

The decision about whether an e-mail message, personal or not, becomes a public record, should be made by a trusted 3rd party and be separate from what infrastructure the message happens to go over..

Most e-mail messages should not be allowed to become public records, but they should be securely retained for a period for audit purposes; primarily to establish that the personal account is not being used for official business.

Even messages even involving their official account should not become public records, with the exception of some things like:

• E-mail used to distribute information or finished documents, such as completed reports, manuals, rule books, or policy manuals, to multiple people.
• E-mail used as a substitute for a memo (Orders or instructions to other staff)
• Correspondence between staff of different departments or different governments or government bodies

But e-mail not part of a record required should be required to be retained and be discoverable with a mandatory retention period for all departments of least 20 years, under seal for adjudication of legal matters, or issues under official investigation.

RHEL teaching cluster and workstations just don't have chrome installed.

RHEL6 is 'too old' for a great many new things.... try Firefox or an older edition of Chrome I consider RHEL great for servers, but it's a horrible platform to base a Desktop build on, IMO.

Even if it's more bleeding edge--- I would stick with Fedora, or an Ubuntu or ElementaryOS based build. In the past I also used SuSE, for this.

If you want to do that, you don't really want a welcoming, inclusive community, what you want is a community of elite according to a set of standards.

No... you by definition want a restricted community. Which may be welcoming and inclusive, with exceptions.

Labelling "Community of elite" may well be one of those opinion / destructive element thingies.

Sometimes communities want a meritocracy, not an elite.

No, you're not entitled to your opinion. Or to be more precise, you are only entitled to contradictory opinions that you actually establish as valid through sound well-reasoned argument, otherwise destructive elements can come to stay, while the leaders and proven good-thinkers become burdened by wave after wave of newcomers, as in Eternal September , as no burden of proof is laid upon those with views contradictory to those moving development forward.

BusyBox is part of the source code ISO's on their website. Don't even need a login to grab them.

Have you inspected these? If I recall correctly, the complaint made in the past was that the version on their website contained versions of open source components that had not been updated with new releases of ESXi, and some of them may have contained the original component, and not the source to VMware's highly customized versions.