Since when does not being elected mean they are not accountable? The wonder of political pressure is, if an appointed bureaucrat screws up then the person who appointed them (the President in the case of the Dept. of Education) either sacks the appointee or looses votes.

Actually, the real power comes in funded mandates. Which are you most likely to react to: a rule which you get no money to implement or a rule you must implement or they take away $5M from your school? The true problems occur when you're forced to do something or you loose huge piles of cash.

Well, not exactly. There are three aspects to the government printing money, a loss to the holders of currency, a gain by the government, and dead-weight loss. If inflation was a direct transfer from money holders to the government then there would be no need to ever raise taxes, but since there is dead-weight loss too (and the dead-weight loss from inflation can be very unpredictable) it is far more efficient (read: popular) to have a codified system of taxes rather than the government simply printing money when needed. Hyperinflation is as bad for governments as it is for the population and thus happens infrequently.

Yes, I understand and agree with what you say. I think standards bodies are important, but the problem lies in when you are legally required to go with the guild member, even though a non-guild member would do just as good work, but would cost vastly less. Essentially, when you go to a lawyer for a will or something similar, you're getting a paralegal to do the work but paying a lawyer-level price. You have more guarantees (i.e. the member of the bar stands behind the work of the paralegal) but you also have extra costs. It's the laws that are the problem not (existence of) the guild.

No, it wasn't. The statute was obviously intended to keep out competition from people like paralegals and other lawyers-lite who can do 90% of what a lawyer does but doesn't actually have a law degree. Don't forget, many (most?) lawmakers are lawyers by training and thus they are very willing to protect the legal profession.

I've often marveled at the number of things which come with the warning "For External Use Only". I've seen it posted on things ranging from sunblock to various topical creams. Though I never have, I hope to see it on a box of ear plugs. That would quickly make it to the top of the list of dumb labels.

Yes, you can use OCXOs, but they aren't technically atomic clocks. Further, an OCXO (like the one you showed) requires 1.5W, which doesn't sound like much, but the unit linked to above needs only 100mW. A true atomic clock (a rubidium oscillator, for example) is significantly larger than this unit and also draws much more power (11W, steady state).

All things told, though, a OCXO or rubidium frequency standard from eBay should be good enough for most users.

Proceed with caution. Make sure you enjoy networking and that its challenges interest you. Networking is very different from programming and also different from desktop support.

I have extensive experience with HP Procurve equipment and I have been satisfied with their stuff. (In the network I manage we have about 120 HP switches.) They are pretty reasonable in price and have a lifetime warranty on their switches and routers (I just got a replacement for a part for something that was manufactured 10 years ago, no hassle). Cisco is good if you like features, have a large network, and enjoy spending money. I would avoid Netgear switches (unless you need a small desktop switch (e.g. GS108) to provide more ports) as I have heard bad things but I have no first-hand experience. Expect to pay around $1000-1800 for a good 48-port Gigabit switch.

I would look to achieve a "CCNA level" knowledge. For a network of about 100 devices you won't need much more. You can do that by simply reading a book (e.g. the CCNA prep by Lammle or Cisco Press), self-study (e.g. books alone or with video) then trying to pass the test, or taking a classroom course with Cisco or GlobalKnowledge. The material covered in CCNA is useful even if you use Procurve devices (although vocab will be different, such as "vlan trunking" (Cisco) vs. "vlan tagging" (Procurve, IEEE 802.1Q))

Background: I managed a network at a scientific research center (1000+ end user devices and a couple hundred servers). Its a mix of Cisco (core) and Procurve (edge). I have been working in networking full time for 2 years (I was in the poster's shoes not long ago) and with computers for about 5 years in a professional setting.

The leaps of logic are most tenuous because the author of TFA is conflating the definitions of 'bank' and 'financial institution'.

A bank is a type of financial institution which takes deposits and makes loans. The article seems to be saying that Facebook will be a large (the largest) company which deals in financial transactions. The article doesn't seem to claim that Facebook has started taking saver's money or has started making loans, nor have I seen that at Facebook, which would mean Facebook is ineligible for the label 'bank'.

Restricting use of trademark is one good solution. (That's how Red Hat does it.)

Another is to have a "Google Approved" set of Android phones. Such approval could vary from extensive testing of the phone to Google dictating certain specs such as screen resolution. Apple made the "retina display" twice as big (480x320 -> 960x640) on the vertical and horizontal scale compared to the older 3GS version to make old apps still work with no lost space (unlike running iphone apps on ipads). There are good advantages to the end user when a manufacturer controls those details, but it does slow innovation. Having a set of approved phones with tight control by Google could help the Android area sharpen up its lineup.

(Anecdote: I have a friend who has a Galaxy phone and he's constantly complaining that it crashes. This is probably in part due to lack of testing of software on Samsung's part, but I couldn't say for sure.)

Disclaimer: I work for USGS/DOI.

Not really true. (Not true at all, actually...) FIPS 140-2 requires much more than just certain algorithms. Much of the requirements relates to making sure keys are properly handled, that RNGs function as desired, and that the device is tamper-resistant and tamper-evident.

Further, regulations stipulate that sensitive, but unclassified (continuity of operations and contingency plans) and personally identifiable information (PII) (social security numbers and such) data must be encrypted using a FIPS 140-2 certified encryption systems, not merely FIPS 140-2 compliant systems (as you suggest). (Becoming certified is a costly process, one which has granted firms that submit to the process a high level of economic rents.) If I could deploy systems which I felt were of an equivalent security level as FIPS 140-2 requires, I would certainly do so (spending $250 on 5 USB drives doesn't help me in any way).

Disclaimer: I work for USGS/DOI.

Yes, that amongst other things. One big aspect of any federal government purchase is the requirement of encryption, and not just any encryption, but FIPS 140-2 compliant encryption systems. As far as I know, Gmail does not support that, while Exchange does.

What's more, about 1/2 the DOI has an MS Exchange-based email system, while the other have (at least the few bureaus that I know of) use a Lotus Notes-based system. So, the idea with this transition is to merge into one solution with the assumption it will be cheaper. (Will it be cheaper? Who knows...)

From what I understand, the Networx transition in DOI underwent a similar problem where the contract was awarded to the incumbent (Verizon) and this resulted in protests.

Overall I like FIPS 140-2 because it means I'm less likely to be sold a snake-oil security product, although it drives up costs inordinately. One example: I just purchased 5 2GB USB drives, for $250. The FIPS compliant price $50/unit where an off-the-shelf USB drive costs ~$8.

All things told, I would love to have a Gmail solution, but until they get FIPS 140-2 compliance, I'm stuck with MS Exchange...sad though it may be.

California gets much more of its electricity from nuclear and hydroelectric sources than coal (source). Gas is #1 at 116.7 TWh, followed by nuclear (31.5 TWh), and hydroelectric (29.2 TWh). Coal only accounts for 17.3 TWh (in-state + imports).

Because I-5 through the central valley is horribly overcrowded?