Who knows, they might have done that already? Besides, I think the (available in public) information mentioned would cover more than FB or Google even though majority of the data is from these sources.

Interesting enough, the content quoted from wikipedia is a little bit different from the actual document -- www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs71.pdf Don't know why they have to change certain words in the content...

If you want to know about security clearance in the US, you can check it at http://www.state.gov/m/ds/clearances/c10978.htm

For the cost of getting security clearance, you who is an employee would not be paying but your employer. I believe the cost is varied depended on case by case. http://news.clearancejobs.com/2011/08/07/how-much-does-it-really-cost-to-get-a-security-clearance/ gives some idea about how much but it is 2 years old...

"A long way to go" does not eliminate the issue that at some point in the future, it could become dangerous. Those who pro-gun will not see it as dangerous but rather benefit from it. Those who anti-gun may already have a panic attack. Those who are in the middle may concern about the issue depending on how far they are between pro and anti.

My god, the plane is so small that travels in nanometer (nm)!

**I know it is supposed to be Nm. ;)

Then you are creating a problem if it goes into financial transactions. If each transaction is computed 1/10000 less (truncate), how much would it be off by 1 million transactions? Also, only 1 cent difference in accounting will need adjustment in multiple places in order to prove the difference. You are thinking too narrow.

Back to the GP, I do NOT see how this will be put in financial transaction anywhere? Also, it is a rule of thumb to separate decimal from the whole value currency. Simple transaction computation would not need this kind of approximated scientific computation from the article.

I wouldn't go that far. Yes, some music use lyrics to cover up their sloppy music, but to me it is not the main purpose of lyrics. Different people have different level of interpretation to music (or anything). Appropriate Lyrics actually help those who cannot deeply understand the music to get the feel of it (an advantage but not apply to "all"). For example, some people do not have any emotion when they listen to a sad music unless they are in that kind of emotion. An appropriate lyrics with the music gives a better idea of how and/or why the music is sad.

You lost me there... Compare what he did with a scenario of a hacker hacked into a server and copied data from the server. Ignoring the part of the hacking into the server part but focusing on copying data, the similarity between what he and the hacker did is copying (in whatever way) data which is not supposed to be copied by him or the hacker into his or the hacker's accessible storage. What do you call that part? Backing up for later personal use (note, the authority of copying)?

Even though Snowden seems to be a hero, I still have some doubts of what his purposes are. Yet, it does not eliminate the issue that NSA has done something wrong. Not everything is black and white.

From TFA above, it said that the data first collected is not directly from Facebook but from the client's browser. In other words, Facebook is taking advantage of browser's insight (data).

From the quote above (from their web site), it pretty much covers the 'download all your data' part in a vaguely wording way (bulletin #1). I guess someone has to sue Facebook to see if their policies actually cover the way they are doing now.

Now let's look at the number on this incandescents(INCAN) v old(OLD) bulbs. From the TFA, the INCAN has twice life time as OLD but cost $1.5 v. $0.5. If I divide the lift time of INCAN by 2, I get $0.75 (the cost with the same life time as OLD). Now I am going to compare the use of energy (28% less) with the OLD's by applying the 28% to $0.75, and as a result, would reduce the cost down to $0.54. Is that really saving compared to $0.50 if the heat output is ignored?

Your example is not comparable to the GP intention because the of the buyer. The GP is looking at those who deal illegal activities (i.e. drug dealers) but you are looking at regular people. In other words, the GP is pointing out at exploitation of the use; whereas, you are demonstrating the common-use point of view.

The only problem I have and would suggest is that you should not use MIT people to represent all Ph.D. people, and it could mislead others (as you could already see the GP).

So you farm the deer by herding them across the border? Such a stupid counter question. What is the purpose of immunization? Do cows live freely in the wild? Please stop comparing orange with apple (just because they both are animals).

Have you tried to view it with Chrome browser to see if it is working? It may not be the driver but the browser itself.

If you read the TFA, you could find some more information even though this does not answer all of your questions but still give you some more perspective to the situation.