Google is free, but that doesn't negate all problems. I've always taken issue with the media and journalists on the matter of Google's rise to domination. Long ago to Google something became a verb and almost immediately the media latched on to that being the cool way to do things. Then instead of ever saying "search" or "use a search engine" the phase was always Google it, as if there was no longer any other logical choice. Google did not need free publicity and the media or journalists in particular should not pick winners. We do have to be careful in ensuring fairness in Google search results as its dominance basically means that any business or entity that depends on being found, has no alternative but to be visible through Google. It's a precarious position ethically anytime one organization public or private holds such power in being a gatekeeper of information. I wonder sometimes if it could be necessary to offer the consumer a blended search capability, where searches are parsed from multiple sources and blended in an agnostic fashion without concern for any provider's business interest.

I can relate to that, though if interest rates were higher I suspect the prices would be lower yet we would all still spend every available cent on housing after a brief period where all the current owners struggled to regain their lost wealth. It's going to be very interesting to see if they are able to unwind this cheap credit trap we've wandered into. These million dollar homes are going to be a bit hard to manage when interest rates sit at 6% or more. Reducing credit doesn't solve everything either, we had a lot of cash buyers to compete with in the Bay Area when the 2008-2009 crash wiped out credit availability and that hasn't really left the market.

So... we should try something that actually makes sense?

Yep, subsidy or not, nobody wants a shanty town in their backyard. I'm not even sure it's a good idea. Packing the poor into high density housing doesn't have the greatest track record, but of course it sort depends on if the goal is to have people live in basic dignity or if it's just to move the poor/blacks "somewhere else" and then drop all support for the project once they are, "somewhere else". As fucked up as the free market is, I have little faith in government's ability to improve on it.

That's hippie socialist "market rent". These are the people that believe "market" is what a typical person can afford, not what the most capable available buyer is willing to pay. It's the same mindset that creates this idea that real estate developers in large cities should voluntarily make less so there will be affordable housing. The market is what the market is, so if the government wants to influence it, it has to actually own up to it and create some socialist policy. I honestly don't know how the hell we are supposed to create any kind of fairness in housing or what the hell public policy out to be, but what we have in free market economics with some occasional hand wringing about the poor is not getting us where we need to be. If they want to actually help the poor then maybe small units like 300 sqft is what we ought to subsidize. We may have to setup something more for the middle class to encourage construction in the 800-1200sqft range. In many areas the large single family home may not be the reality for the middle class in coming decades.

Landfills are free to the manufacturer, they aren't the ones dealing with disposal.

I'm not sure the results are even that valid. How do you tell the difference between a less depressed mouse struggling and a mouse driven into a rage by having it's brain laser baked whilst being dangled by the tail? I guess we'll just have to stimulate a sad memory and see if those mice just hang there without the will to live.

We already have Lifeline, which is "...telephone service for eligible low-income subscribers to help ensure they can connect to the nation's communications networks, find jobs, access health care services, connect with family and their children's schools, and call for help in an emergency." - according to the FCC. If that is the goal of the program, then basic internet service actually contributes to that. I'd rather people just went to the library to get access where possible, but there are areas that don't have a good public resource. I'm not really convinced individual service to the home is always the best approach, but I doubt any agency is going to bother to administer anything more complex to provide more community access.

There isn't any point in reducing carry on size. The allowed size is already very small and it isn't currently enforced because at least 10% of passengers are commonly carrying over-sized carry-on. Never make a new stricter rule, if you aren't enforcing the current one.

I for one despise this undisclosed location.

I was watching the inquiries on CSPAN. My thoughts exactly were, "do we even know encryption would have solved the issue?". You have this legislator (didn't catch his name) up in front everyone lambasting OPM Director Katherine Archuleta and demanding to know why the data was not encrypted. As if the guy has a clue about what is involved and what problems it would solve directly. Exactly as mentioned in the article since the system has to be able to decrypt it's own data in order to function all you have to do is compromise the system and you get the data. I'm not defending outdated, piss poor public sector security practices, but it's just pretty lame to grandstand and pretend all the solutions are so obvious and that encrypting all your data for the last 30 years is as simple as deciding it should be done. It's particularly obnoxious when the criticism comes from a clueless legislator, who doesn't know anything about network security and is just engaging in a self serving attempt to seem tough on the issue.

I'm confused by the whole scenario. Snowden took documents and released them through the media. The media contacts filtered the data and released data that wasn't overtly harmful for National security. Where did foreign governments ever get the opportunity to access encrypted files with unknown contents?

I too withhold judgement based on U.S. incentives to vilify Snowden.

I would not be able to resist the temptation to include an Easter egg in the design, like perhaps a 3D printed rat hidden somewhere in the structure.

Well yeah, didn't you hear this sort of thing can increase profit, PROFIT!!!, you would stand in the way of profit, because is that would just be un-American. If you don't want to be tracked and identified every step you take online and off, you must have something to hide. It's only so they can improve your shopping experience and help you stay connected to your friends. It's a win-win all around. It could also help us track criminals and terrorists, so just think of the children. /Sarcasm. God damn these fucking fuckers. The problem with a digital cage is that it's much harder to tell when exactly you've been placed inside it, let alone when the door is about to slam shut.

The millennials doing recruiting now days don't even know Dice ever existed, they must be hurting. Then again their shitty clickbait articles force my sympathy filter to off.