SSN should not be the universal identifier. I really think we need to get rid of this model where private industry treats Social Security Numbers as an identifier. When the same number is used over and over again it loses all it's value as an identifier. Treating a SSN as anything other than an account number for social security benefits and nothing more is just entirely flawed logic.

There's a book called Python for Kids that I got for my bartender's son. The exercises outlined, like taking a PC apart and putting it together, understanding the parts, what an OS is and what and application is sounds like a good start. Basic web design never hurts. HTML is easy to teach to young people and putting something of their own creation on the web, seems to click with kids. Spending a small amount of time on word processing and Excel isn't bad and for the most part that is what employers mean by basic computer skills. If you can get a hold of a college level "Introduction to PC computing" sort of text book, some good accessible foundation learning can be drawn from that.

There you have a fine example of why so many in the public remain clueless even if they are intelligent and moderately well educated and informed. It's almost impossible for most people to separate truth from manipulated fiction. If you have a normal open minded person watch for example "Gas Land" and "Frack Nation", how would that person have the foggiest idea which perspective is closer to the truth? Seeking out the real science behind any issue is just too much work for most and journalistic integrity is too often nonexistent. I hope as time goes on the scientific community is able to better directly engage the public so we can stop allowing the media, politicians and journalists to muddy the waters with so much spin, disinformation and mistrust of science.

If there is one useful thing a republican majority could do this would be it. At some point politicians have to have the courage to say "Thanks for the input, but we need a solution and this is the one we've chosen." If only to deal with the waste already in existence, we need some responsible way of handling it.

That goes to the point of TFA. We had a great telecom phone network. Once the copper wires to COs that make up the telephone network became generally obsolete and yet we didn't invest in delivering alternate media to the home that is how we fell. Either we need fiber or we need to force sharing of last mile access from the cable companies, like we did with DSL in the 1996 Telecommunications act, or probably a combination of the two. We have fundamentally failed to plan ahead for the obsolescence of the copper pair phone infrastructure. The free market did a decent job, but private industry has no incentive to build what's needed for the next 20 years when there is no alternative available to most of us.

Spafford, who wasn't part of the study, said it makes "one wonder what our expectation of privacy should be anymore."

Privacy can't be monetized and retailers can't profit from privacy so therefore we know how much privacy we have; it's the small fraction left after they collect everything useful. This will continue this way until we have laws that make data retention and privacy violation such a legal liability hot potato that businesses will be tripping over themselves to delete data and avoid unnecessary collection and retention.

Though my already costly 15 Mbps down/ 4Mbps up no longer qualifies as broadband I don't see where I would get much benefit from having more for any normal usage. I think the same would be true for most people. I agree many in the US would benefit from having more than what they have got, but those are mostly the folks with less than 5Mbps or businesses in areas where the only options are inadequate. Access in rural areas and basic affordable access at 3-5Mbps for lower income households are greater issues in my mind. When we treat resources like they are limitless it generally ends up creating wasteful behavior.

"Something must be done." What a dangerous phrase. We can't make big changes in response to every prank or misdeed. Someone takes a few shots at a power substation in San Jose, suddenly we need to secure the power grid nationwide. A drone lands at the Whitehouse, time to panic. We have to be prepared for real threats, but we can't treat every minor incident like a game changer. Unfortunately the reality is if you let the public within 1000 feet of the Whitehouse lawn there will be incidents. The security failures of late are due to the security outside the fence, not inside. The day is coming when you are going to have to go through airport style security screening to get near the Whitehouse and considering the level of FUD in the world I'm surprised it isn't already happening.

People often prefer less regulation. People loving a new service doesn't make it legal. Uber is like smoking weed, lots of people love it and it varies in its treatment under the law. Calling Uber a ride-sharing service for most people is like calling weed medicine, it's only true in rare situations. I don't disagree with relaxing some of the laws around transportation, but it isn't fair to treat driving for profit with Uber or Lyft as somehow different than a taxi service. The distinction should be pretty clear, picking up a rider when you are going somewhere and dropping them on the way is ride-sharing, but picking up passengers and taking them somewhere you don't need to go, for profit, is a commercial transportation service.

I'll take some Droneshot. Conventional shotgun ammo isn't designed to perform very well at 400ft which is the maximum altitude for legal drone operation in the US. As far as the military efforts, I'd go for some simple, but effective solutions that could be deployed via helicopter. One or two weapons for use in populated areas and another for battlefield operation should do it. Police on the ground could potentially use birdshot in a true emergency as is doesn't pose a grave risk when falling after expending it's energy, but the effective range would be something like 50 meters.

Certainly not their privacy policy.

It's better this way. The free market determines who stays and who goes, who gets hired and who gets fired. When I've worked in union environments the relationship between workers and management has been bad. When employers are obligated to do things they wouldn't choose to do or keep people they wouldn't choose to keep it makes for a very screwed up adversarial relationship. Someday tech workers may not be in demand and there may be a reason to unionize, but for now I'd much rather work and know the companies that hire me, value me and continue to employ me because I deliver some value they want.

Less Google, more cowbell. I consider it a win for society that we are not just running out to buy gadgets to wear on our faces. It was an interesting experiment, but it doesn't belong in daily life. I can't rationally justify why it bothers me, but don't ever expect me to be OK with people walking around with those on their faces. I prefer to live in a camera free zone as much as possible and not be confronted with one strapped the the head of some jackass at Starbuck's.

I would think CPS could be allowed to take such action on face value, but were the parents to petition a judge it could be very likely to result in a stay order or injunction on CPS as the case is an unusual and not well tested overreach. That of course means parents without ability to obtain a good lawyer would be screwed.

Any logical use of resources would be an improvement. War games can make sense, but only when focused on real world threats to things Government is actually supposed to protect. If they are trying to "strengthen the West's tarnished reputation following the Sony hacking scandal" that isn't the right approach. Private industry generally has to provide it's own security and there is nothing about attacks on Sony that couldn't hit any company any time from any source for any reason. Government could do well to have some robust and well developed defenses and procedures available to defend at the national borders, but that has limit use cases. Corporate America is on it's own and will only defend itself as well as it chooses to do so. People are still the weakest link in security and determined attackers will exploit the greatest weaknesses with the least path of resistance. Business is going to have to come up to speed in that it must be accepted that one user or one computer or one service WILL be breached. The question is from there, will attackers be able to cause a cascade of subsequent breaches with unchecked ability to steal data and damage systems completely undetected until the impact becomes obvious? I think any company can see the answer to that without too much analysis. So how import is it that it doesn't happen to you? Government cannot defend business from their own insufficient security and I personally don't want to pay the tax bill for them to try.