Still incapable or unwilling to argue ideas which are actually on topic? Very well, my point stands and yours' refuted. Good day!

Would you accept a "small class" of speech being prevented by the government? Say, political rallies for Democrats? If not, then why would you accept other rights being arbitrarily infringed by the government? Particularly rights whose existence is based on keeping governmental power and abuse in check.

I'm going to assume this was written in lieu of a cogent counter-argument to the ideas I wrote in my post. I'll take that to mean you have no real argument. If you'd care to have a real discussion, I'm game. If you're unable or unwilling to do so, just say so up front.

First you state (and I agree) that regulation is very different from prohibition, but then you imply that people shouldn't be allowed to have their own AK47 (a prohibition). The government should not be allowed to decide what tools for defense one can use. Arguments over which gun is a better tool garner as much attention as arguments over which caliber is best. Those are matters of opinion and as per Justice Jackson in WV State Board of Education v Barnette (1943) "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

You're mischaracterizing the argument here, though I can't tell if it's intentionally or not. The argument about governmental overthrow is simple: the original purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that if the government that our founding fathers were creating ever became as tyrannical as the government they were fighting to overthrow, that the patriots of the time would have the tools available to do exactly what they were in the process of doing. As citizens of the nation they created with their actions, we have both a right to be prepared for that possible eventuality and a civic responsibility to be prepared for it. Is it that preparation which itself can help stave off tyranny for a government that understands the fact that it truly does govern by the consent of the people (not just on paper, but in reality). In other words, a government that knows it can be replaced at any time will not (at least outwardly) attempt to enact oppressive measures against its own people.

This is merely an extension of the ancient concept si vis pacem, para bellum.

All other arguments about hunting, sporting, and self defense against criminals are perfectly valid and should not be dismissed. The right to self defense is a basic human right. To deny common, non-violent people the right to have and carry tools for self defense is to effectively deny the right of self defense itself. I'm in favor of respecting human rights as much as I am in favor of respecting constitutional rights. I should hope everyone would be.

The typical compromise (see what I did there?) when a customer or Federal Government auditor wants to run scans of any sort on your private network is to agree on tools (to be provided by the auditing group if you don't already have them) running an agreed configuration/profile/whatever against an agreed limited scope target list (typically a VLAN or set of VLANs unless that entire network is devoted to just that one customer, which is sometimes the case, though less so these days with public/private/hybrid clouds being all the rage). When it comes to web application and database testing, you'll typically agree on a non-production target list that's a mirror of the production system (with appropriate verification of the two being a mirror outside the automated testing) so as to avoid impacting the production systems. When it comes time to run the tests, over-the-admins'-shoulder monitoring ensures the proper tools with the proper configurations hitting the proper targets is being done and that the output is being handed over unaltered.

Seen this done in plenty of places and 99% of the time, the auditing group is fine with it because at the end of the day, it's getting them exactly what they want; just in a slightly more red-tape riddled way. Meanwhile, the group being audited has the assurance that nothing is running wild all over their network unsupervised. If you don't have anything to hide, you're typically fine with this approach. If you aren't fine with this approach, something else is going on behind the scenes and most of the time that'll be something you're trying to hide.

I must be getting old when 6-digit UIDs are long time slashdotters. I for one welcome our newbie overlords.

Ha ha ha, your key is on "your" website. That isn't even running https. So how would anyone know that "your" key really is your key?

Yeh I love how people think wisdom and advice is important, when actually it's actions. Words are a dime a dozen. Study hard and avoid crazy partners that keep you down? Uh, yeah I knew that. Care about your fellow human and don't rob & steal? Ya think? I think you are right, just record some daily activities showing what you were like -- stuff showing you doing things that a good person would be doing (charity, reading a book etc.). Most lectured advice stuff might end up being fake anyway, and downright inapplicable or wrong. Try to put them on a path where they have financial security and good mentors. Finally, the solution should be based on the individual, of which there is no average. So what works for one may not work for the other, you can only hope to find the path of highest success probability.

For most people (windows users), their computers are so insecure as to make the idea of their private key being secure laughable.

Side note, but DKIM was never intended to stop spam, it was only intended to stop joe-jobbing and reputation theft by preventing people from forging who the email was from.

Whose fault is that? Don't get mad that someone is wants the job.

Why yes duh of course I am super interested in making my fellow Americans suffer economic hardship, what else could my intent be. WTF? Just because I have a better understanding of economics than you doesn't mean I somehow care less about people.

Second, you are saying society gets to pick who gets a job and who doesn't? When you force a minimum wage for jobs it means the jobs that are open for people willing to work for less are closed while the more experienced elites still get to work for their 200k salary. I understand the intent behind it, but wages shouldn't be decided based on what you think a person "deserves" as their salary. If that were the case we should be forcing our corporations into paying our veterans ten times what a top engineer makes.

The best thing for an economy is a reduced production cost. This means that low wages can buy more, and also that shares in a company would pay high dividends. I mean, if you owned a robot that works in a factory (equivalent of owning shares in that factory) wouldn't you be better off if that factory made more money? Notice how with automation the economy has not collapsed? We have more automation than ever before in history yet we also have a large amount of jobs and can afford a lot of things. Even the government gets its cut from it and distributes it as welfare. In the 1950s many people could not afford a tv and a fridge. Yet today nearly everyone can, plus a smartphone and a computer. Low production costs = increased supply and increased affordability.

At which point would you agree there is a shortage? When the salary is $200k but the price of housing has doubled because everyone is making 200k and wants to live in the same location?

Way to spread false information. I suppose it's good in a way. Last thing we need is people who can't be bothered to verify stuff somebody tells them moving to the bay area.

Fact is, $60K is the $30K equivalent in the bay area with 45 minute rush hour commute (Caltrain or drive) to Mountain View (without roommates to share rent). Allocate $1.2K for rent in San Jose and 30% extra for all other expenses. Yeah its tough to live on that but I really want to see what you can do with $30K in Atlanta. With 120K you can be comfortable in the bay area.

Obviously you can keep increasing the salary until you'll find an American able or willing to do the job. But then that means your risk capital expenditure increases. Just about everything you put money into comes with a risk. If you own a business, there is only so much money you are able to gamble. The more risky something is, the reward potential must go up exponentially for someone to invest in it. What am I getting at, if the cost of entry to making a startup or company is high, less such companies will exist -- why would VC's dump money into it. Overall result ---> less products and innovation in the market, higher prices to consumer. So if the prices of everything goes up, how does it help the engineers with their higher salaries?

Fact is that the more engineers in the world we have, the cheaper goods we will get. I mean, what if Apple was the only company able to afford engineers? What if Samsung and non-American companies were barred from selling cell phones? Smartphones would cost an insane amount -- few people would be able to afford it.
If less people have smartphones other areas of the economy would be affected too.

And btw, why aren't there americans willing to work for $60K? I mean really, if you have an CS degree + student loan why would you choose to work at McDonald's for $20K? Now I agree that $20K is not a living wage, but $60K .. come on .. even with student loan burden of $800 a month, it's still better than $20K at McDonalds or living on welfare. The monthly payment on a $30,000 student loan (which is slightly above the average 2014 graduate's debt) is approximately $300 (assuming 6.8% interest and a 10-year repayment plan).

So basically I am supposed to believe that computer science graduates rather sit at home or work an unlivable wage at McDonalds than take a job for $60K, which more than easily covers their student debt cost?

Now for engineers, $80K is an unlivable wage? What's the livable wage for a particular degree, that you would agree there is a shortage at?

I guarantee that whatever you force wages to rise to, it will not be enough --- because the price of everything will rise correspondingly plus extra.

What's the biggest useful future challenge in mathematics for the next 25 years?

Uh, or we can have 90% private ownership with some social ownership? I mean in the future, maybe instead of investing in education (which will be freely available, in fact it already is) .. we will invest in companies. So basically people will just make money off their mutual funds. People who never had any savings, they can be given shares on a charitable basis. I mean, the government can tax the automated factories and provide some welfare off that. I mean this sort of thing is possible today, if you own shares in a successful company like Apple you can just live off the dividends. This is the equivalent of "owning a robot", it does the work .. you get paid for it.