It doesn't have to be an inside job. I have been to countless stores where they have a networked cash register with exposed ports within easy reach of the customer. Someone could connect a small USB device that could be used to capture data, or give that person inside access. I do not understand why these devices are not in locked enclosures. Once your physical security is compromised, there are almost no limits to what an attacker can do.

You have a really good point. These programs are complex. It is difficult to determine how a change to one part will affect the others. The article discussed the compromises that are needed because of the constraints of the Orion program. I truly hope they can develop a multipurpose product, rather than a crippled one that makes simple tasks more tedious. There is a reason we have both a screwdriver and a hammer in our toolbox.

Not to mention the inconvenience of the people who live/travel along that route. I don't know for sure, but I would guess that a good crew can run cable on poles the length of a few city blocks in an afternoon, maybe a few days. Underground would take many weeks to months of excavation, likely having to reroute traffic and loss of parking for residents, especially in an urban area.

I can also see this from AT&T's view, to a degree. If they allow Google to use the poles, then they set a precedent for other non-telecom companies to do so. I am not saying that AT&T is not taking advantage of the situation, but I can see where they would not want to lease space on their poles to any company that says they are a telecom and needs to run a cable.

I will accept your observations. I have seen this behavior in many tech shops. There can be resistance to hiring people with a background/methodology very different from your own. Given that, do you think, or have you experienced, that judges who have spent time on both sides do a better job? Would you give a candidate (elected or appointed) more weight because of this, or are there too many other factors for this to be a consideration?

I am confident that a nearly equal number of defense attorneys are guilty of the same offenses. While I agree that some attorneys go to far, both sides need a qualified proponent for the system to work. The prosecutor needs to represent the interest of the community, and the defense to represent the interests of the accused. A more interesting requirement would be to elect judges who have experience on both sides of criminal cases.

For a short time I though Blockbuster had a winning angle when the introduced the DVD-by-mail. As I recall, you could get movies by mail, then return them to the store for a free (or discounted?) rental. I think they missed an opportunity when they limited the number of times in a month you could do this. I think it was only once or twice. In hindsight, they would have still lost once streaming became common, eliminating the time delay of renting by mail. Like you said, they saw changes to the industry coming, but tried to hold on to the old ways that made them what they were.

I agree. Being able to browse for clothing and home goods is still important. There is still no online replacement for being able to carry a pair of pants over to match them to a shirt. As much as I hate shopping for curtains and bed sheets, it is much easier to walk through the department, and see what catches your eye. Yes, online retailers have liberal return policies, but I think for many people, it is more of a pain to buy five items, to compare an contrast their color at home, then mail back the four you don't want.

Aren't all states/countries sovereign only in their borders? In the US, the people of the states decided that they would cede some of their sovereign powers to a central government. This avoids some of the problems seen in the European Union, where individual states retained more (almost all) sovereignty. I will admit that it is a subtle point, but an important one if you wish to understand the inner workings of our federal system, and why people can get excited over states rights when you discuss topics such as gay marriage.

The Constitution limits the sovereignty of the states, but does not take it away completely. A state may not enter into a treaty with a foreign power, but they have complete autonomy with how they issue a building permit, or prosecute a murder case. So they may not be sovereign states from the perspective of the UN, but they have a great deal of sovereign power independent of the US Federal Government. If you look at it from a States' rights perspective, the Civil War was fought over how much autonomy the States had, specifically with respect to slavery.

I am a bit split on negotiating. In my experience dealers seem to bundle the options on their cars so that the most desirable options come with a lot of extra, unrelated junk. So the DVD system only comes in models with leather seats. Or the hands free calling is only available with high performance tire/wheels. Yes I can talk them down 10%, but we are starting 20% higher than I expected. If I could choose only the options I want, and save the time/hassle of "let me talk to my manager", that could be a win in my book.

The Girl Scouts of the USA were founded by Juliette Gordon Low in 1912. Also, I am not sure that they can't be considered non-competing entities. The BSA has a co-ed Venturing program.

When the BSA changed is policy in May with respect to gay scouts, several groups began to organize Boy Scout-like programs (sans the gays). Several of these groups initially tried to use a form of the word "scout" in their name, or the trademarked Fleur-de-li as part of their logo. I think it is safe to assume that the BSA has stepped up enforcement of its trademarks and copyrights, in an effort to keep these groups from building on their name.

Except the reporter, you highlight all the common exceptions to the usual compulsory testimony rules. I feel lawyers are obvious, you need to be candid with them to provide a proper defense. For counselors/doctors, I think we want people to seek medical attention, rather than fear prosecution for a crime. In some cases this could prevent crime; consider the person who wants help for their compulsive shoplifting. I am not sure of all the arguments for priests/clergy. In my view, they are extensions of your deity. By seeking their advice, in the view of some, you are asking your god for help. Like doctors, this could serve to prevent, or compel someone who might not otherwise confess their crime, to "cleanse" their soul.

Because society has decided that the risk of government abuse of compulsory testimony by the accused is greater than the benefit. As for the third-party witness, what is the risk to them, compared to the benefit to society? In the first case, there is a risk that someone could be compelled to falsely indite themselves. In the second, society has the benefit of knowing the perspective of the witness, and the judge/jury have this information so that they can make an informed decision. The writers of the Constitution were not concerned with being fair, as much as limiting the power of government.