You could have avoided this by not being a grammar nazi.

"Most people want independance" was clearly in terms of the domain that wants iy; most people that want independance want it on moral grounds.

Does letting something like that slide have implications on public opinion? If I trusted anything that cited an op ed description of an article, then we have other problems.

How is this "Interesting". I am looking for a phone number, I don't got to 4 sources. I pick up the closest telephone book and dial what I see there.

"Fact checking" a phone number, wtf.

And then a +4 mod.

Lewis Black wouldn't even scream, he'd be struck silent this is so bad.

If it was large enough for the NSA to trip over (that is how these findings got from NSA to FBI and DEA, they tripped over them, said "hey this isn't terror, but someone might care") it was bigger than the fraudster.

Although I can't disagree with your findings, you sort of uncover a different issue with the schools. CS degree is a math degree, not a tech degree, or should be.

Today they are a 4 year Java course. Even from schools where they aren't really, you have a lot of graduates that "took a lot of classes I will never use". Well, you shouldn't have wasted everyone's time, and went to a 6 week Arthur Anderson/PriceWaterhouse boot camp and right into the work force instead of wasting time in school.

I don't want an "Industry trained" architect designing my bridge anymore than I want an "Industry trained" person designing life saving systems. The people working on that bridge, and coding on the dialysis machine, much different story.

No one wants to hear it, but when it requires a college degree to flip burgers, you have a problem. When people have a bachelors degree to become "Java programmers" you have a problem.

Stupid people doing stupid jobs don't need a college degree.

HR departments and hiring managers need to learn this.

There is a lot of little things, not just one big answer. But it comes down to supply and demand all along the chain.

This isn't illegal, but lots of things that will qualify you as being an asshole aren't illegal.

There are things that you might do that will make you "deserve to get your ass kicked". Just because you deserve it, doesn't mean anyone has the right to do it.

If you act in a way that any reasonable person would realize would result in getting their ass kicked, and you do get beat up, I am not going to care. If you then have that person arrested for assault, I am also not going to care.

No, people that understand how google glass works are rightfully annoyed by it. It isn't fear or hype.

Other forms of cameras aren't tolerated either. And just because you CAN buy a small, secret camera (that people get upset about when they discover) doesn't make a more obvious camera more tolerable.

Some people don't like getting their picture taken. Some other people don't care about the first groups anxiety. Perfect understanding of the situation.

Why would correlation!=causation get anything but -1 pedantic ass mods?

People keep repeating that so much on this board that it is negatively affecting their ability to critically think. When dealing with statistics, sometimes cause isn't important, just predicting an outcome with a high degree of certainty.

Just shut your mouth, and think about the conversation at hand differently.

These 4 markers are wildly disjoint. Clearly not one cause involved here. The causes of them individually are pretty well known. But if they can predict something with a high degree of certainty, what does that imply? Who can benefit? Who can get hurt?

The point of that projection is they will use up projected capacity and raw materials.

No, the supreme court didn't get it wrong. It should never have gotten there.

She also knew he didn't want the search, but is a legal resident there. She could have picked up the phone at any moment in time and told the police she was presently looking at a firearm she knew to be illegal and they would have had a warrant.

The fact that she agreed and knew full well there was evidence laying around indicates to a reasonable person the warrant was "enroute" and a forgone conclusion.

Several states have gone so far as to make laws that state it explicitly and have not been challenged. It is ludicrous to think the police should look for everyone that might be a legal resident and ask them. Once you agree with that, then you realize that any one person can agree has weight over any one person can not agree.

It becomes really a no brainer when you realize that a wife and a husband might be at odds over something illegal and dangerous. The police come for the public disturbance that was reported an hour ago. There is no obvious signs of a crime now. The wife says come in and see our son who is taped to the bed in the back room, and the husband says no.

Any one person has the right to consent to public safety amid a sea of "no"s.

If the police lie about the one person giving consent, they were going to lie about hearing a gun shot. This isn't going to be abused. Corrupt cops are corrupt cops.

If your roomate sees evidence of a crime, say a grow room in the basement, and they tell the cops, that is grounds for a warrant. This can all be done without your knowledge.

This simply can NOT be abused that badly. She was pissed off. They could have had a warrant presently. They didn't feel it was necessary for obvious reasons.

You can not sue someone for exposing your criminal activity. They are called whistleblowers and are protected.

You bring up the best response as to why this isn't a story, and why it should never have gotten to the Supreme Court.

There is no reason to believe they shouldn't be allowed in the house. They didn't arrest the guy because he didn't consent to the search. They didn't think about searching until after they arrested him. They went back, and asked the current occupant. The arrest would have almost immediately gotten them a warrant, and a cop could have sat on each door until it came.

This isn't the supreme court weakening anything. This is a slick defense lawyer that got farther than he ever should have.

This is not an indictment of the Supreme Court. This is a testament to the very specific lawyer that confused the issue as well as he did.

A landlord has the right to come into your house without your consent as long as he has given 24 hours notice (whether you notice the hand bill or not). He could have anyone with him at the time.

Not sure this would be legal to go through your things, but if it was out in the open there wouldn't be a need.

And even if they weren't there, and he saw something and called the police, they'd be there with a warrant right quick.

Then the speed and likelihood that they could have gotten a warrant often comes into play when tossing evidence. It has never been that black and white.

In other words, don't have illegal activity laying around. The courts can't unrape your rights. Don't let it get to court.

If the woman said "there are illegal guns here", they wouldn't have needed a warrant anyway, since it was an ongoing crime.

Why aren't you simply trying to get a promotion to "Architect" at your company? Why aren't you making decisions there? Is there a reason, or are they simply asshats that don't like you? Since they are successful, I doubt it is the latter.

If you join a startup that fails as a regular employee it is less money and no good times. It is neutral to negative on your resume.

If you join a startup that fails as a decision maker, it is less money, no good times, and you are the failure, costing good people money and career advancement.

If you join a startup that is successful it is for less money, hard work, and a swell of money and good feelings when it crests that hump. Then it rapidly becomes mundane and slow changing.