Well, you can do what companies did in the old days before so many people had a degree and actually train your employees. Many of today's technology graduates are book smart but that's about it. I used to work for a large state agency

Historically, supply and demand determined wages. However, big business, with the help of government, doesn't want that, so they import excess workers saying they can't find qualified applicants. This holds down wages, which discourages people from seeking the skills that would make them qualified. Stopping H1B Visas would go a long way to increasing the market value of STEM jobs. However, that is unlikely to happen because higher wages means lower dividends.

The problem is not that US STEM students are falling behind. The problem is in who gets tested. In many, many countries, only those students who show an aptitude for a STEM field get educated for that field, while many others end up getting trade skills. So, the top 10% of the US scores tend to single out the cream of the crop, in general, while the top 10% of others is the cream of the crop of the cream of the crop.

It would be similar to only using people in the comparison in the US who scored 32 or above on the ACT when comparing with other countries. But in the US, anybody who can pay (or borrow) can go to college, so the testing is using different types of populations which skews the statistics.

To be meaningful, statistics need to have the same base for comparison. You would think they would teach that in a STEM curriculum.

That is my point, without net neutrality, what you describe can happen. In addition, most people don't have many options for internet providers, so it's not like they can shop around. I should have been more clear in my original post that net neutrality is a good thing because it ultimately protects the consumer.

That was my point. Without these rules, the things I posted could happen. Unfortunately, I wasn't clear on that, I guess, so I was modded down.

But users end up paying the subscription fee to those content providers, do they not? What is to stop an internet provider from throttle back bandwidth unless the content provider pays extra, which then gets past on to the consumer? What's to stop an internet provider from partnering with Amazon to provide videos and and Netflix and everyone else must pay a premium for their data to be streamed, thus causing their services to cost more? What's to stop Comcast from throttling content they don't control, causing it to be more expensive to the provider/consumer than their own content?

Data is just electrons flowing down a pipe. It doesn't "cost" any more if those electrons are emails, webpages, videos, or whatever.

Mitt Romney was convinced that he was going to be the next president of the United States. He was wrong. Microsoft may be convinced that Windows 10 will be the thing that gets them back on top, too. Maybe it will and maybe it won't. The problem is that like Romney, it doesn't matter what they think, it's what the public thinks that decides such things.

It's funny that you think I am somehow tied to the DNC or Clinton. If only you new. I make my comments because whether republican, democrat or whatever, people are entitled to due process. Clinton is no different.

If she broke the law, she will be charged, but like many experts have already publicly stated it is a gray area and does not appear to be a violation. At best, one would expect the law to be updated to remove the gray. Most likely, nothing will change, because both parties rely on that grayness. The republicans know all of this, which is why they have taken the "case" to the court of public opinion.

Regardless of my political persuasion, I and many others believe it is time to return civility to politics. One only needs to look at the tragedy that has occurred in Missouri to see how low political rhetoric has sunk and the damage it can cause.

There were not 50,000 Benghazi emails. It was, however, the Benghazi emails that first brought to light that she had used her personal email, but it wasn't an issue back then. Of course, she wasn't running for president back then, either.

As for what the head of the committee said, well, he is welcome to his opinion, but it would be a matter for the justice system to determine any wrong doing. The chair should be careful, because it is actually a pretty common practice with politicians including many in both parties.

If he believe she violated the law, then charge her with a crime.

While that may be true, one is presumed, under the law, to be innocent until proven guilty, Personal emails are not subject to archiving, nor are emails deemed to be of a sensitive nature. As has been done by her predecessors, it is up to the Secretary of State to determine which emails are to be sent for archiving and which are to be exempted. So unless there is evidence to the contrary, she is in the clear.

It should be noted that this is no different than in the pre-internet age, when correspondence was on paper. The various officials determined what to send for archival or not. There is no archival police.

Wasn't her's a possible violation of state law? Is Alaska's law the same as the Feds?

Well, Condolezza Rice did it and nobody seems upset about that. According to the WSJ, Kerry is the first Sec of State to use a government email account.

Actually, this is probably what this is all about. As with Palin, nothing illegal has transpired here. It's just political rhetoric.

She didn't get caught. What "triggered" this story was when she submitted the emails from her personal email account to the government, as required by law. The same as most other federal officials.

She didn't lie or cheat, at least not based on the emails. Until the current secretary of state, they all used their personal emails and phones for work. They all, including Hillary, then turned over the non-classified emails as required by law. There is no law that says she or any other government official must use a government supplied phone or email address. There is a law that prohibits them from using a government phone or email for non-government purposes. As such, most use their own phone and turn over the records, as required by law.