I thought Apple had already done this. Their cafeteria workers have been employees since the late 90s, give or take, and the folks who sit at the front desk are also employees. I had always assumed the security guards were as well, but apparently not.

I'd concur with that - for most people, IT work is both boring and difficult to grasp. Part of it is laziness and stupidity, but it'd be unfair to place all of it under that umbrella - lots of what we do involves having some understanding of a dozen different other concepts that aren't immediately obvious.

I just watched the episode.(spoiler warnings) For the reasons stated above, I'll cut them slack for having the malware code glow red in their visualization - malware isn't always clear. However, I won't cut them slack for things like saying that game consoles have unique identifiers that enable the console companies to track pedophiles, while simultaneously showing the bad guy being tracked by that system where a bad guy is both smart enough to hack the firmware of baby monitors and dumb enough to use a system that could easily trace him that way, especially AFTER he becomes aware that the FBI is after him. I'll cut them slack for the concept of the baby monitor hack - its got its own list of messes, but y'need a story somewhere. I won't cut 'em slack for having the password tattooed on one of the guys - they're running that kind of operation, and they're never going to change the password? Not even partially obfuscate it by adding zeroes to single digits where everyone knows that you don't type the zeroes? On a more practical note, is that guy guaranteed to be there all the time so they could reference the password? Bonus round: the guy showed a holographic representation of a cadaver...because that was really necessary and couldn't have been done with a garden variety photograph...

At least for me, the general list of things I'm willing to overlook:
-UI mockups. CLI output only makes sense if you know what you're looking at, and the last thing anyone wants is more expository dialogue that doesn't advance the plot.
-Simplifying of IP addresses and their "tracing". I've seen enough Google Maps dots on machines without GPS to know that it's at least "close enough", unfortunately. "inadmissible in court" doesn't necessarily mean "useless", and again, we need a plot device.
-Character tropes. I don't look like a stereotypical nerd (no beard, not overweight, no glasses, don't live in the basement, don't have a game console), but Hollywood's got their rack of characters: If there's a white male, approximately 50 years old, and isn't the father of another male character, he's the bad guy. If there's a good looking white girl, she's probably someone's love interest. If there's a mother, her role is, generally, "mother", unlikely to do anything to truly advance the plot independent of her maternal context. Hispanic guy on a motorcycle = gang member. Dad: clueless and aloof, though sometimes has a single pearl of wisdom. The list goes on, and though I'm not a fan of that being the case, it's not "computer techs at the expense of everyone else", and we've got characters like Skye, Chloe O'Brien, and Jake Foley that were generally positive, rounded characters.

Things I won't give a pass on:
-logic fails, especially if I'm cutting slack for a part of one.
-unreasonable expectations of technology.
-unreasonable expectations of people (i.e. "make the situation dire enough, and time will never be necessary").
-simplistic love triangles (much as I love Fitz and Simmons, the "because they're both science" reason is annoying).
-nonexistent database relations - "show me a list of 40 year old females in Spokane, who are of Irish descent and whose great grandparents came through Ellis Island in 1899 that have bought P90X and are allergic to gluten."

Because they are addressing a specific problem with EPA?

What's more important, having a free society with a vigorous economy, or the ability of political apointees and bureaucrats to decree rules, bans, and burdens on us based on secret science that by definition can't have a concensus?

Intresting that they chose birthdate instead of age, don't you think? Why do you supppose they did that? Have you seen medical research that relied upon birthdate as a key component of the data rather than age?

Their method is sly, but the intent is obvious, and dishonest.

Have you not see the stupid lawsuits brought by fringe environmentalists that greatly drive up the cost of much economic activity for little or no benefit? Have you not seen stupid government regulations that either prohibit various activities or greatly drive up the cost of various economic activities for little or no benefit, or even create actual harm? Surely you can't believe that ALL rules are good rules that must be imposed according to the whims, agendas, or mistakes of bureaucrats and political apointees? Is your thinking that all politicians are evil and untrustworthy, but bureaucrats and political apointees are all sages, angels, sweetness and light? Or is it even simpler: bureaucrats sounds like Democrats and therefore have your unthinking support?

The EPA is part of the government. If you have little faith in the government, why would you want it to be easy for them to act using unpreproducible or other bad science? It is easy for EPA to have a huge negative impact on society and any industry it involves itself in. Surely you don't believe that all of government is filled with bad actors with the one incredible exception of EPA, staffed by only angels and sages instead of political apointees and bureaucrats?

That would impede the politically driven agenda, so it obviously can't be good.

I can see you're trying, but you're not making much progress in getting it right. Is there somebody you know that could coach or tutor you? Maybe all you need to succeed is just a little nudge at the right time or place.

"Muddy the discussion"? You mean like having two opposing viewpoints represented? Having an actual discussion instead of choir practice? Well, that's the problem isn't it? Far too many people are here for choir practice instead of discussion, and a lot of that "music" is pretty crappy given the varous claims about geeks and "superior" intellects. Too few people post correct information about this and related topics.

And your crack about "same worn-out arguments" cuts both ways. Or at least you would realize it if you have any genuine insight. The right answer doesn't change just because you're tired of reading it.

Not many years before that warning the US devoted about 40% of GDP to defense spending. The long term trend of the percentage of GDP devoted to defense spending has been a long decline until today where only aroud 5% of GDP is spent on defense. That wouldn't happen if the "MIC" were all powerful as some people mistakenly claim.

There appears to be a gap between the facts of history and your theories.

There is essentially no chance of that happening. The only prisoners sent to Guantanamo were people known or believed to be members of al Qaida, or its affiliates. That doesn't describe Snowden. Or are you calling Snowden an al Qaida terrorist?

Snowden would end up in ordinary Federal court.

In a post above you made this claim:

What you posted there doesn't seem to support that claim. Would you care to provide an actual example of that happening to an ordinary American (or Briton, or Canadian, or Australian, or New Zealander) with no involvement in terrorism or organized crime? Do you have in mind someone running or office, or what? There doesn't seem to be much to your claim.

You poor soul.

Australia counters Chinese threat
Ascendant China spurs increased military spending in Australia

There is a very large gap between your thinking and reality. Think of the Marines as a "trip wire" protecting Australia.

Most people fail to see that since it doesn't actually happen.