Gee, they fight for their second amendment rights but stop someone else from using their rights under the first.

"My rights are for me and me alone."

Inquiry Into I.R.S. Lapses Shows No Links to White House

Now piss off.

Other than, you know, zero-delay research of atmospheric conditions on Venus.

You know, the first steps to determining if there's even a distant shot in hell of terraforming the place in a century or three.

than making sure a few children^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hwhole bunch of innocent people who can't get vaccinated as well as a few of those who have received their vaccines don't get sick.

fixed.

Clearances are about trust and risk. Can a candidate be trusted? Can a candidate sufficiently avoid blackmail? If both are true, the candidate has a good likelihood of getting cleared.

Everything that's evaluated is done so against these two questions. With this in mind, the list of crimes which can sufficiently bar a person from cleared work is very, very low.

Seek federal jobs which offer a clearance. If you admit to everything thoroughly and give the investigators the truth, and if they're not worried about you after all of that (they think the risk of recidivism is low), you'll get the job and you can say on your resume you were cleared for federal work.

Whenever you decide to leave, the fact that you had a clearance might actually help counteract your priors.

Everyone who doesn't have a personal stake in the game is naturally inclined to act recklessly. See the decade-ly cycles of recession and depression economies slip into when markets (housing, finance, oil, whatever) forget that someone else's money is still of value and not to be treated with total abandon.

The decisionmakers at ISPs don't have a piece of skin in this fight because they have special classes of access just as a benefit of being where they are within their companies, and they stand to make more personally from making profit-minded decisions. For these reasons, there's very little personal incentive to uphold the moral high ground because the decisions don't have an immediate negative impact on them. They might feel it once they retire and/or if they go to a different industry, but that's after they've made their profit, and it's long after their short-term decisionmaking window.

It's just human nature. We haven't had this trait bred out, and it's doubtful we as a species ever will. The only way to counter short-sighted thinking is by shortening the mental leap between short-sighted decisions and long-term consequences, which is what everyone fighting for net neutrality is trying to demonstrate right now by citing live examples of where a lack of enforcement has already gone wrong (T-Mobile Unlimited Music, Netflix v. Comcast/VZ, etc.)

October 25, 2014, via ComputerWorld:

After two years and nearly $2 billion in losses, Microsoft's Surface turned a profit in the September quarter, the company said Thursday.

October 31, 2014, via the Motley Fool:

The Surface Pro 3, released earlier this year, is selling far better than its predecessors, and for the first time Microsoft has recorded a positive gross profit for the Surface business.

It would do you well to source timely things, sir.

Traveling Wave Reactor

How would you know if B never sends data back? B is sending junk data just as you are. To an outside observer, the amount of throughput by B would never change even if B sends an actual response.

is to maximize bandwidth utilization with junk traffic between all connected nodes, substituting junk data for legitimate data as needed.

Well, the canadians apparently want him after his time's up here.

Glad to see someone can appreciate all he's done for us. :)