Not to put too fine a point on it, the lack of action is your fault, not Rand Paul's. He's more than done his part. He's offered a rallying point for anyone who cares about the issue, and he's elucidated in the most detailed way possible just what the hazards are. He's actually stopped the machine for a moment, and all you can manage is to diss him for too little, too late?

Look, I don't even like the guy. He stands for a lot of things that I fundamentally oppose. But I respect him. At least he is willing to do politics using the machine the way it was designed, rather than breaking it further—which is what the rest of the right-wing establishment seems to want to do.

Rand Paul is someone I feel I could reason with on most matters. I can't say that of most other politicians. And the fact that you're damning him with faint praise is actually enabling the others and contributing to the sense of futility that pervades so much of modern political discourse today.

Nobody here is going to get that, and tragically and alas, I am without mod points at this moment. But take comfort in the knowledge, sjames, that somewhere on the internet, someone LOLed.

Also, Mojolicious.

Oh - and Mojolicious.

Okay, seriously: Mojolicious is an excellent and fast way to jump from legacy Perl to modern, rapid turn-around, DevOpsy kinds of web work. I've written a fairly non-trivial web service in it, and it's everything a (Perl) guy could want. The documentation is a little opaque; the authors assumes too much knowledge about the approaches he's taking, but once you learn his... uh.. dialect, I guess.... Once you get the way he expresses stuff, it's pretty easy to do non-trivial work with it.

Also, learn CouchDB or similar, because NoSQL and regexes can do wonderful things together when you're dealing with large amounts of heterogeneous data. And just because some new things are actually worth it, start learning NodeJS and Angular (or similar), because they incorporate some very cool—and accessible—new approaches to things that will appeal to a dyed-in-the-wool PerlMonger.

Me? I'm a 51 year old ex-Web guy who just recently decided to move on to entirely new things after facing a similar dilemma, so pardon my hypocrisy. If I were to stay in software, that's what I'd be doing. :-)

Nautical or statute?

BZZZZZ! Close but no cigar. You should have gone for 1 mile in circumference instead of diameter. There are also many other circles which would cause you to take 2, 3, 4.... laps around the pole before heading north.

The question specifically says Earth with a capital E, indicating the planet, not the soil.

This fails because you don't end up at the same point after your westward laps around the pole. The key is that your 1 mile west walk needs to end up at the same place it started. You can do one or multiple circumnavigations.

Why not the magnetic as well, along with the multiple rings around the South Pole that also qualify.

I decided to log in for this one.

OP asked a question. You obviously do not know the answer because you just made a stupid, insulting reply. Perhaps if you don't know the answer, don't reply. I don't know the answer either, but would be interested in knowing the answer as well and would have asked the question had the AC not already asked. But instead of an answer you just shit all over it and are apparently offended that it got asked. Get over yourself and realize that some people aren't afraid to ask questions when they are ignorant... you might want to try it.

Which is why you just failed the interview. We often ask brainteaser questions, asking the interviewee to discuss their thought process out loud. We don't always expect the correct answer, but rational analysis and creativity score points.

And what if you cross the international dateline, and back in time?

The north and south bound portions are curved lines as well, unless you want to become airborne.

Well, with electronic toll-paying that could work, but it would still shift the burden from low MPG to high MPG cars.

The great thing about a gas tax is that it's a simple way to kill two birds with one stone: encouraging higher mileage and paying for infrastructure. The problem is that not everyone agrees that both birds are important. Two-birders think that high mileage vehicles should be discouraged because of externalized costs -- pollution mainly, but also space required in parking lots, greater risk to other road users etc. One-birders don't care about externalities but understand that the roads and bridges need to be repaired. Zero-birders are just idiots.

I'm a two-birder myself, so raising the gas tax is a no-brainer. I'd also issue everyone a flat rebate per driver, because in fact I'm a three-birder: I'm concerned about the effect of a regressive tax on the working poor who have no options but to drive to their jobs.

But I'm also a realist. There are a lot of one-birders out there and the roads need repair. It's also politically easier in one-birder territory to sell something as a fee rather than as a tax, even though from my perspective that's an irrelevant difference if you're raising the same revenue either way.

Well, they're already opting to have damaged natural joints like hips and knees replaced. That's a case of upgrading from natural to artificial to gain function. As the performance of artificial limbs increase, it might become an increasingly commonplace treatment for older people, just like knee or hip replacement.

If we project that trend forward for twenty or thirty years I wouldn't be surprised at all to see artificial legs that outperform natural legs for the purposes of walking or even running. But I don't think people with normal abilities will be trading in their limbs just to be able walk a little longer, run a little faster, or carry more weight. That won't happen until the replacement is subjectively indistinguishable from the real thing; until you can feel the grass under your toes.

I'm comfortable predicting locomotion parity in the next fifty years, but I wouldn't care to speculate on when we'll see sensory parity.

I have no problem with going after people who steal trade secrets, anything more than I have a problem with going after people who steal nuclear secrets. The only thing is that the FBI has a long history of racist paranoia about Chinese scientists, from Quan Xuesen in the early 50s to Wen Ho Lee in the 90s.

Rhwew may well of a legitimate case against these guys and if they do I hope they nail the bastards. But I'm not jumping to any conclusions based on FBI say-so.