I openly admit that I am presupposing no malicious intent and that the purpose of whistleblower protection is to genuinely help root out corruption in the government. Whether or not we agree on that detail, I think we can both agree that a derogatory adjective of some kind is appropriate.

That's why there are supposed to be legal protections for whistleblowers. These cases are not supposed to even get past the court hearing. However, they made a stupid exception for anything dealing with national security, which is where the most egregious corruption can occure.

I don't disagree that you should not be wearing Google glass in a movie theater. But the fact that the FBI wouldn't just look at the pictures like was originally suggested shows that this is indeed thuggery.

What party wants zero government? As I understand it, Republicans just want different government. But they definitely want more of it.

And yet, in the end it was passed by damn near every Republican in the House. In fact, more Democrats voted against the final bill than Republicans did.

I find this unlikely. I believe you will have two classes of people. Those who are able to maintain the illusion and those who are not. This happens in non-money driven class warfare all the time.

Personal experience here. Those cameras are usually not on. My mother-in-law had her credit card stolen and it was used at Walmart. When she asked for the footage of the checkout area during the time it was stolen, they said the cameras were only ever on two days out of the week.

I wish I had mod points. This is the fundamental problem with Google Glass. One of the things that allows polite society to function is that, generally, if we make a slip of the tongue or do something stupid that we immediately regret it will be soon forgotten. Public life is only semi-public in that it is contained to a small area. However, as we are already starting to see, when everything is captured and recorded for prosterity, no one ever forgets and society is extrodinarily slow to forgive despite the fact that most everyone has been just as guilty at some point in time.

Is it really? As far as I can tell, no one cares. That or all of the news outlets have already lost all of their credibility.

That's a pretty damn big school district if they have that many workstations. They should have started planning for this years ago doing it in phases. But that kind of short sightedness is typical of government. Alternatively they could cut the internet or switch to Linux. It is much easier for high school lab computers to migrate to Linux because of the lack of need for highly specialized software.

It does however state that the Federal government shall not make laws respecting the establishment of a religeon, creating a defacto separation. That's not to say that it hasn't been taken out of context. Putting up a religeous statue is hardly the same as making a law, and it leaves to question what state and local governments can do.

These are hardly safety issues here. If someone dies or gets injured because of unpatched Windows vulnerabilities, it will be the fault of whoever used Windows XP in the system that caused it, not Microsoft.

$6.5 million? Even if you had to pay the retail price for all of those (which you don't) that would mean that you have nearly 22,000 workstations that are connected to the internet. What the hell does your company do that it has that many computers operating but doesn't have the easy ability to invest $6.5 million???

Considering that there is active research on original Chinese commentaries dating back to the Tang dynasty, I would say they are holding up pretty good.

"Snowden never approached any of multiple Inspectors General, supervisors, or Congressional oversight committee members about his concerns."

And how would they expect that to be responded to if he did? "Keep your mouth shut if you know what's good for you."