Only if they would have referred to DNA as "deoxyribonucleic acid".

I dunno. If you read the rest of the survey, they asked the respondents if they had read any agricultural books in the past year and a lot said that they had, but most who said that they had could not recall the name of the book, and the ones who could recall named books like "Skinny Bitch". So really, I think it's safe to say that the respondents are simply fucking morons.

I tried out Fios for a while, but I have to say, I wasn't that impressed. The service went out from time to time, and YouTube and Netflix wouldn't play worth a damn. Also, they really trick you with their advertisements of low prices. Sure, the prices look good, but then you can't use your own hardware and you have to rent their proprietary hardware, which adds considerably to your service cost. And then you find out that those good prices were only intro prices and then they jack up your rates sky high.

I cancelled Verizon and went with the local cable company, if that tells you anything about Fios!

This is silly. I don't feel like digging out the numbers, but there used to be a ton more female programmers. Of course, they began leaving the field in the 1980s. Why? I don't know. But it's worth trying to find an answer to that question, because programming wasn't always male-dominated.

I frankly have no idea.

If what all of the chatterers say is true, it should be trivial for a "diverse" team to utterly destroy a white male team because as I am being told constantly, men cost 33% more than women to do the exact same job. So how could a team that is 33% more expensive, which is completely ignoring all of the super talented "diverse" people, possibly be competitive?

There is no process that can fix substandard management.

The agile projects that I've worked on have been successful and decent to work on. I'd attribute this to the following things:

1. All of the developers were paid hourly, so there was no financial incentive to overwork them.
2. Business team was genuinely in charge of defining and prioritizing requirements.
3. Technical teams were genuinely in charge of estimating tasks and were not forced to revise estimates.
4. Management reviewed the data on "points" accomplished during the sprint and continually tried to assign the teams a realistic number of points to complete during the sprint.

Given the above good intentions, I suspect that these projects would have been successful without agile. However, agile did help managers in focusing on the functionality that mattered the most and getting it delivered when it was expected to be delivered.

I'm sorry, but the Affordable Care Act was no compromise. A "compromise" is a meeting of the minds based on negotiation. The Affordable Care Act was forced down the GOP's and the American people's throats. Polls showed that the American people didn't want Obamacare at the time, and that we don't want it today. I predict that tomorrow, we still won't want it.

For what it's worth, I didn't intend that as a slight. MassHealth is just not as commonly called "Romneycare", so I don't refer to it as such. Indeed, when I google for "MassHealth", I get 456,000 results, but when I google for Romneycare, I get only 298,000 results. On the other hand, when I google "affordable care act" I get 23,400,000 results, but I get 38,000,000 results for "obamacare".

So, based on my super serious and rigorous scientific research, "Obamacare" is more familiar than "Affordable Care Act" and "MassHealth" is more familiar than "Romneycare". That's why I used those. If it makes you feel any better, I'll just come right out and say that MassHealth was then-Governor Mitt Romney's policy.

This is not a reasonable argument. There are many places in the world where the government runs healthcare and central to both Clinton's and Obama's presidential campaigns were a promise that the federal government would take over healthcare. Socialized medicine was coming irrespective of the Massachusetts experiment.

This is ridiculous. Why could President Obama not have learned from the mistakes of MassHealth?

All of the Republicans' warnings about what would happen under Obamacare, which all came true of course, where do you think we came up with those objections? Off the top of my head: We warned that employers would drop coverage for their employees because it happened in MA. We warned that doctors would stop accepting Obamacare plans because that's what happened in MA. We warned that it would be expensive for both the taxpayer and the policyholder because that's what happened in MA. We said that it still wouldn't cover everyone because that's what happened in MA.

For this we were labeled obstructionist. But when the president is in the process of fucking up by not learning from the mistakes made in MA, obstructing was the proper course of action! Now we have to live with the consequences. My insurance costs tripled because of Obamacare and the coverage is worse and my taxes are higher. This is the exact opposite of what President Obama promised me would happen, and I am not happy.

Uhhh... Why are you giving credit to Mitt Romney for President Obama's signature legislative achievement? Romney has never held office in the Federal Government and anyway hasn't held any office since 2007.

If you don't like Obamacare, that's fine. But realize that the reason that you have Obamacare is because President Obama wants you to. He burned every last iota of his political capital to get it passed. Obamacare is 100% Obama.

What you have just described isn't madness at all. I would argue that it makes perfect sense for law enforcement to treat child pornography as evidence of serious criminal activity (child rape) and to pursue aggressively the perpetrators of such a crime.

Unfortunately, there is madness in Western countries surrounding the issue of child pornography and pedophelia. Here are some examples:

1. In the US, any image of an unclothed child is considered to be a serious crime. There have been many documented cases of photo labs reporting photos of unclothed babies in the bathtub (in no sexual context) to the police, and then the babies were taken from their parents and the parents were charged with manufacturing child pornography, a sex crime.
2. In the US, while it is perfectly legal for 17-year-olds to have consensual sex with each other, if they happen to take a photo of this lawful sexual activity, they could be charged with manufacturing child pornography. Several teenagers have been charged with the sex crime of manufacturing and distributing child pornography for simply texting their boyfriend or girlfriend photos of their unclothed selves.
3. In Australia, adult women with small breasts are considered to be children for the purposes of child pornography laws, so they may not appear in any adult entertainment without it being considered to be child pornography.
4. In the US, all doctors and mental health professionals must report to the police anyone who comes to them seeking help with sexual attraction to minors. This discourages pedophiles from seeking the help that they need to avoid committing actual offenses against children. In our lust to burn the witches at the stake, we put real children at risk because pedophiles aren't getting the treatment that they need.

So, yes, our hysteria surrounding child pornography does rise to the level of madness. I'm not sure how we fix it, because it is political suicide to appear to be soft on pedophilia, but in the meantime, the madness is definitely doing more harm than good.

PasswordAuthentication no

If SSH connections are coming in from the public Internet, you shouldn't be allowing password-based authentication. Let the bad guys have fun trying to brute force your RSA key for the next 14 million years.

The way that I handle this is to say to myself, "Self, realize that under the old regulated airfare structure, adjusted for inflation, this ticket would have cost $3000. So just pay for what you need to be comfortable and be happy that you're paying 1/5 of what it otherwise would have cost!"

I dunno. I just flew roundtrip between PHX and LGA and brought a bunch of food from home (sandwiches, veggies, fruit rolls, almonds, and anything else I'm forgetting about). TSA never said anything to me about it.

Well, this must not be enforced, because my sandwiches were peanut butter sandwiches. My flights were last week, so this is fairly current information.

Any solution that contains the word "channel" is the wrong solution for 2015. People don't watch channels. They watch shows.

Let me pay to watch shows, not channels. I'm throwing my money at the monitor trying to pay. Who will take my money?

I'm pretty sure that general aviation is just a wee bit more expensive than flying commercial!

Why? Is there even such a thing as an "S3 key"? I've been using AWS for a long time, and I've never seen one of these (unless you count the goofball time-limited key pre-signing thing, and those keys can't be used for any purpose outside of S3).

There are, of course, AWS keys, and those keys can be granted privileges. If you grant an AWS key full access, then yes, it can be used for any API call. But really that's bad practice. If your application needs only access to a specific S3 bucket, you'd create an AWS key for your app and grant it access only to that bucket.

Since I haven't done it in a while, I tested this out. I just created an AWS key and here's what I found: it has no access at all. I can click "attach user policy" and it gives me a ton of choices for what type of access I can give the key, including "Amazon S3 Full Access" and "Amazon S3 Read Only Access", or I can use a custom policy generator.

So I think AWS is doing a halfway decent job here, giving people simple options for simple situations and complex options for complex situations. If a user is going to create an admin-level AWS key and post it to github, what is AWS supposed to do about that?