Perhaps not, in aggregate. Never having been to Toronto, I cannot speak to such a comparison.

However, Best Buy HQ is not in downtown Minneapolis. If it were, the transit situation would be markedly better. It is in a first-ring south suburb called Richfield, right off I-494 and I-35W. Some recent upgrades to I-35W have helped some, but 494 is regularly at a standstill.

I doubt this one action by one company will change too many transportation policies in the immediate area. Nevertheless, the dearth of effective public transit along the 494 corridor has been a longstanding problem.

I don't know for sure. They have positions (typically through contracting agencies) for developers constantly. I don't know what their projects actually are, though obviously they do have an online presence.

Further, this policy obviously affects workers outside IT. I don't know how many of those individuals were working remotely.

Best Buy headquarters is in one of the areas of the Twin Cities metro with the worst traffic congestion already, and it is not well-served by public transit. Public policy in Minnesota is starting to tend toward encouraging more remote work and/or flexibility because the cost of maintaining and upgrading roads and transit is becoming unaffordable. I don't know about other areas of employment, but competent programmers are not usually having trouble finding work in the Twin Cities metro. Granted, many of Best Buy's developers are contractors anyway.

This move is likely just to drive away people with other options, and with a company that's already a sinking ship, it's certainly going the wrong direction.

Statute, not just case law, says that computer programmers are (almost always) exempt employees. Because laws are not required to be sensible, you may note that the pay requirements to qualify for exemption are vastly different depending whether the programmer is paid hourly or salary. Hourly, the minimum pay for exemption is $27.63 per hour. For salary, the minimum pay is far less, specifically $455 per week ($11.38/hour assuming a forty-hour workweek).

This is, of course, federal statute in the United States, and individual states may have different laws.

Source: http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fs17e_computer.htm.

I'm not saying it's definitely what you want, but:

http://shop.oreilly.com/category/get/data-science-kit.do

That page was advertised on the front page of the site. Maybe these books are too basic; as you said, you don't need a quick review of data structures in R. But, they do at least have something.

I agree, though: I can't get very excited about e-book deals when I'm not sure of a topic in which one would be compelling anymore.

TFA seems to get a lot wrong, as is common for articles about legislation or litigation. I couldn't find the actual bill text, and I would like to read it. Any help here? More specifically, the two references to the bill that I saw appear wrong:

• There was this link, which goes to a Senate bill without a number. I don't even know whether it is the current version of the bill. I don't know the bill number to which to refer when contacting my Senators, since the bill number is blank. And this is going to vote next week?
• There is mention of H.R. 2471. But, that is a House bill, and it does not appear relevant to this discussion at all.

Any help here?

In this case, to me, the bills just look ineptly written. That's to be expected, in a way; writing bills is not especially easy, and it usually takes a collaboration of people to look at all the possibilities and get it right. Unfortunately, sometimes that collaboration introduces corruption into the bill as well, since certain legislators will work for special interests. I don't think these bills are any different from others in this way.

I don't know how federal bills get written. In my state, where I ran for legislature this year (and lost, but it was a good showing in a district that heavily favors the other major party), there is a legislative office with lawyers on staff who write all the actual bills.

A wiki approach might be good. On the other hand, imagine what would happen to your open-source software project if everyone could contribute, nothing was explicitly vetted, there was no ability to fork, and the result really mattered and was difficult to change. Congress would, of course, vet the bill by voting on it if they chose to do so. Groups write model legislation all the time. Maybe this is something that the EFF could do? Another posted suggested having EFF look at these bills, which could be a good starting point.

I took a look at both bills. I'm not optimistic.

I would need to dig more into the ECPA 2.0 bill, but there are, at a minimum, some technical problems with the bill's language. The purpose seems to be to abolish GPS tracking, but the language is weasel-y, and it needs to clarify some points such as interaction with state laws.

The Global Free Internet Act appears to do nothing useful. It would create a task force ripe for regulatory capture, and it would probably result in less accountability than having groups continue to lobby Congress. Also, some of the factual statements about the Internet are incorrect, especially when making assumptions about the Internet's "original purpose."

I'm not saying that we couldn't have quality legislation in these areas, but the proposed bills are lacking.

That pretty much says it all right there. The TSA approves something because it can be opened by a three-year-old, meaning their own employees might have a 50/50 shot at it.

OK.

I say that because I'm about to seek my party's nomination for state Senate. I'm not truly going public yet because the meeting that will allow my endorsement is not until June 7, and there are certain legal restrictions on what I can do before I file paperwork and the like. It appears that the incumbent would otherwise be running unopposed, and I cannot in good conscience let that happen.

Congratulations to you on your time in office and on your life moving forward!

You do realize that all military defendants facing court martial get military counsel for free, right? They can pay for civilian counsel at their own expense and keep their military counsel as well. (See The Military View section mid-page.)