All those arches in Rome seem to be holding up pretty well after thousands of years.

I saw some arrowheads in a museum that looked as ready for use as when someone left them there.

"'If you look at the late 19th Century,' he says, Victorian clerks could stand at their desks and 'moved around a lot more'. 'It's possible to look back at the industrial office of the past 100 years or so as some kind of weird aberration in a 1,000-year continuum of work where we've always moved around.'"

If you look at any time in the past million years of our history, I doubt you're going to find a time when people stayed nearly perfectly so still for so long, standing or sitting. We even sit still when we travel from one place to another, which I can guarantee never happened before, even when we rode horses.

The difference between sitting at a desk all day or standing at a desk all day seems to me like the choice between someone punching you in the face or slapping you in the face. The position of the hand is small compared to someone hitting you in the face.

If you're at a desk all day and took a car to get there, whether you sit or stand seems to me a negligible difference compared to how anyone you inherited genes from behaved, except, maybe, when they were sick or about to die. I suspect that before the industrial revolution even when people sat around, they still moved around a fair amount relative to today.

It also says nothing about whether their computer has been infected.

By the principle of "Quality, price, speed, pick any two," when you ask for price and speed, just know what you're asking for.

Yo dawg! I heard you liked monitoring people so we got some monitoring people to monitor your monitoring people so you can monitor your monitoring people while you monitor people!

Yo dawg! I heard you like policing your state so we got you some police to police your police so you can police your police while you police your state!

Reviews so far sound suspiciously like

No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.

But personally I'll hold out until it runs Linux. I don't need backdoors watching everything I watch.

TFA Headline: "Three former NSA workers accused of aiding Snowden"

A more responsible headline: "The rest of the NSA accused of violating the Fourth Amendment rights of the entire nation, undermining the interests of the nation and its people, and destabilizing the checks and balances keeping the nation strong for over two centuries."

> Others Implicated in Making Snowden Data Leaks Possible

Since Snowden mentioned Clapper's lying to Congress got him to release the documents, I'd start by implicating Clapper.

From there it's hard not to implicate the Presidents who didn't honor their pledge to uphold the Constitution. Congress. Decision-makers within the NSA.

Without all of them, there would be nothing for Snowden to release.

He could increase funding to public transportation and decrease subsidies to oil, which would decrease demand and therefore funds. I suspect decreasing military funding and other welfare would decrease demand. He could manate increased car and building efficiency. He could increase funding to renewable energies.

Off the top of my head I can see many ways Obama can at least decrease it.

I was going to suggest it would soon be easier to list what online communications they don't collect, but I think we passed that point a while ago.

Is there any online privacy they show signs of respecting?

Do they see any reason not to do what they're doing? I mean, the Fourth Amendment didn't seem like much of a road block.

They are a kangaroo rubber-stamp court objecting to doing other than what they were appointed to do, which is to unthinkingly say yes. I can't imagine anyone with any pride in their country feeling anything other than overwhelming shame and disgust for their role in this banana-republic activity. Except self-interested cronies.

Since they could be replaced by a rubber stamp that said "Yes" with nearly no change to what the court does except to save probably tens of millions of dollars per year, they're probably concerned about losing their jobs.

Can you imagine what Jefferson or John Adams would say about this possibly unconstitutional corruption of justice? This court could scarcely be farther from their ideals. Of course they're united in opposition. They're united because their bosses gave them all the same instructions. Why would we expect any one of them to say or act independently of anyone else?

> Stormy Alien Atmospheres May Spark Seeds of Life

Life started at least once here, why not elsewhere?

With any luck we'll achieve intelligent life before them too, but I'm not holding my breath.

> "he used to describe leaker Edward Snowden as a "defector""

He is a defector. Away from the rogue near-nation of the NSA and toward the United States' Constitution.

6 days.

On the seventh day he ate pasta, probably noodly.

> "He also said the program, far from being unnecessary, could prevent the next 9/11."

Why stop there? If you put everyone in jail you'll prevent attacks too.

And give us all tracking collars and big bonuses for yourself and your crony pals for the contracts to fulfill all the work.

As long as we don't consider unintended consequences, history, or conflicting interests like the Constitution and public opinion, expanding surveillance makes a lot of sense.

Then again, the slightest thought to any of these things makes him sound like a total idiot, if not a traitor.