Don't you feel stupid wearing that tinfoil hat?
Not if you cock it at a jaunty angle.
But continue thinking your MBAs are better. You keep believing delusions.
The question wasn't whether an MBA is "better," it was "who are these people looking for ultrabooks that can't lift and carry 5.47 pounds?" And the answer is, those for whom 2-1/2 pounds makes a difference in business travel, around a campus or on public transportation, particularly when the weight of the laptop is added to the weight of other items in one's bag.
Jeh Johnson, the secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said if H-1B workers are being used to replace U.S. workers, then "it's a very serious failing of the H-1B program."
If Mr. Johnson closes his eyes all the way, he won't see U.S. workers being replaced by H-1B workers.
Even still, who are these people looking for ultrabooks that can't lift and carry 5.47 pounds??
People who travel extensively and have enough other crap in their backpack or bag that an additional 2.5 pounds makes a difference as they trudge through airports, between meetings or around a large campus. Dropping from a 5+ pound ThinkPad to a 3-pound MBA made a noticeable difference, both in combination with other things in my bag, and on its own.
Why "ride the coattails" rather than "stand on the shoulders of giants"?
Because there are economic costs and returns to many FOIA requests. Removing all exclusivity of access to the response will expose a reporter's work (that is, the request), and lower the value of the response, which will in turn remove some or all of the incentive for digging, which in turn is a net negative to society. On the other hand, giving a FOIA requester a period of exclusive access to the response retains the value while still allowing you to stand on a giant's shoulders in a timely manner.
If access is restricted, the information is being kept private.
No additional privacy restrictions are being requested on the public information, only on the specific response to a request. The publicly accessible information that is returned in the response is available to you upon FOIA request.
If the process is a "maze", that suggests a process improvement to be made, not an excuse to privatize public information.
The information isn't being made private; you are free to request a copy, rather than ride the coattails of someone else's research. Removing the tollgate is a laudable goal, but as long as it remains in place, there is demonstrable public value in providing journalists incentive for digging. And that incentive is currently exclusive access to the response to their FOIA.
I'm not overly sympathetic toward people wanted to hoard FOIA data for themselves
No one is hoarding - you are free to get the same information by running the FOIA maze yourself. They are asking that their work and expense in prying information out of the government be rewarded with exclusive access to the answer to their request. Others are free to request the same information separately. Given the toll gate in front of the information, there is demonstrable public value in giving journalists incentive for digging.
We all "own" it, we have a right to see it, and if we ask, we can.
Releasing a FOIA result only to the person who requested it does not abridge another person from asking for it. If you'd like to see the materials, you can spend the time and money to navigate the FOIA maze, rather than riding on the coattails of someone else's outlay.
I guess you slept through that election if you think Romney outspent Obama.
It was pretty much a draw, though Obama directly controlled more of his spending.
panic: kernel trap (ignored)