Worked well enough for my Dad at Xerox. Granted he got laid off for a couple years but got rehired when it went to shit and got quite the hefty raise and extra retirement out of the deal :)

Not a plan I'd recommend obviously, but hey :)

As an interesting aside, should 'utilities' providing critical infrastructure be subject to more stringent hiring requirements?

Similar to how national security jobs require a gov't clearance, should workers on critical infrastructure require similar concept of vetting?

Step 3. Containment anyone? If something does go wrong, it's going to do wonders for local marine life...

I can make a computer hack proof. It has to be feasible and usable too. Besides, it's not like oil rigs sink or anything...

the point of the constitution is to address issues in fairness. Doesn't deal with everything, but it's the core basic point of the document.

To paraphrase a bit:

Those who give up some security for some efficiency deserve neither.

Seriously, you don't engineer CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE to be insecure simply because you don't want to run 2 sets of wires. It's simply a cost of doing the job correctly - which we haven't yet.

Presto nuttin. Disabled USB ports don't give you much

Attaching it to the PUBLIC INTERNET is bad. Said 'laborer' can still happily sit in his office making a change to an air-gapped system that IS connected directly to the substation.

There's simply no point in having the same system that runs critical stuff also be able to browse Facebook.

Context matters. I never said he didn't do anything for space exploration. In response to a statement saying NASA only wants 'manned' missions, I showed an example where even a small unmanned program was heavily defended by NASA.

Nope, it was a cost cutting measure pure and simple. There's plenty the voyager's can still do that absolutely nothing else can or will be able to do for the next 40 years - measure the heliopause.

They haven't reached the end...hence why NASA stood in pretty heavy lockstep to protect them.

When they find it takes a hour to print? not so much.

5-10 minutes tops before people are going to accept it. And that's if you can completely remove any user interaction with the technical side.

It's a 'printer' and they will expect it to work (and likewise the user not work) like one from 2010, not 1980.

Nope. George Bush tried to cancel the Voyager programs (for a paltry 4 million in savings). He was informed there would be a human shield preventing anyone trying to turn them off.

You know what's 'very unlikely'? A /. poster having any clue about Europa that NASA doesn't already know in it's sleep.

how do you think volcanoes work? melting rock only near the surface?

Besides, with ice formation it doesn't destroy evidence of organisms that were in the water.

We'll never be able to fly
We'll never be able to go into space
We'll never be able to land on the moon
We'll never be able to have civil and informative political discussions....

Ok, the 4th might be true, but 'never' and human ingenuity shouldn't be lumped together very often.

From the EEOC's website:

It does NOT cover you holding and expressing views you're employer dislikes.

Nobody said it was oppression, they are freely speaking their minds. Nothing wrong with it at all. Both sides should probably expect holding and expressing their views may have unintended consequences, but nobody is remotely claiming they are being oppressed.