Sorry, but to qualify for the "Too Big To Fail" corporate welfare program you must have contributed at least 1 million to various political campaigns in the past and show means to contribute at least that amount in the future. Politicians need to eat after all.

Luckily, he is James Risen from the New York Times and he only tipped off terrorists to how they were being tracked, so the Obama administration sees no need to press him further. If he were James Rosen from Fox News trying to keep watch on our own government, then he would be labeled a criminal co-conspirator and flight risk by Eric Holder so that they could trace his phone calls and emails.

The "something" that changed around 2000 is that people started expecting significantly more from software and programming became much exponentially more complex. I know plenty of Cobol programmers that can handle developing very basic green screens, but couldn't handle developing a 3-tier web application. At this point, software development changed from something that many people could do, to something that only very talented individuals could do.

"The followup question asks how Google believed one email product possibly target both casual (Gmail) and power (Inbox) users"

I must have a different definition of casual and power user.

If you did, it would be a pretty short war. I doubt you will find many Jedis on the side of the "New Testament".

According to Mark Zuckerberg, people like you don't exist. Which is why he absolutely needs the H1Bs to bring in all the offshore resources.

Isn't it interesting how Obama is using executive power to do all kinds of things and ignoring laws that he doesn't like (ex: immigration laws, Obamacare mandates, etc), but when something like this falls clearly within his power he does nothing?

According to the Obama administration, using waterboarding against known foreign terrorists to obtain critical information is wrong, but using a drone to kill Americans without due process is necessary.

I guess we know which side the Obama administration is on.

The IRS, like most big government agencies, are mostly filled with people who support big government agencies. On average, the leaders of these big government agencies are unlikely to be sympathetic to a party that claims to want to shrink the federal government (whether they actually do so is a topic for another thread). If the next president is a Republican, he/she is unlikely to get the IRS leadership to attack liberal groups like they have attacked conservative groups.

A few of those people were middle class when they went into Congress. Somehow they miraculously became millionaires while in Congress. Funny how that works.

This post is specifically about the NSA. The NSA is part of the Executive Branch. Obama, as head of the Executive Branch, can shut down the whole NSA very easily. He refuses to do so because of political reasons, not because he lacks the power to do so. He has NOT done everything he can to try to stop this. In fact, he has barely lifted a finger to try to stop this.

What do you consider congressional oversight? When the NSA Director tells congress an outright lie and faces no repercussions whatsoever, I would say that "congressional oversight" is pretty much a farce.

Let's apply the same standards to the NSA collecting data on all Americans. Since white people are more likely to own cell phones and use the internet, the NSA data collection will be racially biased and should be ended in the name of equality.

You think millions of years of evolution have only affected upper body strength?

http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ
"Boys generally demonstrate superiority over female peers in areas of the brain involved in math and geometry. These areas of the brain mature about four years earlier in boys than in girls, according to a recent study that measured brain development in more than 500 children. Researchers concluded that when it comes to math, the brain of a 12-year-old girl resembles that of an 8-year-old boy. "

I am constantly amazed at how naive the average American voter is. Obama was a guy who could give a good speech, but he had ZERO leadership accomplishments to his name. The most basic research into Obama's background should have given anyone pause that he could actually accomplish any of what he promised. He was a Senator, but couldn't point to a single legislative accomplishment. He was in the state senate, but had a record of just voting present on key bills and had no major bills to his name. He was a community organizer, but once again couldn't point to any significant accomplishments. He claims to be a legal scholar, but locked his school records.

For those of you who voted for Obama and are currently disappointed, I have a suggestion for you: next time do some background research on the person instead of just relying on campaign speeches and 30-second ads.