Our constitution was created as a series of compromises without which there would never have been a United States. Chief among these was the Connecticut Compromise – one that blended the Virginia Plan (a legislature determined by population) with a Senate where representation would be equal for each state (2 senators per state). The smaller states – Connecticut and Rhode Island – would not have joined the United States without it, because they felt that the Virginia Plan would mean that the larger states (New York and Virginia) would have all the control. This principle is also embodied in the Electoral College – a popular vote for President and Vice President was proposed and discussed, but the Electoral College was adopted to remove a difficulty with the South (that of slavery) and a difficulty of the smaller states (the fear that the larger states would effectively always elect the President). In James Madison’s Federalist Papers (No 39) he explained that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of State-based and population-based government. Yes, the U.S. system is unique, but so was the problem of States rights – without a solution to that problem there would never have been a United States in the first place. So the question is, should the Presidential election always be decided by small pockets of highly populated places (i.e. the cities), and thus ignore the sentiment of the rural areas of the country? Or does the electoral college create that balance that our founding fathers actually intended it to have, created a situation where there is greater chance for everyone’s voice to be heard? It’s always easy to say it’s wrong when it’s your desire that is ignored, but it’s only happened 5 times out of 56 so what do we really gain by removing this aspect of the original compromise?

All food that is produced by humans through agriculture and farming has been genetically modified in some way, even though much of it happened in ancient times. Corn would cease to exist without humans. Almonds would all be poisonous. Cattle would not be docile. Wheat would scatter it's seeds before we could collect them. Man has been genetically modifying its food for thousands of years - even if we didn't always understand that's what we were doing. We actually understand the consequences of what we are doing far better than we ever did - because we are doing it consciously with science. This is what he discovered.

It surprises me that no one has pointed out that in the U.S. at least, there is no explicit right to privacy. You only have to pick up a copy of the Constitution - it's not a very long document (even with the amendments) - and no where does it mention any right to privacy. What legal scholars say about this is that the right to privacy is *implied* in the Constitution by the nature of the rights enumerated there - for example, the right to be free from most search and seizure implies there is a right to privacy in the home. But there is no explicit right to privacy. The *implied* right was the basis for the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in the U.S. (simplified, a woman's implied right to privacy gives her the right to terminate a pregnancy). This is not to say that there isn't an assault on privacy, but understanding the right is the first step to combating those trying to take it away.

All too often IT organizations spend all their effort telling the business managers what they cannot do rather than what they can - so getting a new project off the ground with in house resources becomes increasingly frustration. "We do not have enough resources to support that...", "Your project doesn't confirm to our standards...", "We'll 'agree' to support it as long as you make these changes...". Contrast this with a cloud provider that actually wants your business. True they may not be truthful about what they provide and you very well may be better off in house, but a new project in house can be very hard to start. IT managers who are flexible and 'influence' rather than 'dictate' are worth their weight...

When you get an opportunity to publicize it, try telling us what it does! Seems like that would be the best first step. FOSS is Darwin - you have to be confident that you are solving a problem, or at least solving it better than its been solved before. If you have, you'll be able tto defend against the inevitable cynicism.