Well,

Although they don't seem to wield it well, the folks sitting up there do wield a lot of power. The last thing you want to do is start attempting to show them up.

Of course it would be normal to think and want to react that way, but it would politically unwise. Someone in the beltway might forever burn a bridge that could stymie their career/ambitions. Someone outside the beltway could easily be mired in all kinds of bureaucratic nonsense that trickles down from someone(s) in congress., or congress itself.

It's just not worth making that kind of stand, because you have absolutely nothing to gain, and a whole lot to lose.

I could imagine that 99% (ok. a little hyperbole admittedly) of his "training" will be focused very much on this. The whole point of the exercise is to grin-and-bear-it given that it will be a "barrage of vacuous, ideological grandstanding". That is a *very* hard thing to do, especially hour after hour, without melting down out of frustration. Especially when he very likely believes he's the smartest guy in the room.

The training will be a lot of how to sit quietly, take it, find one thing to comment on to get your narrative out, and then sit back and take it again without getting amped up.

My model is Loretta Lynch. She was just unflappable.
  Watch some of her testimony before congress to get an idea of what they're trying to do with Zuckerberg.

True to the spirit of slashdot, I did not read the entire piece. But this stands out:

âoeThere's no way for an indie author to make a living without Amazon, so whatever nonsense they decide they're pulling this month is just one other thing we've got to put up with,â Trout said."

How was an indie author making it before Amazon? And where does it say Amazon has to ensure the business vitality of all writers? As others have said, they are a private business, and can conduct their business accordingly. If some indie writer of romance and erotica can no longer make a living writing this stuff, because Amazon's proprietary algorithms no longer rank these things, then boo-hoo. Amazon isn't there to entitle you to making a living the way you want to. This just seems to be much ado about nothing.

"...In actuality, FISA (the court) was given bad information, but worked as expected. For example, in addition to the dossier the FBI cited a newspaper article as corroboration evidence and told the court that Steele did not provide the info for the article. In reality, Steele did, in fact provide the information for the newspaper to print the article, the FBI knew this, and didn't tell the court...."

You are reading the memo at face value. Now, I suppose it's possible there is nothing else to this story than what is described in the memo. However, many believe (including a bunch of Dems on the committee who wrote their own memo, which the Reps won't release) that Nunes left out key facts, and cherry picked certain facts to advance his narrative.

It may well be true that information contained within the Steele Dossier was used to maintain the FISA warrant. And maybe that's bad, maybe it's not. It's hard to say, though as time moves along it seems like the dossier is certainly in the ballpark of right. But what's missing from this memo is *all* the other information that might have been used in the FISA request(s). That is the fundamental problem with the memo, and why people are so torqued over it's release. It tells one side of a story, with many saying that the facts contained with the narrative were cherry picked to advance an agenda.

"...Certain people broke the law, and broke it in a way that tried to seriously compromise our political system...."

Only per your reading of this memo. Maybe there is nothing more, and the memo represents events 100% in their entirety, accurately. But I seriously doubt it.

My apologies,

Sometimes I forget that there are extenuating circumstances behind the posts.

So really,

"I have no interest in interacting with my cell phone during a concert (or movie or any other type of paid entertainment)...."

Therefore, you don't need your phone in the concert.

"...But tell me I have to lock up my phone in a "pouch"..."

So if you have no interest in the phone, couldn't you simply leave the phone behind (like at home, in your car, or something) and then you don't have to worry about locking it up in their "pouch" in the first place.

The passion with which people insist nothing can stand in the way of them and their phone is rivaled only by the infant who cannot stand to be without a pacifier.

Interesting story,

and a solid post. But in all fairness to the summary (admittedly I didn't read the article. I'm not new here ;-) ), it says nothing about O'Leary not investing in something like a Starbucks, or any of the other myriad types of coffee house chains. It just says he wouldn't be a customer. But, I'm sure he's shrewd enough to recognize that even small margins, at high volume, can turn a profit.

I don't know,

maybe to you and I, $850 annually isn't going to make or break anything.

But take someone/household who/that is making some $50,000 or less a year (an arbitrary cutoff, but somewhat reflective of half the country). Take that $850 annually and invest it something, returning 9% a year (not a greedy return, but not conservative either).

In 40 years (a 20 something new to the workforce to a 65 something at retirement), you're talking over $300,000 in return. Now, I understand that's today's dollars, and it won't be worth what $300,000 is today.

Nevertheless, it's a chunk of money, and an important chunk of money to that part of the workforce that isn't earning a lot, probably isn't saving a lot, and likely isn't in a job with a great retirement package or long term prospects. And all because the person simply skipped a convenience store coffee. Keep smoking, drinking and buying lottery tickets all you want, but just drop the coffee, save that money, and it adds up over time. It's basic financial literacy that so many are ignorant of.

My uncle saw (while visiting Palm Beach many, many years ago) several stores with these big checks signed by Jackie Onassis. He asked a store employee about them. Evidently, she had these *large*, perfectly legal checks custom designed. She would pay for expensive merchandise using these checks knowing full well the store would frame the check as eye candy, rather than cash it.

Sounds like the writers over at "Silicon Valley" were already were aware of this. Wasn't it this last season that involved the hacking of intelligent refrigerators that saved the day?

Coincidence? I think not ... ;-)

That's all well and good,

and I'm sure Obama would have happily worked with congress to make this law, if he and congress had any ability to work together, which the last 4 some years of his presidency proved otherwise. Some blame Obama, some blame congress. I'll blame both.

Regardless, this is just evidence that the only guiding principle from which Trump operates is to unwind anything Obama had his name attached to. It's the most consistent behavior he's maintained throughout his early presidency.

People don't like DACA? Fine. Rolling it back is easy enough. As you point out, it's not a law. But why not simply grandfather everyone in, in perpetuity, and simply stop allowing new applicants.

I personally don't like that he is rolling it back, but so be it. I'm sure there are many who are quite happy. But doing so can be done in a much less provocative manner. Trump's desire to end the program entirely, and eventually send people back when their tenure expires, is just cruel. It's motivated by nothing more than some weird hard-on he has for everything related to Obama.

"..You are saying that an American citizen speaking with a Russian citizen must be evidence of nefarious collusion..."

This part I take issue with. If this were "American Citizen 1" speaking with "Russian Citizen 1" about what each had for dinner, captured in some sort of blanket surveillance of all communications between Americans and Russians, you're point is well taken. However, it's more likely that it was:

"American Citizen 1" speaking with speaking about matters that were well beyond what each had for dinner.

As such, with the context of the redacted transcripts available to whomever was requesting the identify of "American Citizen 1", I'll hope that the transcript(s) provided sufficient context to warrant knowledge of who "American Citizen 1" is.

Of course I don't know the details, but I choose to have some faith still that, at the end of the day, we're not moving towards a world that the comment I quoted above implies.

"... recovery of the sunken costs..."

Technically speaking, sunk costs can't be recovered. But you're point is well taken.

Unfortunately I don't have mod points. Hopefully someone will mod this up. But given you're only at a "3" at the moment, that pretty much answers your questions.

People aren't fact checking and just won't. In this day and age, it's easy enough to do. And I would certainly expect more from modded up commenters here. But people insist on firing off assertions as if they were fact. If the people here can't even be bothered, I have no hope for the general public.

It's a shame really.

Here,

let me save us all the trouble:

Question 1: You've become an overnight household name as a consequence of a manufactured controversy. Since then, you've managed to grow a cult-following by engaging the controversy rather than hiding from the attention. Do you enjoy your new celebrity status enough to justify the headaches the media attention has brought you?

"On the advice of counsel I invoke my 5th amendment privilege against self incrimination and respectfully decline to answer your question."

Question 2: Prescription drug prices don't seem to follow the same price trends as most other consumer commodities. Can you cast some insight into the process of pricing a prescription medication? Do you have any thoughts on the fairness of the perception that drug prices are excessively volatile? Is this perception deserved? In either case, what are some of the underlying causes behind prescription drug price volatility?

"On the advice of counsel I invoke my 5th amendment privilege against self incrimination and respectfully decline to answer your question."

Question 3: Do you believe the environment for pricing pharmaceuticals in the United States is optimal, or favorable to innovation and research that best benefits patients?

"On the advice of counsel I invoke my 5th amendment privilege against self incrimination and respectfully decline to answer your question."

Question 4: You've frequently expressed your desire to invest more money in researching new treatments and cures for diseases. What changes or reforms to the United States healthcare industry and relevant regulations would be most effective in maximizing health outcomes for patients?

"On the advice of counsel I invoke my 5th amendment privilege against self incrimination and respectfully decline to answer your question."

Question 5: What is the single most counterproductive aspect of the United States legal and regulatory structure surrounding health care and drug research?

"On the advice of counsel I invoke my 5th amendment privilege against self incrimination and respectfully decline to answer your question."

Question 6: In most colleges, the computer science, computer engineering, and electrical engineering departments are awash with student interest in these majors. Do you feel that the healthcare industry is suffering from a "brain drain" or talent-loss as a result of differences in perceived profitability and ROI for those education dollars? If so: do you expect the common desire to found a Silicon Valley "Unicorn" startup could be redirected to inspire those students to research treatments for diseases if the government changed its approach to healthcare regulations?

"On the advice of counsel I invoke my 5th amendment privilege against self incrimination and respectfully decline to answer your question."

Question 7: In my biology class, I learned that there are many sponges in the mediterranean which appeared to offer opportunities to research new antibiotics. The academic who was researching these sponges lamented about a lack of interest from the pharmaceutical industry in researching new antibiotics because the ones we had now worked "well enough". When I encounter news stories like this: http://www.newsweek.com/2016/0... I'm left with some level of dissonance between two anecdotes which seem impossible to reconcile. Clearly, victims of war are not especially well-equipped to vote with their dollars, but this alleged lack of interest in researching new antibiotics seems endemic of a more systemic issue. Do you believe the search for new antibiotics deserves more research funding than they currently receive? Is there a hype-gap between the threat of antibiotic resistance being portrayed in the media and the risk antibiotic resistance actually poses? Do you believe that antibiotic research funding reflects an appropriate priority level relative to the risk these superbugs pose?

"On the advice of counsel I invoke my 5th amendment privilege against self incrimination and respectfully decline to answer your question."

Question 8: Antibiotic resistant tuberculosis is alleged to be a growing problem in some developing countries such as India. Do you believe that this would be less of a problem if generic drugs were unavailable? Would increasing the supply of "affordable antibiotics" likely make this problem better, or worse? Is it hopeless to attack a public health problem by manipulating drug prices, when the core issue is malinvestment in sanitation infrastructure?

"On the advice of counsel I invoke my 5th amendment privilege against self incrimination and respectfully decline to answer your question."

Now we can move on to the next interview.