The NSA agents have no reason why they wouldn't sell any intel to the highest bidder, since there's no traceability nor accountability (remember that the agents only got caught because they confessed; somebody selling the same info would never do that). I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of US companies that'd love to get their hands on the intel the NSA collects.

Unlike Edward Snowdon spys within the NSA wouldn't go telling the entire world what they'd been up to. Also the NSA undoubtedly freely exchanges information with "partners". So a US company might find it easier to get hold of such information in London or Tel Aviv...

And sometimes in the EU the bottled water actually even is tap water...

This can be the case elsewhere in the world too. No doubt some of it comes with pictures on the lable and a name to make people think it is something else.

Moderating by scientists in the field seems better than letting some gatekeeper decide which new ideas get to see the light of day, and which get deep sixed simply because they are unpopular points of view at the moment.

Even for more trivial reasons like disliking the author or where they are from.
Science isn't ment to work by "argumentum ad populum" or "argumentum ad auctoritatem" in the first place.

How much actual damage can be done by publishing rubbish? (Its a serious question, because I don't pretend to know the answer). Aren't all results subject to verification by peers anyway?

Sometimes a good way to test a theory can be obvious to an "outsider", but completly overlooked by "experts in the field". Even more potential "loss of face" if it's someone pointing out a basic flaw in the reasoning behind a popular theory.

Systems "just work" and installing software is no more difficult than looking for what you need in an "app store" just like on a phone.

In what kind of enterprise system does any kind of "app store" make any sense at all. The "personal computer"
Also if you have a need for per anything licenced software you'd tend to also need a suitable licence tracking system. An obvious advantage here of OSS is that it effectivly comes with a site/enterprise licence.

Because, while Linux doesn't have Active Directory, it has other benefits that Windows does not have. So, if you define your criteria to be "must support Active Directory", then, obviously, Linux doesn't pass. If, on the other hand, you define your requirement as (for example), "must support SELinux", then Linux is your only choice.

Effectivly they appear to be saying "The Windows way of doing things is the best/only way to do it". (Or possibly "The only way I know of is the Windows method.")

As for the "nice GUI tools", they may make manageability easy, but they don't make it efficient.

It's quite possible for "inefficient" to equate to "hard". e.g. if they expect you click X boxes for everything in list Y. Rather than just being able to tell the machine "Do X to everything in list Y and don't bug me til you've finished".

The best part is that they often explode while still airborne!

Often these explosions are actual gasoline. In a plastic bottle with some other explosive attached triggered by pyrotechnicians though :)

Separate sewers are much better from an environmental point of view because they don't wastefully put surface water through the sewage treatment system and are much less likely to end up releasing raw sewage during storms but are rather hard to retrofit.

Except that a separate system means you have twice as many underground pipes to build and maintain.

Gasoline doesn't burst into flames the second it touches air, you know. The vast majority of tank punctures in gasoline/diesel vehicles end with an empty tank and a stinky mess on the road.

Leaking diesel is very hard to ignite (so is aviation turbine fuel). They tried this on Mythbusters. Thery've also tried multiple times to create fuel tank explosions. Even gasoline typically only burns as a gas mixed with air. (With the resulting radiant heat tending to help boil any nearby which is in its liquid state.) One thing fuel leaks are good at is damaging asphalt road surfaces.

Yes, indeed, if a well written letter can create a response of ..

But it can't and doesn't. So there's that.

Lastly, can I be the first to point out that Popular science has very little to do with science and hasn't in well over 50 years? They are to Science what the Enquirer is to hard news sites. ... which makes people that care about Popular Science's move sound even more out of touch. People making a big deal out of this mystify me.

FTFY

A new California law will require local bars to eliminate any alcohol consumed by minors from their bodies on demand. Supporters say this new law will reduce the amount of drunk-driving and poor decisions made by drunk minors. It might help them avoid personal and work-related problems.

Maybe a simpler option would be only to allow adults to drive.

"Googeling" somebody is not as easy as you make it sound. It already requires careful checks to make sure you have the right person and it requires interpretation by experienced experts.

It also depends on how common a name someone has. If they have a very common name it can be difficult finding the right person at all.
This has been an issue even since the invention of the telephone directory. With the added complication that the distribution of names of telephone subscribers, Facebook users, "Tweeters", etc need not be that of the general population.

A lot of companies are deathly afraid of a scandal, and it is easier to cut it off in the hiring process than to fire people later. (Which means you get sneaker scoundrels, which is what they want, I guess.)

Or simply those with the most common names...

The open internet does not forget widely shared information. Closed, walled-garden systems such as facebook are capable of forgetting.
Don't believe me? Lets test it. I will delete a picture from facebook in the next ten minutes. Try and recover it.

Are you issuing that challenge to Facebook and/or NSA? Since Facebook is a closed system only a few people have any way of knowing what might happen when a user tries to "delete" something. (Even if this differs depending on user attributes...)