OK, I may have seemed a bit strong on my Scroogeness. When you have children, giving them gifts and, yes, receiving handmade gifts from them is wonderful. I never said it wasn't (if you read what I wrote).

But I stand by my contention that adults giving gifts to other adults is, for the most part, just wrong.

When you are close to another adult and wish to give them something special, that's great but, in my opinion, that's what birthdays are for -- a time for a special gift to someone special. (Although, why wait for some arbitrary day? Just give a friend a gift if you want to, any time).

Chirstmas has become too commercial where you go deeply into debt, buying unwanted things for other adults you don't even know very well -- just because "it's expected". Now that's wrong.

Where there may be exceptions, there is nothing wrong with simply banning adult to adult gifting on Christmas. Trust me, pretty much every adult involved will be grateful. Instead, let it be a time of getting together for family and friends.

Christmas gifts are for children.
If I want something, I'll buy it. If I don't own something, that means I don't want it.
Holidays are for visiting friends and family, getting together and having fun.
Giving other adults gifts? Fuhgeddaboudit. Buy your own damn junk - then you get exactly what you want - and undoubtedly spend less money.
No more "I don't know what Uncle Fred would like. What do you think?" Bah!

So... make everything you pick up to eat look like a giant blue dog turd???

No, it damn well isn't elegant. The fact that you think so simply means that you haven't a bloody clue what you're talking about.

Those URLs of "known piracy sites" are the same URLs of sites that host significant amounts of perfectly legal content.

There are two scenarios that Verizon can follow:
- Invade everyone's privacy and inspect everything being downloaded, or
- Assume everyone who downloads more than a "certain amount" is "a pirate -- even when they aren't.

Whichever scenario Verizon chooses, it will be very wrong.

No, not "elegant" at all. Really, really bad. You really haven't a clue what you are talking about.

That phrase you keep using, "walled garden", I don't think it means what you think it means.

I'll assume this is a troll -- on a thread about the suppression of free speech, a bit of flamebait to goad others to attack your "hate speech".

I'd have to say, it's a nice bit of ironic trolling.

Having just gone through a job change and being ... older ... I'd say this is perhaps the best advice so far.

Be enthusiastic about the work you will be doing. Be up to date, or close to it, on the skills that the work will require. Don't just talk about what you've done but talk about what you will do when you are hired.

And remember that a smile takes years off of your face.

One of the first lessons to be learned in a unionized shop is that doing the absolute minimum gets paid exactly as much as working really hard and trying to excel.

Second lesson to be learned is what is the absolute minimum necessary to avoid getting fired?

Third lesson is how to suck up to the union bosses so that, even when you drop below the minimum work level, they'll still protect you.

If companies conspire against employees, it's against the law, they get caught and punished. Now, why do we need unions?

LOL! Yeah, sure.

Today, unions exist to protect jobs - meaning that a poorly performing worker is protected and cannot be fired.

Technical people admire knowledge, ability and competence above anything else. And they are disgusted by incompetence, which makes everybody's work more difficult.

The idea of actually protecting incompetence (via unions) goes against the whole technical culture. No, unions are not coming to the development community.

You do your job. Many of these data centers are part of and important to communication, rescue operations, information. When you work there, you might not know how important that particular data center may be but -- you do your job.

Whatever part of the city you can keep operating is good.

Don't criticize what you know nothing about.

Umm... You don't seem to understand the difference between Google's stock Android and the customized carrier version of Android. You don't seem to understand the difference between hardware problems and Android. You don't seem to understand the difference between apps and the o/s.

You certainly may complain about "Android" all you want, but you really should attempt to differentiate between all the various players and assign the correct responsibility rather than just say "Android, horrible!" Android is really quite wonderful. Carrier customizations, not so much. Some hardware isn't very up to the task and many of the apps can be pretty bad.

To just dump all the many various factors into one lump you call "Android" isn't very useful.

There is absolutely no proof that Google does "prioritize their services and the services of their partners". Google says they don't and the anti-Google folks claim Google does (but with no proof).

Now, why is it assumed that what the anti-Google folks claim is true but what the Google folk claim is false? Why do that? Why not either assume innocence "until proven guilty" or, at least, recognize that there are opposing claims, neither of which is proven and either might be true. Why assume guilt when nothing has been proven?

Ah, but that is not the proven fact you pretend it is. There is no proof at all that Google tweaks its results to put its own services at the top of the list. You have assumed guilt that has never been established in order to "prove" that Google is guilty.

Even companies are assumed innocent until proven guilty. That's called "justice" and if you don't like it, tough.