beowulf_cluster

Because that's a nonsensical strawman; those things aren't even related.

Personally, I see any employer advertising for a position with stricter requirements than what they'll hire as advertising their own dishonesty. It just makes them look bad.

Somewhere in Scandinavia. I don't know much about the area other than they score among the highest on self-reported happiness indicies[0]. I'm curious about what cultural differences are responsible for that result, and I suppose I'd like to enjoy them for myself.

[0]: http://www.medicaldaily.com/world-happiness-report-scandinav...

To be fair, he called Trump the "lessor" of two evils. Though, that seems like a low-ball figure.

Sure, there's never going to be unanimous agreement. Put it to a vote. I'm mainly just talking about letting the public choose which issues the leaders should focus on, and holding them accountable if they don't.

> It should be a goal, eventually.

Warning: Completely tangential musing/rant...

That "eventually" word is killing me. When we leave these sorts of issues up to the forces in power, they never seem to get done. What we get instead are watered-down, doomed-to-fail, design-by-political-committee "solutions" such as the ACA.

I think we need an official roadmap. I think the public deserves a direct voice in guiding the direction of the country. At the very least, I think we need to set in stone a clear vision of what milestones we want to achieve as a nation.

My entire lifetime, our leadership has repeatedly demonstrated it is incapable of moving us in any single direction long enough and far enough to be meaningful (aside from war, perhaps). Let us choose the direction; let them work-out the implementation.

/end rant

I'm just speaking my mind. What do you all think? Is this even a "good" idea? How could we even begin to make this happen?

In and of itself, the attempt to colonize Mars probably won't do much for the species. The value is in actually going through the paces: developing primary technologies, techniques, protocols, and doing research, especially observing how organisms (ultimately, humans) are affected by extraterrestrial life, etc.

If the worst comes to pass and the species needs to throw a hail mary, I have to think our chances of success would be improved (even if slightly) if we were to have these sorts of details ironed-out in advance.

Regarding 3: The encryption scheme we put into place probably isn't going to slow down a motivated actor. We have master decryption passphrases that are regularly disseminated among the admins and could foreseeably end up in the wild (if nothing else, it wouldn't be difficult to social engineer).

And recently, we've started transitioning to new encryption software. Our implementation of the software prohibits more than one encryption passphrase per machine. So, in order to share machines between employees, organizations have begun sharing the same passphrase across all the organization's machines.

Source: HPES employee working on NASA ACES contract

Whatever racism you think you're seeing is only in your head.

Top level commenter didn't call 1914 a "golden age"; they were merely lamenting some of the freedoms we lost a century ago.

> If it makes people uncomfortable to be told their [sic] racist for calling 100 years ago a golden age... maybe they should be uncomfortable?

Glossing over the faulty logic, is your entire motive for posting here is to distress the top-level commenter? You say you're not here to sway opinions. So you're just here to troll for the sake of trolling? I'll admit this is refreshingly candid, but could you just refrain from posting in the first place?

And the contention here is that it's inappropriate (unless you mean to suggest that diseases are sentient or otherwise capable of intention to foment terror) and overplayed, and it ultimately corrodes the meaning of and devalues the word.