Once corrected for age demographics (which people tallying raw numbers usually forget to do), the suicide rate in US military is lower than civilian population.
There's probably all manner of "corrections" you can do to make yourself feel all superior and to denigrate the folks actually doing the work.
Rather impressive for organization whose purpose is to kill, maim and blow up shit.
Why do you think that's impressive? You think everyone who served is nothing but a suicidal maniac who wants nothing more than to "kill, maim, and blow up shit"?
Cost seems like a good explanation. I have no idea how long it takes to wash an entire building, but at the pay rate quoted in the story they could employ two guys for a whole year for under $300,000. A really good machine would probably be a million dollars to design and implement and would still need maintenance and probably a full-time guy to operate it.
And on top of that - it would probably be a custom solution. (Meaning expensive to maintain, and very expensive to replace when it could no longer be maintained.)
That's what the summary want you to believe. However, it's the summary that ignorant - because the submitter cannot seem to grasp that back in the 70's it was quite possible for kids in one place to have the opportunity and kids in another to not have that opportunity.
I really shouldn't have to explain this, but as bias has already replaced facts in the summary and your reply, I guess I have to.
Back then (remember, we're talking the 1970's), not everyone (even at 'elite' schools) had the opportunity to interact with a computers - especially if you weren't in a computer or science field. For kids at home? Home computers were very unusual. Home computers with a video screen and a modem and acess to a mainframe? Don't make me laugh. It's true in the latter half of the 70's that home computers began to be available and affordable, but they simply weren't that widespread. Radio Shack was selling the TRS-80 and it's derivatives... at the stunning rate of 10,000 a year. Commodore PET's sold at a similar rate, as did the Apple II (And the US had a population of 225 million - you do the math.) Nor did we have the public internet or the WWW.
Now of course, we're going to have some other old farts pipe up and explain that *they* had access to this stuff back then - and then indulge in the logical fallacy of generalizing from their experience. (To those who make the mistake of claiming I'm doing the same - go back and look at those sales numbers in the previous paragraph. And digging around, I find similiar sales numbers for mini-computers in the same era.) They're wrong six ways from Sunday, computers simply weren't part of the everyday life of most people and almost all kids back in the 1970's. In 1978, my dad helped a local hospital install their first ever computerized patient data system.* The year I graduated high school (1981), it's was (local) newsworthy that the local stores of a major national chain were installing a computerized POS system. (The guy they moved into town to manage them was our neighbor.) They weren't even networked - tapes were shipped back and forth and he had to drive around town installing the tapes and collecting the ones with sales data to be shipped back to Headquarters. (I didn't even see my first punch card until my sophomore year in high school - and it was from Ma Bell.)
That is the reality of computers in the late 1970's and very early 1980's. They were just barely beginning to move out of academia and the big corporations. Individual (home/turnkey) computers were available, but were pretty rare. Networks of computers practically unheard of. In the year Secretary Duncan would have graduated high school (1982), we were indeed on the cusp of a great revolution - but it hadn't happened yet. It would be almost another decade before home computers (and thus the chance for kids to interact with them) became nearly ubiquitous. And even so, as a computer salesman in '91 and '92 I still had to explain to people what computers were and why it was a good idea to have one, especially if they had kids.
So, being a year older than Secretary Duncan, I don't find it all surprising he didn't have the chance to learn to code when he was a kid. I did, but I was a very inquisitive geek, he doesn't appear to have been. Nor do I find it surprising that he doesn't know about a semi-obscure academic experiment that happened when he was a kid. (And that seems to have actually trained only a couple of thousand kids across a decade and a half.) Nor does it actually matter much that he didn't, because the reality is the opportunity was very rare when he was a kid.
*Which I always thought odd, because he was a printer with pretty much no experience with computers. It wasn't for many years that I found out that the hospital had hired him to help adapt their existing paper flow to the computer flow. (Back then, it frequently was printers who designed forms and often helped design the data flow - because the physical con
Managing people is a specific skillset, and not an easy one to master. And it's an important one, that computer geeks wrongly dismiss in much the same way that MBAs wrongly dismiss technical skillsets.
The problem with geeks isn't so much they dismiss management skillsets, as they dismiss pretty much every non-geek skillset or imagine that said all such sets can be reduced and converted square-peg-into-round-hole into the geek skillset. They also strongly tend to have what I call the "worm's eye view problem"... they see what the world looks like from their desk, and assume that's the whole of the world. (Though this problem isn't limited to geeks, they're particularly susceptible to it due to the aforementioned mistaken belief that every skillset is a subset of the geek set.)
And then one day they have to do a bosses job. That's when they find out that there's way more to it than they imagined.
Yep. When I was in the Navy, one of my juniors bitched about his workload and lack of sleep and how he couldn't wait to be senior... so I put him on my schedule for a week. He was remarkably meek after that.
Still think they should take photos with RGB filters too so we can see what it would actually look like, you know, for PR photos...
No doubt they will, if they have time and power. But they're sharply limited on both, and I doubt the color images actually have all that much more PR value. (Not that PR has ever been shown to translate into actual public support mind you.)
I'm still wondering why they couldn't get the Rosetta spacecraft itself to be the lander. It's a much bigger platform, it has a proper RCS system and could easily land and take off to scout multiple locations on the comet.
Bigger means more vulnerable to rough terrain, and we really knew nothing about the terrain on the comet when the probe was launched. (And actually, we only have a sample size of one, now.) Making the whole spacecraft a lander also puts the entire mission at risk in the event of a landing incident or accident. Philae is a stretch goal, not the primary goal, and I don't think everyone understands that. The mission would be a scientific success, and worth the costs, even if the lander didn't separate.
Going all in on the first try of mission already fairly risky (even without the lander) is a very Kerbal thing to do.... But it's not so smart (IMNSHO) in the real world where you have to balance all the various risks against overall mission and science goals.
how can a publicly traded company possibly justify such investments to stockholders?
Trivially - because in all respects that matter, Google isn't a publicly traded company. There's two classes of stock and the one you can go buy as GOOG has no voting rights, no dividend rights, and is second in line for the assets of the company in the event of dissolution. The one that you can't buy on the open market has all those rights - and those shares are only held by a small circle of insiders and vulture capitalists. And (IIRC) Page and Brin own enough of those between that they can tell the others to go pound sand.
In effect, if Page and Brin agree that something should be done because it sounds cool... it's a done deal because they're the only stockholders that matter.
It's a fairly shit job (Hey! It's time for work! 99.99% chance says it'll be a long stretch of pure boredom in some unpleasant bunker with a few instances of my superiors fucking with me as part of a 'routine drill'. Failing that, I get to be responsible for a few million deaths!)
24 hours on watch in a bunker, with maybe a short drill or two? *yawn*.
I sat console (mumble) feet under the North Atlantic six out of every eighteen, with no TV and no daylight for three months. And back in my day, no laptops or portable game devices, or email, or... pretty much any personal electronics beyond a cheap-ass cassette player. Monday through Friday, ships drills in the morning and training most afternoons - both of which you racked out for if you weren't on watch. Saturday morning was field day. Most days, on top of all that I averaged 2-4 hours off watch working on quals, handling collateral duties, or standing proficiency watches. The guys who had to do their maintenance off watch had it even worse.
(And all this on a 640 class, an original 41' boat - not a 726 class Hilton. I'd been a month away from home before we even went to sea.)
Color me unimpressed that they're all emo because they have to spend a whole twenty four hours in a bunker.
How would you make doing a job like that not burn people out?
The same way they did in the Cold War - treat 'em like an elite and kick the lesser performers to the curb. Figure out how to give them a valid career path. Make 'em feel needed and coddled and wanted. (And even then they whined like little toddlers about that 24 hour thing.)
I would suggest finding additional articles and commentary by additional people to get a more nearly rounded view of the situation for Missile Combat Crews.
I don't know where you've been for the last few years shipmate, but the story coming out of the USAF (from a variety of sources) has pretty much been what's recounted here - the USAF nuclear forces are badly fucked up. Their gear is old and ill maintained. Their training substandard. The supervision and chain of command below substandard. Etc... etc...
Your loyalty to your service, especially here on the eve of Veterans Day, does you credit - but you're way, way out of touch with what's been going on over the last decade.
They've also got the advantage that being based inside the continental US they are nearly completely secure and the ICBMs are at the current time essentially unstoppable because you'd need an interceptor in the western hemisphere to shoot them down and the ability to deliver multiple warheads on one missile which submarines lack.
Huh?
Boomers on patrol are also "nearly completely secure", in some ways even more secure because they're on the move while no silo has moved, ever. And the submarine force has had the ability to deliver multiple warheads against multiple targets ever since Poseidon entered service in 1971.
Were sober when you read my message? Or at least have an IQ above freezing?
Because your reply indicates that you have no fucking clue what I'm talking about. I'm not even sure how you have sufficient connection with reality to even know who the President is.
He claims that he can get things done without Congress because he has a "phone and a pen," launches personal attacks against legislators and his critics, and uses the genetic fallacy in his arguments regularly.
That more reflects his background - street level activist and local politics, where that's how things are done. That's not really appropriate at the national level, where he had very little experience before becoming President. The result is that he views Congress as damage to be routed around (not that he's entirely wrong about that, and I say that as a conservative who's greatly dismayed at the sway the nutjob fringe holds on the Right) and tries to handle that in much the same manner he did back then... which doesn't really work as personal influence and the Party Machine hold much less sway at the national level.
Now as to Obama, he did order Gitmo shut down. What happened? Congress rebelled, even Democrats, spinning up fear of Magneto-like supervillians too dastardly to contain in American prisons. Congress passed a law making it illegal to bring Gitmo prisoners and not only did Obama fail to veto it, he signed it into law.
There, fixed that for you.
Seriously, I'm getting just a little fucking tired of the "Obama wanted to fix it, but the evil Congress blocked him" meme. Congress can pass laws - but they only become law either with the active cooperation of the President or only via an explicit override. President Obama has only vetoed two things to date - one utterly meaningless bill on notarizations, and one all but meaningless continuing budget resolution.
I suppose a more forceful President might be able to prevail on the Congress more often, Teddy Roosevelt-style
I cant even have dinner conversation with someone over the age of 30 in the USA without rampant jingoism and political correctness.
As someone well over thirty - I'm gonna call bullshit on this one. Either you're overgeneralizing or you're the actual problem.
I have random friends at school. I can't tell them about the horrors I've seen. I don't dare. I don't want to be ostracized.
Sounds like you're the problem here. What kind of sick fuck wants to tell random people about "the horrors they've seen"?
Many soldiers. Many people who are patriots and supported the US feel this way. Are this way now. When, where and how do we take a stand for what is right?
Yeah, lurkers support me in email too. Never mind you've failed to show anything is actually wrong to take a stand for or against - if you must take a stand, I'd suggest doing it down at the local VA until you can get a counselor. Because it sure sounds like you need one.
The news that it was the wing, and not the engine, that caused the failure is, in my mind, worse. It means they fucked up on a relatively simple, well-understood problem. Part of the blame can be assigned on the pilot disabling the safety early, but it still activated spontaneously and catastrophically. That makes me suspicious of what other simple things they've screwed up.
Unfortunately, as with so many other things in life, there's more going on here than meets the eye....
Disabling the safety fairly early in the flight is an intentional part of the flight plan. If they can't unlock the tail, that means they can't feather - and if they can't feather, they can't re-enter safely. So, they attempt unlock early enough that if the unlock fails they can abort far short of the flight regime that _requires_ unlock.
The real problem (at this moment, with the knowledge in hand) doesn't appear per se that he unlocked "early" - but that he unlocked at the wrong time. (Which isn't the same thing at all.) SS2 was still in the transonic regime, when (AIUI) the unlock is normally scheduled to occur when the vehicle is supersonic and the shock waves and airflow around the vehicle have stabilized. Did he get confused as to where he was on the checklist? Was the checklist wrong? Was engine performance sufficiently off-nominal that he unlocked at the right time by the checklist but before the proper flight conditions were established? Etc... etc...
Yes, we know *what* happened, but that doesn't mean we know *why* it happened.
You know, we get it, you hate Facebook. Fair enough. I can't say I blame you. But after a decade and a half of listening to the Slashdot peanut gallery I've come to realize that the only way you guys would ever make a million dollars in business is if you started with a billion dollars.
Glad to see I'm not the only one around here who grasps that....
Not to mention half the problems people seem to have Facebook aren't actually Facebook's problems - it's that their friends are idiots.
That hasn't been my experience. These days, my Facebook feed seems to be filled with people posting Buzzfeed links to "20 sexy historical facts that will blow your mind!" or else it's a link that says "You won't believe what happens in this video!" without giving any explanation as to what's in the video.
Those are trivially easy to go away, at least on a PC blocking entire sites is just a matter of two mouse clicks. But ultimately, the problem isn't Facebook - it's your "friends". Facebook can't fix stupid.
So, from the angle of political economy, sociology, or just common sense, Wikimedia shouldnâ(TM)t existâS
Which Wikimedia/Wikipedia shouldn't exist? The mythical, idealized one - or the actual, real one? The two actually have very little to do with each other.
That style of swoopy curvy blob may have looked "futuristic" back in the 50's and 60's when it first debuted... now it just looks old, tired, derivative, and lame.
So how many of you have written your congress-critter and demanded they work to repeal the bad laws passed that are facilitating this?
Which bad laws? Be specific.
Seriously, anyone who didn't see an increase in requests to Facebook coming has been living in a cave - and it has nothing to do with bad laws. It has everything to do with Facebook increasingly becoming a repository for people's lives, and those repositories have *always* been available to law enforcement. We want them to catch the bad guys, and if the bad guys are communicating on Facebook and storing evidence of their misdeeds there.... we want law enforcement to have access to that information the same as we want law enforcement to have access to their credit card records, houses, and automobiles. The ability of law enforcement to do so is basic to them doing the job the public charges them with.
We don't want "on a computer" to become an excuse for creating a crime - but we also don't want "on a computer" to become an excuse for hiding evidence of a crime either. What we should want isn't to keep law enforcement off of Facebook, but rather to stop fishing expeditions and keep them from infringing on the rights of innocents. To maintain that narrow path that allows law enforcement to do the task required of them, but keeps them from exceeding those bounds.
Slashdot Mirror
"Microsoft was evil even though you could buy Apple, but Apple isn't evil because you can always buy Microsoft instead?" That's your argument?
What a load of shit.
There's probably all manner of "corrections" you can do to make yourself feel all superior and to denigrate the folks actually doing the work.
Why do you think that's impressive? You think everyone who served is nothing but a suicidal maniac who wants nothing more than to "kill, maim, and blow up shit"?
Yep - Japan is (or at least was, the last was retired in 2006) the only country in the world to use 747 derivatives essentially as commuter aircraft.
And on top of that - it would probably be a custom solution. (Meaning expensive to maintain, and very expensive to replace when it could no longer be maintained.)
That's what the summary want you to believe. However, it's the summary that ignorant - because the submitter cannot seem to grasp that back in the 70's it was quite possible for kids in one place to have the opportunity and kids in another to not have that opportunity.
I really shouldn't have to explain this, but as bias has already replaced facts in the summary and your reply, I guess I have to.
Back then (remember, we're talking the 1970's), not everyone (even at 'elite' schools) had the opportunity to interact with a computers - especially if you weren't in a computer or science field. For kids at home? Home computers were very unusual. Home computers with a video screen and a modem and acess to a mainframe? Don't make me laugh. It's true in the latter half of the 70's that home computers began to be available and affordable, but they simply weren't that widespread. Radio Shack was selling the TRS-80 and it's derivatives... at the stunning rate of 10,000 a year. Commodore PET's sold at a similar rate, as did the Apple II (And the US had a population of 225 million - you do the math.) Nor did we have the public internet or the WWW.
Now of course, we're going to have some other old farts pipe up and explain that *they* had access to this stuff back then - and then indulge in the logical fallacy of generalizing from their experience. (To those who make the mistake of claiming I'm doing the same - go back and look at those sales numbers in the previous paragraph. And digging around, I find similiar sales numbers for mini-computers in the same era.) They're wrong six ways from Sunday, computers simply weren't part of the everyday life of most people and almost all kids back in the 1970's. In 1978, my dad helped a local hospital install their first ever computerized patient data system.* The year I graduated high school (1981), it's was (local) newsworthy that the local stores of a major national chain were installing a computerized POS system. (The guy they moved into town to manage them was our neighbor.) They weren't even networked - tapes were shipped back and forth and he had to drive around town installing the tapes and collecting the ones with sales data to be shipped back to Headquarters. (I didn't even see my first punch card until my sophomore year in high school - and it was from Ma Bell.)
That is the reality of computers in the late 1970's and very early 1980's. They were just barely beginning to move out of academia and the big corporations. Individual (home/turnkey) computers were available, but were pretty rare. Networks of computers practically unheard of. In the year Secretary Duncan would have graduated high school (1982), we were indeed on the cusp of a great revolution - but it hadn't happened yet. It would be almost another decade before home computers (and thus the chance for kids to interact with them) became nearly ubiquitous. And even so, as a computer salesman in '91 and '92 I still had to explain to people what computers were and why it was a good idea to have one, especially if they had kids.
So, being a year older than Secretary Duncan, I don't find it all surprising he didn't have the chance to learn to code when he was a kid. I did, but I was a very inquisitive geek, he doesn't appear to have been. Nor do I find it surprising that he doesn't know about a semi-obscure academic experiment that happened when he was a kid. (And that seems to have actually trained only a couple of thousand kids across a decade and a half.) Nor does it actually matter much that he didn't, because the reality is the opportunity was very rare when he was a kid.
*Which I always thought odd, because he was a printer with pretty much no experience with computers. It wasn't for many years that I found out that the hospital had hired him to help adapt their existing paper flow to the computer flow. (Back then, it frequently was printers who designed forms and often helped design the data flow - because the physical con
The problem with geeks isn't so much they dismiss management skillsets, as they dismiss pretty much every non-geek skillset or imagine that said all such sets can be reduced and converted square-peg-into-round-hole into the geek skillset. They also strongly tend to have what I call the "worm's eye view problem"... they see what the world looks like from their desk, and assume that's the whole of the world. (Though this problem isn't limited to geeks, they're particularly susceptible to it due to the aforementioned mistaken belief that every skillset is a subset of the geek set.)
Yep. When I was in the Navy, one of my juniors bitched about his workload and lack of sleep and how he couldn't wait to be senior... so I put him on my schedule for a week. He was remarkably meek after that.
No doubt they will, if they have time and power. But they're sharply limited on both, and I doubt the color images actually have all that much more PR value. (Not that PR has ever been shown to translate into actual public support mind you.)
Bigger means more vulnerable to rough terrain, and we really knew nothing about the terrain on the comet when the probe was launched. (And actually, we only have a sample size of one, now.) Making the whole spacecraft a lander also puts the entire mission at risk in the event of a landing incident or accident. Philae is a stretch goal, not the primary goal, and I don't think everyone understands that. The mission would be a scientific success, and worth the costs, even if the lander didn't separate.
Going all in on the first try of mission already fairly risky (even without the lander) is a very Kerbal thing to do.... But it's not so smart (IMNSHO) in the real world where you have to balance all the various risks against overall mission and science goals.
The earth's magnetic field isn't even remotely strong enough to channel a couple of millions tons of magma.
Trivially - because in all respects that matter, Google isn't a publicly traded company. There's two classes of stock and the one you can go buy as GOOG has no voting rights, no dividend rights, and is second in line for the assets of the company in the event of dissolution. The one that you can't buy on the open market has all those rights - and those shares are only held by a small circle of insiders and vulture capitalists. And (IIRC) Page and Brin own enough of those between that they can tell the others to go pound sand.
In effect, if Page and Brin agree that something should be done because it sounds cool... it's a done deal because they're the only stockholders that matter.
24 hours on watch in a bunker, with maybe a short drill or two? *yawn*.
I sat console (mumble) feet under the North Atlantic six out of every eighteen, with no TV and no daylight for three months. And back in my day, no laptops or portable game devices, or email, or... pretty much any personal electronics beyond a cheap-ass cassette player. Monday through Friday, ships drills in the morning and training most afternoons - both of which you racked out for if you weren't on watch. Saturday morning was field day. Most days, on top of all that I averaged 2-4 hours off watch working on quals, handling collateral duties, or standing proficiency watches. The guys who had to do their maintenance off watch had it even worse.
(And all this on a 640 class, an original 41' boat - not a 726 class Hilton. I'd been a month away from home before we even went to sea.)
Color me unimpressed that they're all emo because they have to spend a whole twenty four hours in a bunker.
The same way they did in the Cold War - treat 'em like an elite and kick the lesser performers to the curb. Figure out how to give them a valid career path. Make 'em feel needed and coddled and wanted. (And even then they whined like little toddlers about that 24 hour thing.)
I don't know where you've been for the last few years shipmate, but the story coming out of the USAF (from a variety of sources) has pretty much been what's recounted here - the USAF nuclear forces are badly fucked up. Their gear is old and ill maintained. Their training substandard. The supervision and chain of command below substandard. Etc... etc...
Your loyalty to your service, especially here on the eve of Veterans Day, does you credit - but you're way, way out of touch with what's been going on over the last decade.
Huh?
Boomers on patrol are also "nearly completely secure", in some ways even more secure because they're on the move while no silo has moved, ever. And the submarine force has had the ability to deliver multiple warheads against multiple targets ever since Poseidon entered service in 1971.
Were sober when you read my message? Or at least have an IQ above freezing?
Because your reply indicates that you have no fucking clue what I'm talking about. I'm not even sure how you have sufficient connection with reality to even know who the President is.
That more reflects his background - street level activist and local politics, where that's how things are done. That's not really appropriate at the national level, where he had very little experience before becoming President. The result is that he views Congress as damage to be routed around (not that he's entirely wrong about that, and I say that as a conservative who's greatly dismayed at the sway the nutjob fringe holds on the Right) and tries to handle that in much the same manner he did back then... which doesn't really work as personal influence and the Party Machine hold much less sway at the national level.
There, fixed that for you.
Seriously, I'm getting just a little fucking tired of the "Obama wanted to fix it, but the evil Congress blocked him" meme. Congress can pass laws - but they only become law either with the active cooperation of the President or only via an explicit override. President Obama has only vetoed two things to date - one utterly meaningless bill on notarizations, and one all but meaningless continuing budget resolution.
A more capable President would at least try.
As someone well over thirty - I'm gonna call bullshit on this one. Either you're overgeneralizing or you're the actual problem.
Sounds like you're the problem here. What kind of sick fuck wants to tell random people about "the horrors they've seen"?
Yeah, lurkers support me in email too. Never mind you've failed to show anything is actually wrong to take a stand for or against - if you must take a stand, I'd suggest doing it down at the local VA until you can get a counselor. Because it sure sounds like you need one.
Unfortunately, as with so many other things in life, there's more going on here than meets the eye....
Disabling the safety fairly early in the flight is an intentional part of the flight plan. If they can't unlock the tail, that means they can't feather - and if they can't feather, they can't re-enter safely. So, they attempt unlock early enough that if the unlock fails they can abort far short of the flight regime that _requires_ unlock.
The real problem (at this moment, with the knowledge in hand) doesn't appear per se that he unlocked "early" - but that he unlocked at the wrong time. (Which isn't the same thing at all.) SS2 was still in the transonic regime, when (AIUI) the unlock is normally scheduled to occur when the vehicle is supersonic and the shock waves and airflow around the vehicle have stabilized. Did he get confused as to where he was on the checklist? Was the checklist wrong? Was engine performance sufficiently off-nominal that he unlocked at the right time by the checklist but before the proper flight conditions were established? Etc... etc...
Yes, we know *what* happened, but that doesn't mean we know *why* it happened.
Glad to see I'm not the only one around here who grasps that....
Not to mention half the problems people seem to have Facebook aren't actually Facebook's problems - it's that their friends are idiots.
Those are trivially easy to go away, at least on a PC blocking entire sites is just a matter of two mouse clicks. But ultimately, the problem isn't Facebook - it's your "friends". Facebook can't fix stupid.
From TFA:
Which Wikimedia/Wikipedia shouldn't exist? The mythical, idealized one - or the actual, real one? The two actually have very little to do with each other.
Nicely played! :)
That style of swoopy curvy blob may have looked "futuristic" back in the 50's and 60's when it first debuted... now it just looks old, tired, derivative, and lame.
Which bad laws? Be specific.
Seriously, anyone who didn't see an increase in requests to Facebook coming has been living in a cave - and it has nothing to do with bad laws. It has everything to do with Facebook increasingly becoming a repository for people's lives, and those repositories have *always* been available to law enforcement. We want them to catch the bad guys, and if the bad guys are communicating on Facebook and storing evidence of their misdeeds there.... we want law enforcement to have access to that information the same as we want law enforcement to have access to their credit card records, houses, and automobiles. The ability of law enforcement to do so is basic to them doing the job the public charges them with.
We don't want "on a computer" to become an excuse for creating a crime - but we also don't want "on a computer" to become an excuse for hiding evidence of a crime either. What we should want isn't to keep law enforcement off of Facebook, but rather to stop fishing expeditions and keep them from infringing on the rights of innocents. To maintain that narrow path that allows law enforcement to do the task required of them, but keeps them from exceeding those bounds.