And aerospace engineering careers looked great back in the late 1970's. So, if you want you kid to have a "predictable" prosperous living, make them suffer through an aerospace or electrical engineering degree???
Damn, what kind of idiot keeps falling for the same liars??? Your kid's future should be thought out; utilizing gaming theory. If you go STEM, you're going to be competing with automation (AI) for the next two decades, while they're going into college loan hock for a career that will last about 10 years before your employers deem your skills obsolete. Meanwhile, all the cutting edge engineering jobs will be overseas, because that's where the highest concentration of qualified workers will be (call it the NY/CA effect for IT jobs).
Meanwhile, you're condemning your kid to lifetime mediocrity, because you believe everyone has to be a wage slave in order to build a better life. Don't teach your kid to rely on virtues based on fairy tales fed by the financial class to keep the machine operating. Gov't used to operate in a regulatory manner to ensure a stable enough financial system to favor the formation of a middle class. Those days are gone. There is no fairness in the workplace. Employers want you to blow hundreds of thousands of dollars in **your** training, but are looking to cut their bottom line with automation and foreigners, and don't give a shit about your efforts. Stop propping up the fairy tale if you don't want your children to live as wage slaves. Teach them that they are screwed in life unless they seize opportunity where ever they can grab it, find something they love to do, because its better to be working like a dog for the rest of their lives for something they like doing, look to become your own boss, and be ready to start all over again when your current career falls through. (And take their retirement saving and financial situation seriously as soon as possible, mid-twenties at the latest.)
With a family it isn't always possible to go where the jobs are.
Military families do it all the time. You just won't adapt, therefore you are an inferior competitor for resources.
For the economic disadvantage of loss of mobility by being a homeowner, it was supposed to be a "safer" investment, which the federal gov't ensured, by making available loans to people who didn't have the wealth to buy it outright. That also created long term residents committed to their local community. Unfortunately, politicians and the banks blew it up to shit back in the 2000's. So now, we'll have a financial environment better resembling 1910, and one would be a fool to own a poor investment like housing property (except for rental purposes).
That is why the economy has taken so long to recover. The jobs are not where the people with skills are.
Dude, you really need to learn basic economics, and not just sheepishly follow what the TV and financial pundits parrot. The economy is not in the doldrums because Florida has too many qualified IT workers who need to move to Texas, NY, or CA, or states like Maine or Alabama would grow, if only they had more qualified high tech workers.
If Disney is not reprimanded for this, then our entire legal system and government needs to be torn down and rebuilt because we're so corrupt it cannot be fixed without bloodshed.
You didn't see a problem with the gov't and legal system when banking companies were selling subprime mortgages to utterly financially unqualified homeowners, and then bundle them into securities called derivatives, lie about their value, and sell them to "suckers" like retirement and pension funds? Meanwhile, getting around Glass-Steagall with the invention of derivatives, to subvert the very regulation that made investments "safe"? I am in 100% agreement with you, but I already knew that Disney was going to get away with it, just like serial rapist.
His supporters have been lied to by the same type of "safe", establishment politicians for decades. What do they gain by voting another Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio? Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results?
...or any of his campaign promises. But looking at all politicians' campaign promises, is there really anything to be gained by picking a more deferential liar?
The US voter is not going to vote in a probable (presuming indicted) felon, even if they're terrified of the Republican candidate. I don't think any of the current Republican POTUS candidates could do much worse than Shrub (whom I liken to an American anti-Christ, and neck to neck with Buchanan for worst POTUS), just like I don't believe Sanders would effect noticeable change if elected. Either Sanders gets the nod (& Bloomberg jumps in), Clinton's VPOTUS candidate runs if Clinton steps down (& Bloomberg jumps in), or Clinton loses to the Republican candidate or Bloomberg.
And if she gets stuck in quicksand, Biden will reenter the race at the party's request.
I believe that would be a mistake. Against a wild card like Trump, there's no reason to believe that there is a high likelihood Bernie would lose to him. Certainly there is just as high a likelihood Biden would lose to Trump. Biden is a youtube level gaffe generator, and I don't see why people even believe he makes a good politician, given his previous POTUS nomination attempts. Biden is really only the darling of political power brokers and perhaps Wall Street. It would be like unilaterally decreeing Jeb! for POTUS, and then presume Biden wouldn't flop like Jeb! on the campaign trail.
Hillary wins if she doesn't get indicted. If she does, she's done, regardless who's the Republican candidate. Bloomberg jumps in as a third party candidate (presuming he submits his paperwork in March) as an almost certainty. But we've seen what money can do with Jeb! this year; I don't believe Bloomberg can win, even if he blows a few billion in the process. What the mainstream media pundits aren't telling you is that this is the year of the pissed off voters; money isn't going to decide it, any more than it did for Jeb! Its going to be pissed off voters vs timid status quo voters, and the pissed off voters will move the least establishment candidate.
According to James Lewis, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, "I can't imagine the Chinese would tolerate end-to-end encryption or a refusal to cooperate with their police, particularly in a terrorism case." Why the accommodation there?
Kudos to the article submitter (& braindead slashdot "editor") for the Apple hatchet job by innuendo. Apple hasn't done anything for the Chinese gov't that it has refused to the US gov't. Everything the article fearmongers is about the "potential" of what the Chinese gov't will ask Apple, if the DOJ gets their way. There is no compelling reason for China to request modifications to degrade the phone security. Only rich chinese citizens can afford to own an iPhone, and they're all joined to the hip with party leadership.
Apollo was also backed by a legislative genius name LBJ. His "small" role ensured there would money for the 10 year investment (actually 6 years); and expenditure IIRC would amount to 4-5% of the national budget per year (US federal budgets were really small back then...).
How long will it take before the dumbass lawyers figure out that their computer systems & phones will be hackable by organized crime? And they will all have made it possible by passing lawsuits to cripple Apple's product security with backdoors.
Damn you are wrong. The Bill of Rights does not specifically say citizens are entitled to life. They do specify that the gov't does not have the power to take your life or property without due process of law. But that's not the same as requiring the gov't to provide you with enough sustenance to live. (Get lost, goddamned Eurotrash hippie...)
Perhaps you meant the Preamble of the COTUS or the Declaration of Independence. Well, its fascinating, but neither the COTUS preamble nor the DoI are legally binding in the US.
On the other hand, a large percentage of citizens are trying very hard to preserve the viability of a fetus to successful gestation. So one day, the US COTUS may actually impose a law that implies the gov't must keep a person alive.
Usually, socialized countries accepting emigrants expect some level of financial assets before giving them a residency visa, and usually block out non-STEM emigrants by denying them a work visa.
Even Canada is a little sketchy. You need $50K in liquid assets, but they're not aggressive about denying a work visa, particularly in the crappy, barren provinces. Makes me wonder what are the chances for an illegal immigrant to persevere there, as opposed to the US.
They're teaching basic economic theory in high school? They didn't when I was there (a long time ago), and my district was at one point in the top 25 public schools in the nation. (Not that I agree with the Anonymous Coward's Libertarian contention...)
Oh come on. You're not entitled to own a car at near minimum wage. You're not entitled to singly rent your apartment at a near minimum wage. Why the fuck is she subscribed to T-Mobile, when she could be operating out of tracfone/MNVO company? I probably only have a miniscule amount of phone usage compared to her, but I'm pretty much paying the equivalent of $7/month for my cellphone service. She just needs to find a better cellphone plan for her usage. Hell, she may even still be able to get a google phone number; operate off the wifi, the phone service part is free. Yes, the NSA and advertisers are all into the information she reveals over the phone, but she works for a social media company and probably does not want to keep available the future terrorist option. Guess what, if you're only making minimum wage, you're not entitled to spend on your credit card as if you earn more than minimum wage. She probably pays for cable TV along with her internet service. (Man, that pissed me off back in the mid-1990's. Living in the city, I cut cable TV at $45/month and learned that somehow people on welfare in NYC were able to retain it.)
While I totally believe that our society is screwed up when people can't afford regular food, shelter, water and electricity on a "living" wage, she definitely comports herself as if she's "entitled" to more, even though she's basically a struggling, broke ass poor person who doesn't make optimal budgeting choices. You're not "entitled" to anything beyond not starving to death (and some form of shelter) in this American society. We probably tolerate a lot more economic injustice than we should. But we're not obliged to support a more comfortable lifestyle for working poor people who don't make practical spending decisions.
That being said, why can't we go back to the relationship where Employers were loyal to Employees,
Because society rewards employers who aren't loyal to employees. That's why there are more psychopaths in CEO positions; they don't give a rat's ass about employee's living, and generate more profit margin by sucking away money from their wage slaves. Shareholders then proceed to reward them with continued employment, usually with an increase in earnings.
The only way you're going to encourage employers to be more "loyal" to employees is for society to impose laws on how businesses operate. There is a lot I don't like about how gov't does this in France, but some of it works well in Germany. Japanese society is probably close to an ideal model for what you are talking about. Employers are showing loyalty towards their employees to the point its resulting in the financial destruction of their huge corporations.
You're presuming that the poor participating in the voting process will somehow fix the problem. Gov't is a lousy way to correct economic problems in society. More likely, you're only going to encourage a more socialist government. Honoring the social contract and implementing the "correct" infrastructural improvements is the only way to improve regional economic conditions.
As for revolt, people don't revolt because the government they live in is not democratic or equitable. People revolt when they're close to starvation and hold the elites in power responsible. The revolt tends to do more short-term damage than long-term improvement. (Has life in south LA, or policing significantly improved since the LA riots? Is that the solution that Ferguson, MO and many other areas should take?)
So here I am, 25-years old, balancing all sorts of debt and trying to pave a life for myself that doesn’t involve crying in the bathtub every week.
I truly hope none of us here will express amazement that someone who criticized their employer, [...]
You're not wrong, but its a pretty shitty attitude that you take towards someone who is barely an adult. I dislike millennials just as much as the next old guy, but you don't grasp that our schools, society, nor parents do not do shit towards raising their kids to be functioning adults. Sadly, all of our kids have been brainwashed to be consumer materialists, and only the bright ones come to realize that owning a car, under the thumb of a mortgage, or going into permanent debt slavery to pay for a college degree is not all its cracked up to be. What a shock, young adults don't care about buying cars and owning houses anymore. So yes, its not unusual for a 25 year old to be "clueless" enough to dare criticize her employment situation.
If my job only payed me a net $8.15/hour, I would value whining at my boss over a shit sub-minimum wage job. (I don't value whining that much; just value a sub-minimum wage job less.) At that rate, her dreams of being an economically self-sufficient adult are pretty much a joke at that point. (On the other hand, she's actually working a better than minimum wage job, because I'm sure it would be less after FICA).
Re:And this is...news?
Society (and employers) have an ethical obligation to enable a "hard-working" employee to "make a living". Not fire them because you don't "like" what they're saying about their earning conditions. As much as I despise "the whining" and her spending/investment choices, I value that she descriptively made public her situation, because there are many people in her boat. Yes, this is a form of news. I haven't been in that situation for decades, and I'm sure I had an "easier" time of it, even after suffering the 1990's recession.
In other words, you're a shithead for expressing contempt her situation, rather than showing a smidgen of compassion for what many young adults are experiencing right now.
On Saturday, Snowden said some of his former colleagues at the NSA and CIA said "the Constitution doesn't really matter."
If you don't believe the COTUS really matters, then you don't believe in "the rule of law" and that law must be followed in all situations. What it really means is what people currently in power consider important overrides "the rule of law".
Who are the idiots modifying this post as "insightful"??
What kind of idiot thinks they're getting a fair trial when it can only be conducted in a secret court? When evidence exonerating him can be suppressed because "national security considerations" trump presenting "necessary" evidence to demonstrate his innocence?
Of course, Snowden could never get the public trial he wants, but I suspect he's willing to suffer a conviction & finite prison sentence, in order to not remain a permanent exile under Putin's thumb. And all of this can be resolved with a plea bargain. But CIA/DNI would never be satisfied with anything short of a "gitmo" sentence, and they dictate to the POTUS, DOJ, Congress, & courts what's an "acceptable" sentence for whistleblowers that make the organization look bad.
As a sidenote, I'm pretty shocked that Jonathan Pollard got released. I wonder if the alphabet security agencies are going to exact retribution for that political action.
Technically, its already widely adopted on consumer computing hardware. If you're going into the gigabytes of memory that isn't EEC (RDIMMs), every so often, there are incorrect values being passed/caused by the RAM. Only finance/science and some engineering cares about a potential false value being returned every few months.
Slashdot Mirror
And aerospace engineering careers looked great back in the late 1970's. So, if you want you kid to have a "predictable" prosperous living, make them suffer through an aerospace or electrical engineering degree???
Damn, what kind of idiot keeps falling for the same liars??? Your kid's future should be thought out; utilizing gaming theory. If you go STEM, you're going to be competing with automation (AI) for the next two decades, while they're going into college loan hock for a career that will last about 10 years before your employers deem your skills obsolete. Meanwhile, all the cutting edge engineering jobs will be overseas, because that's where the highest concentration of qualified workers will be (call it the NY/CA effect for IT jobs).
Meanwhile, you're condemning your kid to lifetime mediocrity, because you believe everyone has to be a wage slave in order to build a better life. Don't teach your kid to rely on virtues based on fairy tales fed by the financial class to keep the machine operating. Gov't used to operate in a regulatory manner to ensure a stable enough financial system to favor the formation of a middle class. Those days are gone. There is no fairness in the workplace. Employers want you to blow hundreds of thousands of dollars in **your** training, but are looking to cut their bottom line with automation and foreigners, and don't give a shit about your efforts. Stop propping up the fairy tale if you don't want your children to live as wage slaves. Teach them that they are screwed in life unless they seize opportunity where ever they can grab it, find something they love to do, because its better to be working like a dog for the rest of their lives for something they like doing, look to become your own boss, and be ready to start all over again when your current career falls through. (And take their retirement saving and financial situation seriously as soon as possible, mid-twenties at the latest.)
Finally, I left it altogether for a career in truck/bus driving where the average time spent unemployed is around 4 hours.
Your job won't exist in 10 years because of Google. You best be looking for your next gig. (Busking?)
With a family it isn't always possible to go where the jobs are.
Military families do it all the time. You just won't adapt, therefore you are an inferior competitor for resources.
For the economic disadvantage of loss of mobility by being a homeowner, it was supposed to be a "safer" investment, which the federal gov't ensured, by making available loans to people who didn't have the wealth to buy it outright. That also created long term residents committed to their local community. Unfortunately, politicians and the banks blew it up to shit back in the 2000's. So now, we'll have a financial environment better resembling 1910, and one would be a fool to own a poor investment like housing property (except for rental purposes).
That is why the economy has taken so long to recover. The jobs are not where the people with skills are.
Dude, you really need to learn basic economics, and not just sheepishly follow what the TV and financial pundits parrot. The economy is not in the doldrums because Florida has too many qualified IT workers who need to move to Texas, NY, or CA, or states like Maine or Alabama would grow, if only they had more qualified high tech workers.
If Disney is not reprimanded for this, then our entire legal system and government needs to be torn down and rebuilt because we're so corrupt it cannot be fixed without bloodshed.
You didn't see a problem with the gov't and legal system when banking companies were selling subprime mortgages to utterly financially unqualified homeowners, and then bundle them into securities called derivatives, lie about their value, and sell them to "suckers" like retirement and pension funds? Meanwhile, getting around Glass-Steagall with the invention of derivatives, to subvert the very regulation that made investments "safe"? I am in 100% agreement with you, but I already knew that Disney was going to get away with it, just like serial rapist.
His supporters have been lied to by the same type of "safe", establishment politicians for decades. What do they gain by voting another Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio? Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results?
...or any of his campaign promises. But looking at all politicians' campaign promises, is there really anything to be gained by picking a more deferential liar?
The US voter is not going to vote in a probable (presuming indicted) felon, even if they're terrified of the Republican candidate. I don't think any of the current Republican POTUS candidates could do much worse than Shrub (whom I liken to an American anti-Christ, and neck to neck with Buchanan for worst POTUS), just like I don't believe Sanders would effect noticeable change if elected. Either Sanders gets the nod (& Bloomberg jumps in), Clinton's VPOTUS candidate runs if Clinton steps down (& Bloomberg jumps in), or Clinton loses to the Republican candidate or Bloomberg.
And if she gets stuck in quicksand, Biden will reenter the race at the party's request.
I believe that would be a mistake. Against a wild card like Trump, there's no reason to believe that there is a high likelihood Bernie would lose to him. Certainly there is just as high a likelihood Biden would lose to Trump. Biden is a youtube level gaffe generator, and I don't see why people even believe he makes a good politician, given his previous POTUS nomination attempts. Biden is really only the darling of political power brokers and perhaps Wall Street. It would be like unilaterally decreeing Jeb! for POTUS, and then presume Biden wouldn't flop like Jeb! on the campaign trail.
Hillary wins if she doesn't get indicted. If she does, she's done, regardless who's the Republican candidate. Bloomberg jumps in as a third party candidate (presuming he submits his paperwork in March) as an almost certainty. But we've seen what money can do with Jeb! this year; I don't believe Bloomberg can win, even if he blows a few billion in the process. What the mainstream media pundits aren't telling you is that this is the year of the pissed off voters; money isn't going to decide it, any more than it did for Jeb! Its going to be pissed off voters vs timid status quo voters, and the pissed off voters will move the least establishment candidate.
At this point, I consider Bernie Sanders a 3rd party candidate (who happens to be running for the Democrat nomination).
According to James Lewis, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, "I can't imagine the Chinese would tolerate end-to-end encryption or a refusal to cooperate with their police, particularly in a terrorism case." Why the accommodation there?
Kudos to the article submitter (& braindead slashdot "editor") for the Apple hatchet job by innuendo. Apple hasn't done anything for the Chinese gov't that it has refused to the US gov't. Everything the article fearmongers is about the "potential" of what the Chinese gov't will ask Apple, if the DOJ gets their way. There is no compelling reason for China to request modifications to degrade the phone security. Only rich chinese citizens can afford to own an iPhone, and they're all joined to the hip with party leadership.
Two recessions? I just remember a really long one that's lasted most of his administration.
Apollo was also backed by a legislative genius name LBJ. His "small" role ensured there would money for the 10 year investment (actually 6 years); and expenditure IIRC would amount to 4-5% of the national budget per year (US federal budgets were really small back then...).
How long will it take before the dumbass lawyers figure out that their computer systems & phones will be hackable by organized crime? And they will all have made it possible by passing lawsuits to cripple Apple's product security with backdoors.
Damn you are wrong. The Bill of Rights does not specifically say citizens are entitled to life. They do specify that the gov't does not have the power to take your life or property without due process of law. But that's not the same as requiring the gov't to provide you with enough sustenance to live. (Get lost, goddamned Eurotrash hippie...)
Perhaps you meant the Preamble of the COTUS or the Declaration of Independence. Well, its fascinating, but neither the COTUS preamble nor the DoI are legally binding in the US.
On the other hand, a large percentage of citizens are trying very hard to preserve the viability of a fetus to successful gestation. So one day, the US COTUS may actually impose a law that implies the gov't must keep a person alive.
I got curious and checked. Its only $12K, with a college degree. (Why was I thinking $50K...?)
Usually, socialized countries accepting emigrants expect some level of financial assets before giving them a residency visa, and usually block out non-STEM emigrants by denying them a work visa.
Even Canada is a little sketchy. You need $50K in liquid assets, but they're not aggressive about denying a work visa, particularly in the crappy, barren provinces. Makes me wonder what are the chances for an illegal immigrant to persevere there, as opposed to the US.
Bingo.
They're teaching basic economic theory in high school? They didn't when I was there (a long time ago), and my district was at one point in the top 25 public schools in the nation. (Not that I agree with the Anonymous Coward's Libertarian contention...)
Oh come on. You're not entitled to own a car at near minimum wage. You're not entitled to singly rent your apartment at a near minimum wage. Why the fuck is she subscribed to T-Mobile, when she could be operating out of tracfone/MNVO company? I probably only have a miniscule amount of phone usage compared to her, but I'm pretty much paying the equivalent of $7/month for my cellphone service. She just needs to find a better cellphone plan for her usage. Hell, she may even still be able to get a google phone number; operate off the wifi, the phone service part is free. Yes, the NSA and advertisers are all into the information she reveals over the phone, but she works for a social media company and probably does not want to keep available the future terrorist option. Guess what, if you're only making minimum wage, you're not entitled to spend on your credit card as if you earn more than minimum wage. She probably pays for cable TV along with her internet service. (Man, that pissed me off back in the mid-1990's. Living in the city, I cut cable TV at $45/month and learned that somehow people on welfare in NYC were able to retain it.)
While I totally believe that our society is screwed up when people can't afford regular food, shelter, water and electricity on a "living" wage, she definitely comports herself as if she's "entitled" to more, even though she's basically a struggling, broke ass poor person who doesn't make optimal budgeting choices. You're not "entitled" to anything beyond not starving to death (and some form of shelter) in this American society. We probably tolerate a lot more economic injustice than we should. But we're not obliged to support a more comfortable lifestyle for working poor people who don't make practical spending decisions.
That being said, why can't we go back to the relationship where Employers were loyal to Employees,
Because society rewards employers who aren't loyal to employees. That's why there are more psychopaths in CEO positions; they don't give a rat's ass about employee's living, and generate more profit margin by sucking away money from their wage slaves. Shareholders then proceed to reward them with continued employment, usually with an increase in earnings.
The only way you're going to encourage employers to be more "loyal" to employees is for society to impose laws on how businesses operate. There is a lot I don't like about how gov't does this in France, but some of it works well in Germany. Japanese society is probably close to an ideal model for what you are talking about. Employers are showing loyalty towards their employees to the point its resulting in the financial destruction of their huge corporations.
You're presuming that the poor participating in the voting process will somehow fix the problem. Gov't is a lousy way to correct economic problems in society. More likely, you're only going to encourage a more socialist government. Honoring the social contract and implementing the "correct" infrastructural improvements is the only way to improve regional economic conditions.
As for revolt, people don't revolt because the government they live in is not democratic or equitable. People revolt when they're close to starvation and hold the elites in power responsible. The revolt tends to do more short-term damage than long-term improvement. (Has life in south LA, or policing significantly improved since the LA riots? Is that the solution that Ferguson, MO and many other areas should take?)
So here I am, 25-years old, balancing all sorts of debt and trying to pave a life for myself that doesn’t involve crying in the bathtub every week.
I truly hope none of us here will express amazement that someone who criticized their employer, [...]
You're not wrong, but its a pretty shitty attitude that you take towards someone who is barely an adult. I dislike millennials just as much as the next old guy, but you don't grasp that our schools, society, nor parents do not do shit towards raising their kids to be functioning adults. Sadly, all of our kids have been brainwashed to be consumer materialists, and only the bright ones come to realize that owning a car, under the thumb of a mortgage, or going into permanent debt slavery to pay for a college degree is not all its cracked up to be. What a shock, young adults don't care about buying cars and owning houses anymore. So yes, its not unusual for a 25 year old to be "clueless" enough to dare criticize her employment situation.
If my job only payed me a net $8.15/hour, I would value whining at my boss over a shit sub-minimum wage job. (I don't value whining that much; just value a sub-minimum wage job less.) At that rate, her dreams of being an economically self-sufficient adult are pretty much a joke at that point. (On the other hand, she's actually working a better than minimum wage job, because I'm sure it would be less after FICA).
Re:And this is...news?
Society (and employers) have an ethical obligation to enable a "hard-working" employee to "make a living". Not fire them because you don't "like" what they're saying about their earning conditions. As much as I despise "the whining" and her spending/investment choices, I value that she descriptively made public her situation, because there are many people in her boat. Yes, this is a form of news. I haven't been in that situation for decades, and I'm sure I had an "easier" time of it, even after suffering the 1990's recession.
In other words, you're a shithead for expressing contempt her situation, rather than showing a smidgen of compassion for what many young adults are experiencing right now.
On Saturday, Snowden said some of his former colleagues at the NSA and CIA said "the Constitution doesn't really matter."
If you don't believe the COTUS really matters, then you don't believe in "the rule of law" and that law must be followed in all situations. What it really means is what people currently in power consider important overrides "the rule of law".
Who are the idiots modifying this post as "insightful"??
What kind of idiot thinks they're getting a fair trial when it can only be conducted in a secret court? When evidence exonerating him can be suppressed because "national security considerations" trump presenting "necessary" evidence to demonstrate his innocence?
Of course, Snowden could never get the public trial he wants, but I suspect he's willing to suffer a conviction & finite prison sentence, in order to not remain a permanent exile under Putin's thumb. And all of this can be resolved with a plea bargain. But CIA/DNI would never be satisfied with anything short of a "gitmo" sentence, and they dictate to the POTUS, DOJ, Congress, & courts what's an "acceptable" sentence for whistleblowers that make the organization look bad.
As a sidenote, I'm pretty shocked that Jonathan Pollard got released. I wonder if the alphabet security agencies are going to exact retribution for that political action.
Technically, its already widely adopted on consumer computing hardware. If you're going into the gigabytes of memory that isn't EEC (RDIMMs), every so often, there are incorrect values being passed/caused by the RAM. Only finance/science and some engineering cares about a potential false value being returned every few months.
...and then Scalia has the GALL to claim himself to be a Constitutional Originalist!