While this is true, keeping a large project from getting ... err, decohesed and coupled, takes a lot of time as well. You will have less lines of code, but you'll definitely spend a lot more time than that first 1000 lines on a large project.
I don't understand what you mean by 'whether we trust them to decide what the public gets to know.' That's a question we're supposed to be asking the governments who have withheld this information, not the whistle blowers. Shifting the focus of these leaks to whether or not the whistle blowers should be hung or not is a great way to deflect focus from the actual things that were leaked. You'd think that a threat to the 4th amendment would register higher on people's radar, but the human interest piece is compelling.
Whether the information should have been leaked or not is an interesting question, but ultimately a 'what if' scenario. The important question is what we do with this information. Or, if you're the government, how to get the people to not care.
I thought I was the same way for a long time, but for me the kicker was 'left to my own devices' - I NEVER had anywhere near 8 hours consistently, so on the weekends, I would crash for more than 10 hours at least. My conclusion was that I needed more than 9 hours a day.
Then I went on a year long vacation - and after the first couple months of sleeping over 10 hours naturally - my body finally caught up with its sleep debt, and I was sleeping about 8 hours a day. I was amazed. Turns out I was just sleep deprived. Of course, I do know people who consistently get 9.5 hours day, so your mileage may vary. Just something to think about in this sleep deprived world.
I think saying 'a terrible work environment' is a bit of a stretch. The important part of criticism is that it's taken constructively - often it's best done between peers, but sometimes it's best done with (good) managers.
I think a key issue is that coworkers can be awesome workers, but HORRIBLE at critique. It's a skill that people aren't always good at. I know I could be better. A good manager will be great at this, and it's often best to let the best person at this do the talking. Managers can also be great as go betweens, and councillors for both sides, so that hatchets don't get buried directly into coworker skulls.
I'm not sure if that's as efficient as sticking to the prescribed agenda, and having the non-agenda stuff taken offline / discussed after.
You don't have to schedule an entirely different meeting room to talk about it - more often than not at my work, the people who want to discuss the unexpected point just stay after the original meeting has ended to discuss it.
To everyone who was there for the agenda, the meeting is effectively over - for the others, you could say the meeting continues on with the unexpected topic.
The important part is that everyone meets for as short as is needed - they don't have to keep running in and out of meetings to see if things are relevant, or stay and listen to things that don't matter to them.
With modern day technology, shooting a ball in a hoop consistently or building a pyramid is easy. So why are Pro Sports and the Pyramids so amazing? Because they did it the hard way. I guess they could achieve the same thing if they lied, but if someone finds out, you are sol. See: Milli Vanilli
The traditional entertainment industry (movies, tv, and music) is very small. But put 'broadcasting', which is part of the 'information' industry, and it is comparable to the tech industry. Add in the fact that media companies are vital to politicians, and the result is an industry that punches orders of magnitude above its weight.
You know how a car works? How a plane works? How a nuclear generator, water purification plant, and skyscraper construction works? I can't speak for anyone else, but I can only know so much. For the rest of mankind's knowledge, I rely on the rest of mankind. It's worked out pretty well so far.
The responsibility for something rarely falls on one party's shoulders. The banks are like a contractor who was in charge of building the foundation of your house, but instead bet the bricks in a game of dice (and lost). When the foreman finds out, he reluctantly gives the contractor more bricks, because he's the only foundation contractor in town. You are the owner of the house. Now, sure, you should be mad at the foreman for letting this clown gamble the bricks away. But if you didn't also demand the contractor get fired, I'd say that's just a bit shortsighted.
That puts them well below the mark where they'd need to be to be to place in the top X% (10-30, depending on what study you use) that own 80% of American wealth. If you believe that shuffling around the remaining 20% will work, more power to you. But I'd have to disagree.
I will, however, agree that politically connected insiders mooching off the system is DEFINITELY an issue in the US. I would just point to Corporations and the Rich in place of Teachers on your list.
Plus, the border of the original Galaxy S is black, makes a significant difference. Not much room for innovation in a candy-bar touch screen, really.
I'd side with Samsung on the legal argument, as well. Apple is known as very secretive, Samsung announces products FAR ahead. Saying that Apple hasn't announced their products essentially penalizes Samsung for being open about what they have in the works, and announcing and showing their products early. If Apple plans to release the iphone5 this summer (and if history is an example, they do), wouldn't this be the same argument that Apple used?
I'm not a lawyer, but punishment based on pr schemes seems weird to me.