What jurisdiction has the authority to regulate inherently global cryptocurrencies? The UN perhaps?

I suppose every federal jurisdiction has an ability to regulate some things about how the currency is used inside their borders (e.g. how exchanges physically located there work and how they have to report),

is the definition of an unregulated currency a currency that no federal jurisdiction anywhere in the world, nor the UN, has regulated explicitly or implicitly yet?

Or is this another case of someone conveniently forgetting that there is a whole world out there outside of the US of A.

The Chrome browser offers to translate whatever website's text into whichever language my operating system defaults to.

If all of the common web browsers / smart phones / google glass equivalents start doing this, I guess there will be no more need for this mandatory translation at the source side of things.

with the next generation of this wearable computing and recording technology, where the recording device will be so small it will be easily concealed as for example a finger ring, a watch, a button, or a bobby pin/hair clip.

I'm pretty sure we're all going to have to get used to the possibility of being recorded surreptitiously by others at any time, speaking pragmatically.

Even now, there are these things called eyes that most people have, attached to a vast memory device with a playback mechanism.

Before, you'd be reported on in a society gossip column or gossip network (if anybody cared about your existence and antics, that is).
Now you'll be on InstaTube or WhatsAppetizing or whatever it is.

Plus sa change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Where your'e wrong is two places:

1. All these concepts you speak of (private property, democracy) are just aspirations which are only effective if they can be enforced by direct force or by established and successfully maintained social structure and mechanisms of social pressure to conform to rules and norms. There is no "God-given" anything (such as "right to private property), because it is a given that there is no God (except, again, as a socially constructed collectively maintained concept: a meme if you will). So your word "sacrosanct" here, again, is just a wish, or a word used to invoke fear that there will be social consequences for violating it.

2. There is no fundamentally important dichotomy between the private and the collective, so long as the collective is acting to some degree as a super-organism, which most if not all collectives with surprising longevity must be doing. Again, individuals versus organized groups of individuals are more alike (in how they interact with their own parts and with their environment) than they are fundamentally different.
What we have is a continuum of self-interested environment-sensing and acting agents, from our individual cells and organs, to us as "individual" humans, through tightknit resource-sharing, inter-supportive family groups, to corporations and associations, to various levels of governed groups like cities, states, nations, and federations. All can "claim to have and act as if they have" private property:
- cell 1 to cell 2: this is my blood sugar, I'm taking it inside, you can't have it
- person1 to person 2 or to nation 3: This is my house and possessions with walls and doors and you can't have it or live in it:
    oh and this is my gun and I'm gripping it tightly and pointing it at you and you can't have it, or the other stuff I mentioned.
- nation 1 to nation 2: this is my fertile valley near an ocean port. I'm invading it and building a wall and an army around it, and you can't have it.
- nation 1 to person 2: Get over yourself. If I want your stuff I will incarcerate you or eliminate you, and take your stuff.

Um. Google downloads exabytes and exabytes (in order to index it and provide searchable access to it). So by your logic Google is at fault because they download "a lot of material" from each site they can technically index?

If you publish something, and don't indicate that you have restricted the right to copy it, I can legitimately assume that you are not intent on restricting the right to copy it. I can assume, if I wish, that you have put the item in the public domain, by publishing it without any notice of your intent.

If you later decide to exercise your legal ability to restrict copying, you can inform people of that, but that should carry no legal weight retroactively. If I republish before you have asserted that you are restricting, c'est la vie. If I republish after I should have known your intent to restrict, then I am at fault.

Ok I'l give you another analogy.

This is pretty much like leaving a stack of pamphlets on a table in a train station, then arresting those who pick one up for possession of classified material.

I can't make it any clearer: Content that is behind a URL in a publicly searchable server directory, with no password or secure session protection, has been placed in plain sight in public. There is no fault in accessing it, nor in republishing it (posting the pamphlet on the door of your house) unless it contained an explicit copyright restriction statement.

Hey!

The world wide web was designed to make accessible via hyperlinks (URLs) a whole bunch of documents / generated content. Key word being accessible. If someone is stupid enough to put documents intended not to be public on the public world wide web, that's their issue.

It is not a transgression on the part of the person who used the URL to access the content, doing nothing more than the technology is explicitly designed to do.

This is just another example of judges who got an A in social studies and a C in technical subjects making asinine rulings about use of technology they don't understand.

If I were a teacher in a little town like Lord's Mudbucket, South Carolina, I'd teach the theory of evolution of religion, as a means of gaining insight into why there is a controversy in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Ref: "Evolution for Everyone" David Sloan Wilson"

Now if she had got the location from the angle of reflected sunlight glinting off objects on the ground and the time of day, I would have been really impressed ;-)

Good coders don't kill projects/products. Management that promises twice as much in half the time kills projects/products.
Even if developers get it done on time, you can be sure it will not be cost-effective to adapt or maintain the software as needed,
so death / outcompeted will come soon anyway.

That said, I would settle for truly competent developers over passionate ones. It can be hard to keep passionate ones focussed on the company's product, especially if their most fundamental ideas about it are turned down. They will find another outlet for their creativity in that case.

Competence is essential however, and is very hard to find, perhaps everywhere outside of Silicon Valley's insane salaries.
In my experience, a development team is like a volleyball team. One mediocre coder working in there and the whole team drops the ball. Because you can't recover from bad code in your project. Switching metaphors, bad code is cancerous. Not only won't it do the right thing, but it will solidify into an unchangeable lump, and it will weaken everyone else as they struggle to save the surrounding tissue through heroic measures.

Not on the Internet.

So could we scale that down and get a 10kg 100 kW engine that could be used as a range extender for an EV?

Parents inbreed much in that redneck hick town you're from? Seriously get a life. Or on second thoughts...

Except for the saying sorry part?

Seriously though, can we please get over this idea that Bill Gates was a computer genius. That's the perspective of non-techies, where basically anyone that understands computers or programming is a genius and can come over and de-louse your PC or get your wi-fi working.

Gates was/is not a good programmer. I know this because he permitted an egregiously badly designed (non-orthogonal instruction set, perverse memory addressing scheme) chip architecture and operating system (CP/M was much better designed. Unix already existed, pointing the way to generality and cleanliness of design) to be his core offering since day one, and and also because he completely failed to see the import of the world wide web for like at least 3 years after it became well known.

I know this because permitted horrible usability bugs in his core office software products to exist for decades without, apparently, doing a design or code review. Anyone who understands the utterance: "Crap! My document formatting sproinged again" or "Crap! I dragged the background of my whole diagram out of place again when trying to select that object" knows what I'm talking about. Oh, and free tip: It might be time to fix Excel on Macs so it doesn't save in circa-1995 old MacOSX text file line-ending format. Good programmer with self-respect about software they release? I don't think so.

Gates was very good at business. Ruthless, and smarter than the average business competitor, both in tactics of competition and about what people want. He knew intuitively that people in the 80s did not want well-designed computers and well-crafted software. They didn't know any of that stuff (the finer distinctions) and he knew it. People just wanted *A* computer (better than no computer) and they wanted it cheap and they needed to have the same software and data formats as everyone else who was using a computer for business or writing things. That's all they thought they needed. That's all he provided. Finer points of quality? Fuggedaboudit.