I thought the judged dinged them only for using the data, not retaining it. I am under the impression retaining it is standard practice. Is that not the case?

Who holds and filters the data in a civil case?

This "long-established practice" has always been a violation of the 4th amendment. The recent case where the US government used hard drive data from a *different* case is proof that they should not do this. They should never get the entire hard drive contents. A neutral 3rd-party should copy the drive, perform an appropriate search, then erase the copy. There's no reason for the government to indefinitely hold copies of data they should never have had in the first place.

Just imagine if they had a warrant to get your address book, but they kept a copy of every piece of paper in your entire home, just in case it became relevant later. There is no way that would be allowed. But the digital equivalent is somehow acceptable.

It's really stupid to think in numbers per-person when the problem is an absolute quantity emitted into the atmosphere.

I mean, just look at the data

You emit 1.19% of the total CO2 emitted by all countries. What are larger cuts on your part really going to do?

Australia's numbers are high because you don't have tens of millions of people living in dirt huts. Really want to do that? And the laws repealed were changing the number from what, 17 to 16.75...

Please make it moddable. I want a chainsaw on my wheelchair. Woooo!

Now why would I make WHeX WITHOUT chainsaws!

A chainsaw on every corner. The footrests? Both chainsaws.

And then of course there's the Tow Saw, which is a chainsaw tied to a rope that bounces around randomly as you roll forward.

Wheelchair Hunter eXTreme

You're sitting down. You could even sell wheels that attached to the side of office char armrests... and a gun accessory that tracked position relative to your body to match the virtual version.

Or, a Battlezone clone where you are in an open cockpit.

I don't understand why you Aussies think this even matters. Do you know how much carbon you guys produce next to China or India? A laughably small amount. You could start building factories tomorrow in the outback that did nothing but spew raw CO2 into the atmosphere and it would take you hundreds of years to catch up to China alone.

If CO2 is to really be reduced the effort falls squarely on large semi-developed countries like China or India. Even the US has already cut back as much as they can, and that without a carbon tax also... we just weren't as stupid as you to pass it to start with.

You guys are just wising up to the reality that carbon taxes are as much a ruse to make people money as anything else. Where do you think "carbon taxes" go anyway...

I don't think that word means what you think it does.

Thank you for quoting the text. I've never seen this before.

If it said that then there might be more agreement. But that isn't what the words you quoted say. It has no such caveat. The only caveat at all is the word "arbitrary" which is a legislative weasel word. If it said "libelous" or "untrue" or something to that effect then it would not be debatable. It simply looks like it is poorly written, even if it is intended to mean what you say it is.

You do not need the skill to program. You just need the leverage to make someone who has the skills do it for you.

A programmer might be willing to do it for some large sum of money or to protect his family. Once it is done once, it becomes much easier to do a second time.

30 years after the original 1984 commercial the rebels have been co-opted and are now partnering with big brother.

In what way is IBM Big Brother any more? They have not been for a decade or more... if anything they are the Nerdy Brother, just hanging out on the side doing technical stuff while Microsoft gives them a wedgie every time he comes back home.

But in reality this pairing is to keep both companies strong against Google, not Microsoft.

Actually, it turns out that the DOJ did do this. After coming back to the Slashdot discussion I see some other posters providing links to the DOJ's actions. Hunt around the discussion and you will find it. Clearly it wasn't enough though.

The executive branch decides what projects to work on, but but when the engineers calculate the height of levies, they are using current science and weather data.

In France, what would the lawyer have cost her? More or less than the fine? It seems quite sad that modern justice systems require lawyers for common sense rulings.

It seems like the FTC or the DOJ could address this by going after the car dealership cartels.

Obama gave the only reply he could. It essentially says "I don't control that, I can't help you. Sorry."

When your local state passes a bad law, don't cry to the federal government. Call your local representatives and fix the law yourself. It's easier to get local laws changed, and that is the appropriate level to do it.