As far as I know, the device (if it actually could work) would be illegal in most of Europe. Charging a device with the EM waves sent by other devices is considered energy theft and thus forbidden. In the 1960ies, devices charged by radiowaves from a nearby radio tower were a constant theme in the electronic magazines, but later, this was forbidden, as it actually forces the radio tower to increase the emitted amount of energy to compensate for the loss due to the charging device.

The government network contract was up for bidding, and Verizon won. It's as easy as that. And now, the German government found out that Verizon didn't disclose some very important information in the contract negotiations.

That was never officially stated. Officially the Berlin Wall was supposed to keep foreign agents and provocateurs out.

Spain has only some dozen kilometers of fence around their enclaves in North Africa. People now use boats to get to Lampedusa, which is in Italy, and being an isle, can't be easily fenced off.

Being fast at 100 m runs demonstrates you are good at doing 100 m runs. Still you will be hailed a talent in Track&Field.

Sorry for not being a native speaker. I will try to change that as soon as possible.

I am working all day with computers, and there I have the time somewhere in a widget or just a command away. The car has a watch. There are watches all over town. Thus, I don't need a wristwatch, and in the few situations where I need to know the time and there is no watch around right now, I still can pull out the mobile and check.

Thus for me: Currently nothing could convince me to buy a smart watch.

This is a huge misunderstanding.

What I wanted to point out is, that painting regulations as anti-big business without further elaboration is completely misguided, as you can paint anything as anti-big business, even the most pro-business laws. And property laws are the most pro-business laws of all, as they actually create the property you can trade.

It's just a coincidence that every law is anti-big business. Imagine all the business opportunities, if big business could just hire some gun men and force people out of their houses! Those pesky property laws are so totally anti-big business. It's so anti free market that the people with more and better guns shouldn't be able to expand their market share.

That's probably a non-starter.

I've noticed that the yards in my area that look the most like putting greens tend to be the most likely to have political signs on them around election time.

Since you've already made up your mind to be 100% wrong about your analysis of global warming, its threats, and its monumental external costs, there's no point in discussing it with you.

So, other than spewing the single largest existing threat to the welfare of human civilization, coal is just fine.

Meanwhile, by your arguments, the problem of setting up a recycling center for solar panels appears to be an intractible dilemma.

Now I'm picturing Nigel in front of a rack of Unisys machines:

"These go to nine bits."

The GCHQ could claim administrative priviledge (as they actually did, linked PDF), but if the transfer of data itself ist forbidden, they have an administrative priviledge with no one to actually priviledge on.

It could give all the european intelligence agencies cold feet for cooperating with the NSA. It could give all the citizens angry about the constant surveillance and the nonchalance of their politicians about it a boost. It makes everyone liable who gives material support to the NSA from within the E.U., which in turn makes the life miserable for David Cameron and the GCHQ.