I didn't conflate anything. "See also Lavabit" does not imply that what I said previously applied. In this instance, the word "also" implies it as a separate subject not related to the first.
Sorry if you didn't understand it the first time.
I plan in 2015 to build a computer that I will use at least until 2022.
Absolutely. I'm rocking an i5-750 on my desktop from about the same era (early 2010) and I'll be replacing it with an i7-skylake when they come out this fall, which I expect to ride until the end of western civilization.
The latency would be ridiculous for most use cases.
Are you sure? A round-trip latency of 13ms to the base station(s) seems fairly reasonable to me. These are Low Earth Orbit satellites with an altitude between 99 and 1,200 miles, not geostationary ones at 22,236 miles; that's 1/18th the distance, and thus latency, of existing satellite Internet providers like WildBlue or HughesNet. At the minimum LEO altitude the latency would be another order of magnitude lower still (around 1ms). Even the high-LEO delay is significantly less than the 20-40ms time to the first router reported by traceroute for my Qwest DSL connection.
The trade-offs of LEO include a requirement for many more satellites for the same coverage, the necessity of hand-offs as the satellites pass overhead, and lower orbital lifetimes / higher fuel consumption due to increased atmospheric drag.
Well they do in California, which is where the uplink and downlink would be happening. So there's that.
If you are being interrogated in court you're forced to swear to tell the truth. You're FORCED to do it. And it carries a LOT of weight.
Legal weight, perhaps, under an unjust legal system, but not moral weight; an oath given only under duress is no oath at all. For an oath to be morally binding there must be consent, and there cannot be consent when the oath is coerced. Of course, even worse than the prospect of being punished for violating an oath extracted under duress is that fact that you're being compelled to testify against your will in the first place. Without compulsory testimony, the oath would be voluntary and thus actually mean something.
Ultimately, the act of nullification requires one to go against the juror's oath.
Serious question: what if you refuse to take the juror's oath? If you'd be punished for refusing then the oath is given under duress and carries no moral weight. If not, then either you can serve on a jury without taking the oath (and thus with no qualms regarding nullification), or else refusing the oath would make a perfect "get out of jury duty free" card.
Wind and Solar are already lightyears cheaper than fossil fuels in remote areas like islands and the third world. Remember how we skipped providing land lines to Africa, and everyone there got cell phones instead? How Facebook has a mobile app specifically directed towards those mobile users in Africa? Solar and Wind will come from the bottom up (Africa, SE Asia) and from the top down (Germany, Netherlands, Sweden). As capacity increases and price decreases you'll start seeing middle-tier economies like the United States and Canada finally adopt them. Taking a train through the countryside you'll see hundreds of houses with solar panels on their roofs already. While the legislative push isn't needed, it will help move other countries in that direction, as the G7 acts as a leader and weathervane for countries worldwide.
TL;DR Solar and Wind will drive the price of fossil fuels in to the ground in 20 years, anyways.
The rates on your loans are set under the premise that some people will be eligible to discharge in bankruptcy. You've already paid for the privilege so not using it is just a waste. It isn't a moral issue.
On the contrary, it is a moral issue. Quite apart from the basic personal morality of honoring one's word, those who default become part of the statistics used to set the interest rates, so they're still raising the rates for everyone else. Worse, since you can't sign away the ability to discharge the loan in bankruptcy, those who would not attempt to evade repayment of a loan they voluntarily agreed to are penalized along with the rest.
Or, they would get a National Security Letter compelling them to turn over your keys and your data.
See also Lavabit.
If you can dump your 80 year old brain in a healthy 18 year old body, I would imagine a good number of people would take that option over death, at least until they sort out the whole "connecting the brain to the central nervous system" problem.
If you enable pipelining, firefox can be MUCH faster.
TFT should read: "NOAA Alters Climate Date to Hide Pause in Global Warming."
Finally, even with silly little distractions like terrorism, the economy, foreign threats to our security, and other things, there is a candidate that is ready to tackle the real issue of our time - our unit system! Seriously, this has to be the biggest threat to our prosperity since the Spanish Flu and George W. Bush.
Even if he doesn't win the nomination, which I admit is a long shot given how incredibly obvious it is that our unit system is the most compelling issue of our time, I'll write him in.
Go metric!
Shouting fire in a theatre is not covered under your right to free speech, as it impinges on the rights of others' safety and security.
It does no such thing. Now, panicking and trampling others in your haste to escape the "fire" does infringe others' rights, but that isn't directly caused by shouting "fire" and would not be justified even if the fire were real. The responsibility for that harm lies squarely with those who panic.
If someone fraudulently claims that there's a fire, and you take justifiable action based on a reasonable belief that they're telling you the truth, then they would be responsible for any harm that results from their fraud. That harm resulted from their choice, not yours. That isn't the case here; panicking and trampling others are not justifiable responses to a fire.
I find it hard to believe that so many people are willing to defend this bizarre ruling, which besides being unjust in its own right was also clearly politically motivated with the specific purpose of circumventing the First Amendment and permitting the suppression of political speech opposed to the draft (Schenck v. United States).
Waste not, get your budget cut next year.
