i think it actually might be violating HIPAA

Nope. Because they're not covered by HIPAA. Only "covered entities" have to comply with HIPAA privacy regulations and, guess what? The government is not a covered entity.

And if the cops never try to use the radar scans as evidence, how will you show that they scanned you at all? In fact, how you will ever suspect that they scanned you so you can try to show they did?

then that would explain why people are still connecting their critical infrastructure directly to the Internet.

More simply explained. People's bosses aren't willing to pay for properly isolating their infrastructure because

a) they don't understand

b) they don't care

and c) they want direct access to their stuff from wherever they are, just like the vendor promised.

The president on Friday argued there must be a technical way to keep information private, but ensure that police and spies can listen in when a court approves.

"There must be a way to keep it unreadable, but we can read it when we need to."

No. You're asking for a logical contridiction. Common for politicians, granted, but it doesn't make it any more possible.

All movies require a certain suspension of disbelief. Still, I will take "two crewmen in a first-contact situation taking their helmets off, running off like ninnies, getting lost, and contaminating themselves." over "Roman emperor fights a gladiator."

Even though the latter actually happened? Granted, the fights were always fixed, but still...

You appear to be somewhat confused. The newer FCC regulations only killed the Model I (which kicked up so much interference you could place an AM radio next to the Model I and use it to provide sound). The Model II and Model III continued to be sold.

Not quite. *Radio Shack* started out under that name, by a pair of brothers selling ham radio equipment and parts out of a store in Boston, both at the storefront and via mail order. In 1962, Radio Shack was bought by Tandy Corporation, which were the guys who started out as muleskinners.

Because you live in Virginia and nearest Fry's is in Georgia? Good for you that you live near a Fry's, but they're hardly nationwide.

"Radio Shack. You've got questions, we've got blank looks."

The problem is, questions of law and questions of fact are not entirely separable. Being able to apply the law correctly often calls for an proper understanding of the facts.

In fact, "jury of your peers" is British, not American. It means commoners get tried by a jury of commoners, whereas a lord is tried by jury of lords--usually the entire House of Lords convened as a jury, in fact. That happened very rarely; one can see a fictional account of how such a trial would be conducted in Dorothy Sayer's Clouds of Witnesses. Even in Britain, this is now obsolete, as the old legal distinctions of subject, commoner and lord are largely abolished; one is simply a British citizen, now.

I disagree with that ruling. I'm not the only one.

Free speech doesn't mean that you can offend anything/anyone!

Yes, it does, actually. I'm willing to make free speech exceptions for libel, fraud, and maybe government secrets. Offending someone doesn't rate.

No, originally it was only cut and paste. Because once upon a time that was how you did large scale re-editing. You had a pair of scissors, a pot of paste, and you cut out passages and pasted them where you wanted them to be.

He didn't say they had to be *good* personality traits...