Personally I recommend binoculars.

Entirely possible the other port is wired to the camera.

Why only when they remember bad things? After all, if they are a Bad Person(TM) then they don't deserve to do the things they enjoy like listening to Beethoven.

Comcast has reached the point where staying with the devil you know is worse than trying the devil you don't.

Already been done. The conservatives had a shitfit when their ads were blocked. http://www.bloomberg.com/polit...

Naturally that was that and this is this and it's totally different when it's their message being blocked by the carriers.

Meanwhile "the troll" asserts that an employer refusing to pay someone to do nothing is an "urban legend".

This bottle of snakeoilism will cure all your economic ills!

Pretty much. The user double clicks the icon and answers "No" and doesn't get to see jiggly bits. So the user double clicks the icon again and says "Yes" this time.

As the old saying ought to go:

It's better to live on your feet than die on your knees

The problem with your XKCD comic is that $5 wrenches only work on one person at a time, and they have to have already decided which person they're going to use the wrench on.

PRISM and other wide-scale NSA dragnets are specifically designed to be as wide a net as possible so that they can collect everyone's information all the time at a minimum cost, and then later decide what to do with it. As the cost to spy on you decreases to zero, so does your ability to be "not worth" spying on.

The filetype is now contained in the icon

The icon of an executable is set by the executable. Enjoy your porn.jpg.exe with a thumbnail icon.

The problem is that if they manage to get your DNS settings changed, they can use real URLs in the phishing emails.

borders aren't that hard to keep.

Isn't that what East Germany said? Walls, landmines, razor wire, snipers, papers please... and they still leaked like a sieve.

Setting aside socialism, if the system was working anything approaching optimum for the current configuration of third party payers and patent holders and everything else, insurance companies would already be inventing (and/or buying inventors of) drugs and practically giving them away to their members (or cross-licensing them with other insurers cheap to get their members the best drugs available in multiple categories). As a side effect, insurance companies would inherently aim to reduce side effects (guess who pays when you have a heart attack because of taking some drug) rather than cover side effects up (see: VIOXX). It would also eliminate the (real or imagined) conflict of interest between finding cures and finding treatments.

It would be, but it'd be impossible to prove unless someone in the State or at Google spoke up about it.