Why was the subcompacts insurance responsible in that scenario?

In the UK that would be a clear cut case of the larger vehicle that rear-ended the subcompact being in the wrong (driving without due care and attention, failure to maintain a required stopping distance etc) - in the UK, cases of rear ending are very hard to fight in court from the aspect of the person doing the rear ending, you have to have some very good evidence to prove that you were not doing anything wrong (eg you were driving along as normal, maintaining correct stopping distances etc, when suddenly someone pulls directly in front of you and slams their brakes on causing you to go into the back - if you have a forward facing camera in that circumstance, you could fight it, but otherwise you will be paying up).

The massive plus point is that the images can be stored for later analysis in situations where there is a suspicion that something was missed or glossed over.

When they joined the EU, they took on the requirement of joining the Euro, so yes, joining the EU was the problem.

How many people have been released from Guantánamo Bay without charge after multiple years of enforced captivity?

The problem is, it ends without answers - which seems to be an issue with many authors these days (Alastair Reynolds, I'm looking at you - several good concepts either dropped or petering out). Why does this seem to be a trend these days?

Eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, exercise regularly - and still end up in ER because you got hit by a drunk driver....

Except that Google is developing AngularJS 2 in TypeScript, which is also Microsofts "baby".

Except there would be no access without authorisation - Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd owns the computers and thus has the authorisation to access the data, and it says as much in the Azure terms and conditions.

Regardless of which way you cut it, no US court is going to allow the extradition of a US judge who has issued a legitimate and valid court order in his jurisdiction - the fact that his court order requires someone to potentially breach another countries laws is not in his circle of concern, and you cannot work around jurisdictions in such a manner.

The fact of the matter is that the company should not have placed itself in a situation where it comes under conflicting jurisdictions when it may be faced with either having to refuse a legitimate court order or break a countries laws. That is a conundrum the companies legal team should have been considering from the moment the company came under multiple jurisdictions.

Microsoft is an American company, and is the sole owner of Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd, and thus the jurisdiction over both entities exists and is demonstrable for an American Judicial Court and Judge.

But the Judge isn't requiring you to break the law in *his* jurisdiction but rather to follow it, and that is what matters to that Judge and that Court - no extradition would go ahead on that basis.

Your point is what, exactly? Those two groups of people cover entirely different demographics.

US courts are not constrained by laws of a foreign country, just as foreign courts are not constrained by US laws - when a US court rules within the boundaries of US law, whether or not that ruling would cause a company or person to violate a foreign law should not come into consideration. It may put the company or person in a difficult position, but that's not should not be the concern of the court.

More to the point, can a US court force Facebook to provide a service they do not want to provide and have no contract to provide?

That depends on whose profit you are talking about - the aircraft made a profit for its operators, British Airways and Air France, but lost its manufacturers money. Two entirely different set of accounts, and its easy to turn that on its head for other aircraft as well - the Boeing 747 made Boeing a lot of money, but while it bankrupted more than a few airlines whose egos were bigger than their fiscal abilities, you wouldn't say that the Boeing 747 wasn't profitable for Boeing.

The reason it lost its manufacturers money was because of the 1970s oil crisis, it had plenty of orders before that baby hit - indeed, the oil crisis depressed the entire airline industry, and many people believe that if the Concorde production run had outlasted the effects of the oil crisis, orders would have resurfaced, but alas the order book was filled (at least in terms of long lead time parts) before the crisis passed, and thus no more orders were possible.

The Convair 880 and 990 were also profitable for its operators, but lost its manufacturer money. Same goes for the L1011. But operators loved both types and they lasted decades in operational service precisely because they were profitable to fly.

Aerion is classed as a joke in the industry, and have been pushing their supersonic business jet concept for a number of years without actually getting anywhere. Their "collaboration with Airbus" is limited to use of Airbuses technical facilities, Airbus isnt actually involved in the design, manufacture or promotion of the concept.

Pause for a moment and consider why Aerion thinks they can produce a profitable supersonic business jet when companies with decades of experience building successful business jets have already largely dismissed the idea in the same timeframe?