TFA said: "Otherwise, it risks having users (slowly but surely) switch to more secure platforms that do give them updates in a timely manner."

I'm curious what platforms those might be.

The only one I'm (slightly) familiar with at the moment is Replicant, which is an all-open port of Android - with support for a limitied - and (thus?) somewhat pricey (when even available)- handful of platforms.

("All-Open" being defined as "Functionality dependent on binary blobs we don't have open source replacements for is left out of the distribution. You might get it working by installing proprietary modules. But we think that's a bad idea / counterproductive / reduces incentive for people to MAKE open source replacements, so we don't recommend it or provide instructions." i.e. do a web search for somebody who figured out how to do it if you want, say, the front camera, WiFI, or Bluetooth to work and forget about GPS for now. (v4.2 on Samsung s3))

Now I think that's the right approach. And I'd love to see more support or help for the project.

But are there others? If so, what are they?

You forgot to check the "Post Anonymously" checkbox.

It's so cute that people still think that actually means something.

Sounds good! I am all for more of Microsoft's cash being transferred to the shareholders of Salesforce.

America has one of the highest corporate tax rate in the world. That is the main reason that corporations have been leaving.

The 90% tax bracket was an personal rate, that did not apply to corporations. The corporate rate has never been much above 50%, and even that was generally in wartime.

Corporate tax rate by year

That video is about talking to the police if you are a suspect in a crime. It is not about talking to the police if you are a witness.

Which companies voluntarily turn over customer location data to the police? Please name names.

They're not ALL Algol. There's the LISP-likes, plus OCaml and Haskell.

Think of all the data Google must have about you in order to provide the free service you receive from them - you emails, your photos, your location, you ED searches, etc., etc.

Well, because you have shared that with Google, you have no expectation of privacy, so the government can take it whenever they want.

If the data belong to the cell company, then why is a warrant not required to get them from that company?

Seems that would be hard to do, demonstrating probable cause that the company plans to shoot Charlie H, using the alias Mohammed.

Exactly.... All of these tactics that prevent authorities from gaining access to your locked / encrypted data are only marginally effective in most real-world scenarios.

It may be true that nobody can really *force* you to give up a pass-code that you've only stored in your own head. But they don't barge in, confiscate your hardware AND arrest you if they don't feel they've already got a pretty good case against you. (If it really hinges only on them getting to see the data on your computer's drive that's password protected, they don't have enough evidence to arrest and hold you.)

I'd venture to say that in most computer-related arrests made these days, they gathered most of the evidence based on data they were able to see transmitted over the Internet or viewed at a remote destination someone sent it to. (EG. Microsoft's current court case against a guy who they claimed massively pirated copies of Windows 7 by illegally activating them. They've got evidence on the Microsoft activation servers that point to his IP address, uploaded by the computers he was activating. Being unable to see anything on his PC is pretty irrelevant at this point for investigators, I'm sure.)

Its also a chemical.

In fact, its a fracking chemical.

Reasonable people can disagree on this. Oil and gas released by fracking is driving huge reductions in coal use for power generation. Personally, I really like the unknown but apparently small costs from fracking against the known and enormous cost of mining and burning coal.

Did you read TFA? (This is Slashdot, why did I waste electrons asking?) It says the chemical concentration is well below safety limits. There is no reason to believe the water is unsafe.

If you put that aside, I do tend to agree, if the water used to be safe and now it's not and it is reasonably clear the drilling had something to do with it, the drillers have an ethical responsibility to make the well owners right.

That's an interesting point. Ronald Coase won a Nobel prize for the Coase Theorem which says that's not always the economically sensible way to think about it. Ethically and morally, most people assume whoever got there first should win. If I dug the well first, I have a right to clean water. If the frackers got there first, I have to deal with whatever water they left behind. The Coase theorem says it really doesn't matter who got there first, as long as we can strike a bargain, we'll arrive at the optimal (greatest good, lowest cost) solution. That might be supplying filters to wells, paying well owners off, changing drilling techniques, buying the mineral rights and putting them in a land trust, or something you and I can't envision.