I don't use a mobile device. My cell phone is just a phone. My computer at work is for work stuff, my computer at home is for entertainment. My time in between is the time I use to not look at screens. When a mobile app is called for (my wife has a tablet) default apps do the job.

Thank goodness the St. Lawrence isn't a provincial resource, its a Federal one.

Check that. Our current current Prime Minister is far more likely to sell the river to the US for a few beads then Quebec would.

"...people living there in the past."

That's the problem in Quebec. Too many of the Pequists do live in the past. They are trying to hold Quebec back from evolving like the rest of the world. When the premier of Quebec states in public that saying "bonjour, hi" as a greeting in a store with a bilingual clientele is unacceptable (as the entire greeting must be in French, in her mind), she is clearly not functioning in the real world.

Get evil genius from GOG. It loses steam in the mid-play , but the start and the end are fantastic. don't bother with the surface buildings (hotel casino, etc.) Pros don't bother with traps, either.

Not a Christian stereotype, a fundamentalist one. I refuse to stereotype as Christian those that use the Christian moniker for such restrictive viewpoints.

I completely agree that most Christians believe in evolution and the use of science to understand the existing universe, regardless of the source of the Universe.

I don't know personally anyone who believe in the literal truth of the various holy books lying around.

As someone placed in the Christian faith not by my choice, it bugs me when folks use "Christian" as a descriptor to mean "I do what I want, how I want, in the name of Christianity". Folks like that have no issue treating certain other folks badly, all in the name of some misguided (my opinion) understanding of certain phrases.

I always though the Fundamentalist position was that fossils were put there by God, so as to test the faith of hapless followers.

Colour me surprised.

Thank goodness neither position has anything to do with the real world.

It has been obvious for a long time, that when it comes to privacy of the person and their rights when in conflict with the demands of the state and defending these rights in court, that the subject of the court case will be a scumball.

Just because he is scum doesn't mean he doesn't have rights. Someone's grandmother up on similar charges, we could all support defending their rights, unfortunately, they are not the ones likely to end up with those charges in the first place.

I can see how my comments addressed items not in your original post. I will say that I agree that those agencies providing review of trustworthiness of a product, must themselves, be open to inspection. If I need to trust person B to review device X to inform me as to whether I should trust that device, I need satisfaction that B can be trusted. From this position, both aspects of trust are the same. However, I will maintain that no enough is done in our marketplace (primarily due to governments not wanting to limit their own reach) to ensure the security of our private communications. The telecom and data industries are only limiting themselves to what is required by law. There is no advantage to them to provide better security, and I have no doubt, that there is considerable pressure not to. Here, the market does not provide the device, service, or product I desire; either limited by legislation or by actions from state agencies.

I cannot agree on this. There is no double standard here, only different standards applied to different concepts. When I produce a product for public consumption where that device facilitates a protected right, the device should be tested for its ability to be trusted. i.e. source code public and/or peer reviewed. My personal communication is protected. The software for my device to facilitate that communication should be trusted, and the only way to ensure that trust is to have its functionality peer reviewed.

There are different standards here, because there are different rights at stake, and they have different values.

Sorry Sunshine, you're mixing apples and oranges. He's advocating peer-review for technologies to be widely used and trusted by people. He's advocating privacy and anonymity for people. You are trying to say that asking that the tools we use to privately communicate should be trusted, because the corporate bodies that make them deserve to be trusted. People have the right for private communication, with the exception of pre-authorized, court sponsored, evidence gathering. People are allowed to be anonymous. We do not have to carry papers when we travel locally/internally. We are free to associate. I do not have to trust that the software you have installed on a device that that I own. I certainly do not have to give up my rights to grant rights where they do not belong

Change the clocks before Hallowe'en, that way its dark when the kids go out. Changing it afterwards is stupid. Somehow trick or treating when its not dark is just wrong. Lighting effects and such don't have much impact when its not dark.

With only 1/4 the oxygen pickup, this protein would likely not be a substitute for your own blood, but it could be something to tide you over until you could get a proper top up.

If memory serves, artifacts like this are caused generally from the timing difference from the 3 colour images that were superimposed on each other to get the composite colour image.

Other Saturn images are similar artifacts. The astronomy site talks about them on another Saturn picture page.