Ukraine, "previously" held control of Russia's only viable winter port for the Russian fleet. The US's intervention in forcing a government change to a pro west/anti Russian government meant Russia was at risk of losing access to a vital military facility as well as have a close friendly neighbour suddenly become a NATO stronghold, wrongly or rightly Russia still view NATO with a great deal of suspicion if not as an outright enemy. If that isn't backing him into a corner and prodding the bear with a massive cattle prod then I don't know what is. It would be the equivalent of mexico and Canada suddenly becoming communist north Korean and expecting the US would not react.

The interesting part is Both US and Russia have breached item 1, 3 and 6.

Given the French revolution was a direct response in part to the excess, privilege and abuses committed by the church and state the actions their while excessive are hardly surprising and the pre French revolution time is an excellent example of why the church should never be permitted to have any sort of power in society. It is important to note though the revolution WASN'T based on atheism at all, it was based on overthrowing an aristocracy and class system that was oppressing the people through taxes and starvation.

They aren't the only country wanting to remain in the 8th century, their are still supposedly modern countries that ban teaching or evolution and insist on teaching their kids at school creationism.

I don't think he denied anything, the fact you are equating the USSR and Russia is a problem though. Ukraine was part of what happened in Hungary so why are you blaming only Russia? Ukraine was as much a core of the USSR as Russia was back then.

The question is not about whether they are subject to US law, they are, it is whether US can tell a US based company to ignore another countries laws. The argument here is that what the US court is demanding isn't legal and the US doesn't have the legal authority to do.

The US legal system starts and ENDS at the US borders. You seem to have completely misunderstood this situation, For example your safe deposit box example, if the US wanted the contents of a safe deposit box in Europe they cannot legally seize it, doing so would be a violation of europan law and the US officials doing it would be guilty of bank robbery and treated like any other common criminal. They must go through the countries legal system that holds the goods they want to seize, similarly the same applies to Data, the US can get access to it as long as it follows the appropriate laws and procedures. What the US government is trying to do is say other countries laws don't matter with data and therefore are asking a US companies to break another countries laws. You yourself said it that when in other countries you must abide by that countries rules, you cannot compel an individual or company to break the laws of another country. No one is suggesting that MS gets to ignore US laws, it is the US government saying that they get it ignore other countries laws and can compel US companies to do the same while they are in those countries.

IF you truly believe cameras are needed to monitor all police then there is a far more fundamental problem here and cameras are not going to fix it.

Well it appears they have entered into the contract with the explicit purpose to disrupt their business, it is arguably fraud or at least tortuous interference, it could be argued as either a criminal or civil offense.

Yes really. It has been stated by both the insurance industry and government in Australia that Uber drivers are NOT insured here unless they have a commercial license and corresponding commercial insurance as it is illegal to offer for hire services without a public transport license and insurance is invalid when you are operating outside the law

YES I do think they should abide by the same rules as in order for insurance to be valid and cover you they must also be following the rules. This is the reason I would never use Uber here in Australia as while an accident is unlikely I like knowing I am insured against such an event and in most Uber drivers sharing you are definitely NOT covered. Similiarly if I am paying for accommodation I want to know that they are meeting minimum health and safety requirements and also have appropriate insurance.

depends on the situation. There is government being overly strict/arseholes, then there is government doing what it is supposed to do, which is ensuring hotels are all following the regulations required for hotels. If they are doing the former then it sucks, but I suspect it is the later they are chasing. I personally find it hard to fault them if what they are doing is chasing people that are blatantly ignoring the laws for insurance, health and safety etc when it comes to hotel accommodation.

perhaps overcoming the law of thermodynamics is unlikely. BUT, utilising the waste heat efficiently and effectively so that any such signature would be all but undetectable from this range I think would be distinctly possible, if not likely.

I have plenty where I work where the source code has been lost or has been poorly maintained so that the binary version is significantly different to our only source code copy.

That is a religious argument. personally I would prefer my government to stay out of religion. Software is a tool, governments concerns should be using the best tool for the job with the least cost. Hopefully that is free software, if not then that is fine too.