Yes, but it isn't reliable. There are plenty of locations that don't have adequate cellular data service.

You have it backwards. Inflation keeps people from hoarding, not deflation.

Perhaps, but every needle injection increases the risk of infection of the eyeball. My grandfather recently had a fake eye inserted after a single eye injection resulted in a streptococcus infection in that eye.

I could buy this analogy if the email originates in the U.S. or is destined for and accessed by a person within the U.S. But if neither circumstance applies, then like the airmail scenario the U.S. would have no reasonable jurisdiction.

If it's anything like Office, they'll offer both subscription and up-front purchase.

If they couple the subscription with the Office subscription at reduced price, while offering standard cloud services and perhaps even XBox Live membership, now that would be enticing.

I understand that advertisements provide revenue that many companies need to operate. Given the choice between paywall and ads, I'll choose ads most every time.

But you are spot on, ads should be minimally invasive. Ads should always load after content loads, never before. Ads should be low-priority as far as processing and bandwidth are concerned. And of course, ads should never be obtrusive, such as popping up over content or displaying right under the mouse when you hover over something that can be clicked or having sound.

I am definitely in the .NET camp. But if you are interested in functional programming and you have to work in the JVM, you might want to consider switching to Scala. It's pretty good stuff.

.NET Core will now use semantic versioning. I'm not sure if .NET Framework will do the same... I don't know of anything planned for 4.6 that violates the rules of semantic versioning.

The overall synchronized release of .NET will now be labeled by year, e.g. ".NET 2015".

A point of open source is to remove the ability to "extinguish". Microsoft doesn't want it any more? Who cares what they think, the community will decide if it lives or dies.

That argument is a slippery slope. Say the data is racist. The algorithm is not racist, so what sense does it make to attack the algorithm while ignoring the data?

Even if the results of the algorithm are racially skewed, is the result worse than the status quo? I seriously doubt it. Remember that the problem this algorithm is trying to solve is not whether there is racial bias, but whether crime can be prevented by targeting repeat offenders.

Interesting, I thought the most basic and oldest function of email was sending a message.

You do realize that the entire point of having a trial is to lecture a judge or jury? If they already knew the answers, there would be no need for a trial.

That is answered by the former quote:

Breaking encryption that is not breakable does not fall under any sense of the word "reasonable".

And I don't see why it has to be one-or-the-other. There can still be automated buses that services main routes, and smaller automated buses/taxis that work on a reservation system to drive people to and from the main bus system.

Correlation != causation

For all we know, it is lifelong virginity that leads to Star Wars.