"The Government Can No Longer Track Your Cell Phone Without a Warrant"

The headline is slightly inaccurate. It should read:

"The Government Can No Longer Legally Track Your Cell Phone Without a Warrant"

But since history demonstrates conclusively that the government couldn't care less about staying within the law, that makes very little difference. It most certainly can track your cell phone without a warrant, it most probably does so, and you would be most unwise to assume it isn't doing so.

"Then why bother announcing there is a trial?"

To frighten any other potential troublemakers. Just keep your nose clean, keep your head down, do what you are told and never complain or criticize the authorities. And you'll have nothing to fear. Otherwise...

... he wants his Star Chamber back.

There were also notes of congratulations from Cardinal Richelieu and Joe Stalin.

Contrast the treatment bin Laden received: captured while completely defenceless and indeed stark naked, cynically murdered, and his body dumped into the ocean. Whereas it would have been perfectly easy to bring him back to the USA to stand trial.

You are wrong in stating that they would "have been hanged immediately by a squad of soldiers". Maybe you have been watching too many Hollywood movies. The fledgling USA copied its justice system lock, stock and barrel from that of Britain.

The rebels would have been arrested and detained in prison. They would then have been tried for the crime of treason, and - in view of the overwhelming evidence against them - found guilty and hanged by order of the court. Exactly as all those found guilty of treason against the USA have been executed by order of the courts.

Is this the earliest recorded invocation of Godwin?

"How many people has the US executed for being homosexual?"

Quite a few in the past:

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/...

And perhaps quite a few more in the future:

http://www.toledonewsnow.com/s...

Don't forget the 2 million plus in Iraq, and the 1 million plus in Iran (killed in the war Saddam began, egged on and supported by the USA). There are enough million-plus figures without getting down into the tens of thousands here and there (e.g. Libya).

Actually, the USA is a terrorist nation - indeed, the only really significant one since the Third Reich, Mao and Pol Pot. Iran, on the other hand, has not attacked anyone since it was recreated on the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire nearly a century ago. (In spite of having its democratic constitution overthrown by US agents, and being ferociously attacked, at the direct instigation of the US government, by Iraq with a loss of over 1 million of its citizens).

If you aren't convinced, try totting up the numbers of people killed, maimed, bereaved, and rendered homeless by each of these nations since 1945.

"Go to country where I can get my hand cut off for offending the authorities? No."

If you're a US resident, don't forget that you already live in a country where you can be killed without warning or due process (or made to disappear for the rest of your life) for offending the authorities. (Or even for having a name that some cretin thinks is like some other name that some other cretin put on a list).

Unfortunately for the premise of this study, Dr Ioannidis' well-known findings suggest that most scientific papers are also inaccurate. So we can't draw reliable conclusions as to the accuracy of Wikipedia articles. Indeed, it is possible - though admittedly quite unlikely - that the Wikipedia articles are correct in each case, and the scientific papers incorrect.

See http://www.plosmedicine.org/ar...

The situation seems analogous to that of a journalist and/or photographer reporting on a disaster in which people are hurt or killed. It is often said that they would help more if they dropped their notebooks and cameras and pitched in to help rescuers. But then no one would be doing the presumably useful job of recording events.

The researchers in this case were trying to establish the accuracy of Wikipedia articles. Simultaneously editing would be both a distraction and a conflict of interest - much like moderating and contributing to the same Slashdot thread.

"A study led by King’s College London found that the combination of olive oil and salad holds the key to keeping the risk of high blood pressure down. A large salad with a simple dressing combines the necessary unsaturated fats with nitrate-rich vegetables".

http://www.independent.co.uk/l...

Everyone on the B ship, basically.

It certainly is true that many people have a nodding acquaintance with Microsoft products - although surprisingly few have mastered, say, 10% of their features. (Largely because so many of those features were added only so as to win tick-in-the-box sales contests). So, in the short term, there is some advantage in continuing with them. Just as there is some advantage in never training staff, just hoping to hire people with existing experience.

In the medium term, let alone the long term, such policies are very risky. The changes in UI between consecutive releases of Microsoft Office can be greater than those between an earlier version and an open-source alternative. As we have seen, many people baulked at the huge difference in UI between Windows 7 and Windows 8. And of course, if no one ever trains staff, eventually there will not be enough people with the necessary experience to go round.

Unfortunately our implementation of capitalism encourages extreme short-termism. Why not slash and burn while you are in a given job, as long as you can be fairly sure of getting promoted before the harm is noticed? Better still, your successor will look really bad, thus improving your image (relatively). And of course, if you accept the principle of never adopting any software that everyone isn't familiar with, by and by you will find that all your software is obsolete. As is your staff's experience.