No... a properly encrypted hard drive *without* the truecrypt bootloader is indistinguishable from a hard drive that has been wiped using a boot and nuke utility with pseudo random data.

In my state, the 'legal distance' is something to the tune of a mile. If it was able to take down the drone with bird shot, I'm sure it was pretty close.

I see some potential issues here.

Fedora isn't exactly known for being lightweight in the memory area. Nor are some of the programs they're demonstrating - firefox, etc.

I don't feel like a full blown desktop OS like Fedora is a good fit for the Pi. Maybe one of the more lightweight UIs like Xfce or Lxde, but definitely not Gnome or KDE.

I am looking, and don't see much indication from the article on exactly how stripped down Fedora is in order to work with it. If you take out most things that aren't necessary, recompile the kernel w/o unnecessary stuff (PCMCIA drivers on an ARM board without expansion options?), it could work well. Just don't expect Gnome or KDE. Think more like puppylinux or damnsmalllinux.

Regardless of how harmless bird shot is (I know, you can fire it straight up and it doesn't hurt at all)...

The same laws apply to the shotgun no matter what is loaded in it. Firing towards a highway is probably against the law.

The 'retard' with the drone was on public property.

It's soylent green.

It's still the same species, though. Not saying that you couldn't talk yourself into it using 'logic', like anything pertaining to religion.

I doubt that the pork restriction would be lifted for artificial pork.

It's still, biologically, pork. While a silly rule, that's how they believe, and that it is artificial won't change it.

It does give a specific upper limit, which some people passed, and having the upper limit different from some, but not others makes no sense from a design perspective.

Personally, I don't intend to live past the point where my body aches every single day and I begin to be reliant on others.

Hopefully, politics will have matured to the point to where I can request assistance in even that and not have the doctor branded a criminal.

Living for, say, 1000 years would cause you to take up 10x as much resources as you would have otherwise.

Meaning that, in the grand scheme of things, it is a bad tradeoff for sustainability.

Citations

On the food thing before anyone asks:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/oct/11/how-will-the-world-feed-itself

Peak Oil:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7382/full/481433a.html

Tar sands:
http://news.yahoo.com/nobel-winners-urge-eu-leaders-back-tar-sands-110130470.html

Should we even live past that age - from a practical perspective?

We're already overpopulating the planet, not from a space to live perspective, but from a resources perspective.

We're already using resources faster than the planet can sustain them, and we will need the equivalent of two earths to sustain us in 2050.

And that's only talking about food. We've reached peak oil, and tar sands will only sustain us for so long (and pollute much more than crude oil ever did).

Starting to wonder if population control programs may not be our future. You can't have both old age and increasing amounts of births per person.

So, what was Jeanne Calment, a satanist?

Also, why doesn't *everyone* live that long? God said they could!

If Monsanto had their way, probably, yes.