The only situation I've found a watch useful for is when I'm on my motorbike, as it doesn't have a clock on the dash, and I can't reach for my cellphone.

Other than that, a watch for most men today is a fashion accessory. For 99% of requirements, the cellphone clock display has replaced the need for a wristwatch.

This also explains why the slashdot summary reads exactly like the kind of advertisement you would see in e.g. a men's magazine pushing products like cosmetics for men and other crap we don't need.

That's absurd on the face of it, you don't need FTTH for the SKA, because the data isn't going to be distributed on a large scale to homes! For the SKA, you only need one fat pipe leading from the SKA, out to the under-ocean cables.

Yeah, seriously, if there's one thing I've learned it's that even rival lawyers will protect one another when it comes to defending and expanding the power the 'system' gives lawyers to screw over everyone else.

You kidding? In the world of lawyers this type of action probably makes him a hero.

Great, a whole 70MW from all of Bonneville's stations in total, now if only there were about 1000 times as many dams all over the place, including in dry areas. You have clearly shown us the answer.

Can't start wars without money, and after the abovementioned, who would lend it?

Yup, what I was going to say, but better said.

They aren't even implying it, they are stating it.

There are other reasons to expect they "probably" wouldn't actually do anything like that, as it would harm their reputation --- but it wouldn't be because this ToS doesn't explicitly allow them to --- it does, and legally it would be only incidental that they don't exercise that right. Certainly it may raise the company's paper value if looking for valuations for funding.

Yes, but the "Service" isn't defined by the previous sentence at all in any way whatsoever, is vague and open-ended and refers to pretty much anything. It still says exactly what it say, out of context. So what's your point?

Um, it still sounds just as bad to me even in context. Legally, the sentence "We sometimes need your permission to do what you ask us to do with your stuff (for example, hosting, making public, or sharing your files)." doesn't affect the meaning in any way, other than couch it in the implication - to the layman - that the extent of the sentence following, is limited by that sentence. However, it isn't; if you parse the English, the two sentences are not connected.

If you don't want people plugging in strange USB sticks, create a policy and post a memo to make sure everyone knows it's not allowed. Bet that would cut the majority of cases, problem solved. The fact is people don't apply 'user education' simply because it isn't really the huge problem in the real world that it's being made out to be here. If it was, we'd see more action to create policy against it. The only place this will be a serious problem is in poorly run IT departments where Windows isn't updated and antivirus software isn't installed and users all have 'root'.

SCOTUS judges take the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

The keyword there is "under" the Constitution. They aren't supposed to trample over it or go around it or sidestep it or ignore it. They are required to uphold and implement it.

The Constitution is written in plain, simple English. Might I suggest you read it sometime - in fact anyone can read it and understand it quite clearly. The SC doesn't have the "final say" insofar as they cannot have the "final say" over and above the Constitution, their JOB is to UPHOLD the Constitution - the Constitution itself IS the "final say". The fact that it's become that way is because we've lost the "consent of the governed" because people like you have been convinced that SCOTUS gets to "interpret" it however they please, and have been convinced that it is something so arcane and obscure and difficult to understand that "interpreting" it can only be done by a tiny number of specially appointed elite.

The very idea of the Supreme Court "weighing in" is a bit flawed. The SC is supposed to UPHOLD the Constitution, not sit around and decide which parts they, as a small handful of individuals, agree can be totally streamrolled, ignored, and used as toilet paper. There isn't much to "weigh in" - it's blatantly unconstitutional, and the only way they can ethically "decide" is for the Constitution. In spite of many of us having been convinced otherwise, the "consent-of-the-governed" mandate of the SC doesn't actually include "getting rid of the Bill of Rights".

A file server isn't complicated or expensive - IF you happen to have someone with half a clue in your organization. Believe me, not everyone has that luxury - the world is pretty "stupid" out there. I think a lot of small (non-tech, e.g. a small florist or whatever) businesses would find this simplifies things for them.