Bull. The UK has the same "gun" homicide stats that it had before they confiscated the citizen's arms. Their raw homicide rate has actually gone up. You are spouting lies.

Do you really expect to get reliable (accurate is what I think you are going for there) statistics from a nation whose leader and the referendums he supports has "received" close to 90%+ of the vote in each of the elections despite massive opposition? Good luck with that.

Shhh.... You don't want the people to realize gun control is all about control and nothing about guns or safety now, do you? :-)

Your worry proves why this and all civilian disarmament efforts are BAD in theory.

No, this is utter bull shit. The stat, which is a Brady creation, is that for people with a gun in the home, they are more likely to be "harmed" by a gun. Now, think that through. If you want to commit suicide and you have a gun at the house, um sure you will use a gun. This does not mean you will fall victim to a gun homicide nor does it mean your gun will be used against you.

This is a complete and utter manipulation of the numbers which you have bought into lock stock and barrel.

You are not confused. The AG is. You are actually right that this fraud doesn't involve apple at all. But that won't matter.

It's the inverse of Moore's law so yeah, duh....

If your compute power doubles in the same size die every 1.5 years, then if you halve the die size keeping the compute power the same you actually cut the power in half. This is a very well known phenomenon and Koomey is doing what he has been for a while, making headlines with little substance and lots of flair.

That Microsoft and Intel paid for this research calls into question what it was they were actually paying for.

A) In 38 states your conversations can be secretly recorded without your knowledge. Humanity has not crumbled under the weight.
B) "Privacy does not stop at one individual". Correct, but it requires the consent of all of those people to maintain the privacy. You are trusting the other party to not repeat what you said, therefore you trust they won't use the recordings.
C) "You might tell someone something off-the-record in a conversation which you would never put in writing." Security via obscurity. If you don't want anyone to know you think it, don't write it or speak it.
D) "What is the problem with simply telling someone you are going to record them?" Because in interactions with people with authority, they can use this to force you to stop doing so. See my original post. The right to record conversations you are a party to is a defensive one.

At the end of the day, the prohibition on 2nd party recording is to protect liars, cheats and thieves by removing the ability to accurately capture evidence of the conversation one was a party to and does nothing for privacy.

Oh and to this:
If you were speaking with your doctor or shrink, would you be okay with them secretly recording you?

Yes, I would. I am already expecting them to be discriminating. I don't have a problem with them recording so long as they accept the responsibility to protect the recordings.

A & B were having a conversation in my example. Read it again.

There is no privacy expectation for B once they state something to A. Period. They chose to divulge the information and once they do that, they lose their privacy right. Think of it this way, imagine a suspect tells the cop "I did it" and the cop testifies to this effect. The suspect has no right to privacy from the cop and those words can be used against them. However, if the cop records this conversation with the suspect, under the logic of Comm v. Hyde, the suspect has a privacy right and the recording can't be used against them.

This ruling is in line with Comm v. Hyde. There is NOTHING new about this ruling, at least regards the recording issue. There is nothing wrong with OPENLY recording cops in MA or anyone else who are speaking in normal voice in public. By being in public, they are forfeiting their privacy. This is inline with 4th Amendment thinking.

In technical terms, the above is 3rd party recording that is not considered 3rd party eavesdropping because there is no REP (reasonable expectation of privacy).

Now, what this ruling DOES bring as new is the cops who think that they have veto power over your OPEN recording of them are now on notice, in federal court you have zero shelter from the liability of arresting someone because you don't like that they are recording you in public. This is new. The cops are not being granted qualified immunity and are on the hook for the damages of denying Glik his rights by improperly arresting him. That is a step in the right direction.

The problem here is if you are recording your interaction with a cop, what does that cop have to do to stop your recording? "Detain" you, that is what. Once they do, for their "safety" of course, they now control your recording equipment and can turn it off. Nothing in the above ruling changes this. They can do this, beat you to a pulp, or just ignore you to illustrate both extremes, and there will be no record of it.

What has not changed is Comm v. Hyde which makes 2nd party recording a privacy issue. This is not the case in 38 other states but here in MA, people are presumed to have a REP right from secret recording even when the recorders are privy to what is being said. That is absurd if you dissect it, but that is where Hyde dropped us. So for an example, if party A has a conversation with B, A can't record it because B supposedly has a REP privacy right yet A has heard everything B said. They were having a conversation for christ's sake. B gave up their privacy to the statements once they engaged in said conversation. So A can detail the conversation to whomever will listen but if B denies what was said or that the conversation even took place, it becomes a he said, she said situation. Now, who does this protect? It protects B. It protects liars, cheats and thieves. Because it allows them to lie about what took place. There is a line in Hyde where the SJC basically acknowledges this by stating to allow surreptitious recording of cops will allow the citizens to monitor and find corruption.

And it's not even an accurate use off the term to boot.

They can not order them destroyed because they are likely out of the hands of the state at this point and in the fed's hands. A state court can not order the feds to do squat. But any person ever charged with a crime based on evidence gained from this DNA database has a 4A claim to bounce the evidence (exclusionary rule)

Thankfully, this dialing back corporate personhood and granting personal rights to corporations has long been overdue. Odd case to have it happen in, as the outcome is not clearly positive in all cases, but the overall result for the law in general is a positive one.

If they would stop requiring CS degrees the problem would get better. They require the degree when it is not really required for the particular job they are hiring for. Of course some folks graduating from privately run IT training programs have relevant education, but the vast majority of CS degrees are fundamental math and theory. They don't train people to be IT workers, they train them to be programmers and theoreticians. Good IT workers have experience. Experience is not something school gives, especially in this field.