don't need to inspect private communications in order to preserve freedom.

...legislators get busy solving technical problems they don't understand. We all know they will direct us toward more superfluous complexity that we need to work around, but at least that produces more job security for me. So, in a way, those popular people are the experts at creating security!

For those who can see past the component of ad hominem, this is among the most insightful comments in this entire discussion. Alas, people are so generally sensitive to ad hominem that their minds become incapable of listening as soon as they detect a wisp of it. Therefore, if you want to expand your influence, I recommend playing the silly game of speaking more politely than people actually deserve. It works much better than people usually expect. I'm just saying this because your message really needs to be heard, and I fear that it may just end up being relegated to obscurity by all the "thin-skinned pussy faggots".

Good point. We should avoid preparing for the future so we can minimize the total number of experiments with potential to go wrong!

When we rebuild this "company", can we please do it without recreating a two-party system propped up by a requirement for plurality voting? That alone would make it worth all the effort to rebuild it from scratch. I think you might be on to something!

They are investing in having an entry added to the majority of the many copies of the block-chain that uniquely identifies them as owning a quantity of nothing tangible. It is backed by cryptography and the greed of all the people who are trying furiously to mine more of them. There are currently many people willing to trade these "nothings" for a lot of money, especially since they offer many unique properties and some guarantees that are not available in traditional bank notes. Which component of all this do you anticipate vaporizing first?

Of course we'll choose a meaningful promise over a completely meaningless one. Instead of meaningless words like "Speeds up to", how about if they sell something truthful like, "Each 100Mbs line guaranteed to be shared among no more than X customers", then let them all compete for how low they can get X. There is no way I am going to reward a company with money for using a big fat lie involving the words "up to".

So, we're supposed to have a meaningful relationship with an imaginary person in the heavens, and meaningless relationships with real people in the cloud. If people who live in Pakistan try to sort out this silliness by engaging in meaningful discussion with the real people in the cloud, they gets sentenced to death for blasphemy and the fault lies in the West for creating the cloud. Yet the imaginary person who supposedly created the West, and indirectly the cloud, bears no blame for remaining silent while this guy dies as a scapegoat to those who go all extreme in trying to compensate for his lack of ability to stand up for himself. Wow, this world is messed up.

"TSA Go away" while we wait in their lines.

Also, let's keep inventing new ways to take down airplanes and making YouTube how-to's about them until the TSA bans phones and clothes, and people finally start to get annoyed.

I would guess that they intend to enforce it the same way every country enforces laws that reach outside of their jurisdiction. They levy unreasonable penalties against the portion of the company within their jurisdiction until they get what they want from the company as a whole. The companies almost always comply in the long run out of fear of losing business in that country to some other company that will comply. Very few large companies have the chutzpah to sacrifice a portion of their market just to take a moral stand. Governments everywhere know that, and that knowledge is what gives them "authority".

Stupid people! Whoa, 2040 is going to be amazing! Too bad I wasn't invited =(.

It is unconstitutional to pass laws after the crime occurs. U.S. Constitution, Section 9:3, "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." Are you proposing to "deal with the issue" by punishing people who have broken no law?

This shows the boss you are responsive, but also sends a subtle message (to both your boss and the co-worker) that you are above that game. As a boss, my opinion of any subordinate would go down if they resort to such demoralizing behavior. I don't want people like that destroying the morale on my team.

Bosses often don't know tech. Programmers often don't know business. Programmers who just wait for their bosses to tell them how and what to do are crappy employees who make the company lopsided toward the business side. The best employees push for their ideals, but also know when to back down.

Let's throw out our current privacy protection because we might get a better one later. I think I'll quit my job now so I'll have plenty of time on my hands in case I find a better one. And would anyone like my car? I need to free up some space in my garage in case someone comes along and gives me a better one.