So you want to subject children to hardcore porn?

I have no problem with adults viewing what they want, but children are different, and broadcast TV goes to children. I don't think I want to live in your world.

EM spectrum is a scarce resource, shared between all the community. If one person fills up the spectrum with high powered broadcasts, they deny others the use of that spectrum for potentially more valuable resources. You cannot buy or manufacture more electromagnetic spectrum: what we have is all there is, and more people want it than than there is space for. Would you be happy if, for example, I knocked out all WiFi and cell signals for ten miles around my house? Would you be happy if I overloaded the frequencies used by the emergency services? Would you be happy if I filled the TV frequencies with hardcore porn or a terrorist manifesto?

You have to be a sociopath not to expect there to be some sharing of limited resources.

No ,they don't need a minimum level of proof to carry out the seizure. They need a minimum level of proof to defend the seizure in court--which is a totally different ball game. Attorneys cost money, even if fees are eventually awarded many potential plaintiffs can't afford to be out of pocket for the time (months or years) required for a case to make its way through the courts. Seizures made against out-of-town and out-of-state victims are even harder to challenge--it can be quite costly to repeatedly travel to a distant jurisdiction's courts, even if you can afford to take the time off work. And to challenge even a blatantly illegal seizure is to invite additional scrutiny and future harrassment.

If crooked cops can hit the 'sweet spot' of around a few thousand dollars, in most cases it's going to be too much of a hassle and expense for a victim to fight.

The idea of regarding graves as automatically for ever is relatively recent.While the wealthy might have impressive, and supposedly permanent tombstones, in medieval times people would be buried only for a few years, and then the grave dug up, the bones transferred to an ossuary, and the grave reused for another person. hence the gravedigger scene in Hamlet - the digger is recycling Yorick's grave for another occupant. So I see no problem in digging up a grave site sufficiently old that we don't know who is buried in it. The question is, as with all archaeological digs, how much to dig up now and how much to leave for later, better equipped, archaeologists.

I'm glad she was fired.

The contract terms will only work against actual customers, though. They won't do a thing to stop an enemy or prankster who hasn't actually bought the product or service, and consequently hasn't entered into the contract. All it will do is prevent people who are actually well informed from commenting.

I imagine that criminal law has been updated to the same standards as civil law, under FRCP you can no longer bury the opponent with paper, if they make a request for digital records in a digital format then you must supply the records in that format if it is at all reasonable to do so (ie if you ask for PDFs from email that is reasonable, as would be TIFF, but .123 files would probably not be reasonable unless the source documents were in that format)

Every place I've seen recognizes reclaimed land as "natural" for these purposes. Nobody is arguing Haneda Airport isn't Japanese land, for these purposes, nor recovered Netherlands land. Dumping soil on a reef should be debatable, as the reef may have been above water or theoretically habitable recently. Expanding such natural lands has never been seen as a problem before.

Because physical connections are very very problematic. They've been tried before, and always abandoned. The skin doesn't seal 100% to any current materials, so there's a near 100% chance of infection at the plug site, not to mention the increased likelihood of damage and other problems.

I'd have countered the AC by pointing out that the US courts ruled that following a regulation is not indemnifying. You have the option to cease operations, rather than make an unsafe item, if the regulations require the item be unsafe (first ruled for airbags, that I saw, but no idea if it was based on older case law, nor any cites to the cases, as I followed them pre-Internet).

Given the AC's premise is wrong, that following regulations itself is indemnifying, then how would one expect anything else in the post to be true?

SQL sucks.

Not only does it look ugly, it has ugly commands, that make GPU shaders look intuitive.

How many complex queries does a medical system need? You only deal with one patient at a time, you arent doing *ALL* records data mining for patterns.

And the worthless native Hawaiians ought to be thankful. We could hardly leave such a paradice to primative stoneage culture. Death to China.

Or Paris, or London, roundabouts with more than 2 lanes are a nightmare because humans aren't made to handle that many inputs in real time.

Yes, my 2007 Blackberry on T-Mobile transitioned from WiFi to cellular without dropping calls just fine. It's not exactly rocket science.

Touch ID is broken and will be until Apple uses a non-crap (expensive) fingerprint reader.