No drone, or "remotely piloted aircraft" in DoD newspeak, should be flown over a populated area.

So would flying them over a large body of mostly unoccupied water be ok? Like perhaps a river that's 2/3 of a mile wide?

Carding

It's basically verifying the validity of stolen or generated card numbers.

Why do I think this program will end up with a tiny, tiny fraction of that?

Why would you not think that $100b will be just a tiny fraction of the real final cost? What was the last completed military development project that came in at a tiny fraction of the original budgeted cost?

Based on the average airline's financials, they are doing well enough putting themselves out of business.

A) There is this little thing called "The Internet" that people use to send each other information. Why the hell would someone go to the risk of keeping a thumb drive that can be identified as in their possession and have their fingerprints, when they can just send an encrypted file?

Why the hell would anyone save something to the cloud that can be electronically eavesdropped when it can be saved to a flash drive locally and available whenever/wherever you may be? It applies just as much to illegal images, your legal banking/tax records, or anything else in between.

Why do you presume that it's two dudes? Perhaps it's Julie Andrews Charlotte Arnold...which would be an odd relationship to say the least.

It's a midterm election year so expect more lobbying a little later this year. Plus I'm sure there will be rather sizable increase just after it's approved. Lobbyists aren't dumb. Why spend $X to get something approved when you can spend another $X afterwords as a reward.

For the same reason I usually hate LEO with a passion. They don't write the laws, nor make laws convoluted. That's the job of the legislative branch (local, state, or federal). They just are power trippy and decide to interpret and enforce the law however they see fit ultimately letting a court decide your fate...after a long, expensive, drawn out process that is suppose to be innocent-until-proven-guilty but often is more the opposite.

They could have easily complied with the law by sending out a non-advertisement security-related email saying that if they wished to remain on the mailing list they would need to explicitly "opt-in" to the list again, (re)confirming their desire to receive the emails. At that time they could either specify that the newly reconfirmed opt-in list might receive security AND/OR advertisements, or make the list security only without plugging any of their products/services.

What it boils down to is this. If you send an un-solicited email to someone you have not done business with in the last 2 years, and they have not opted in before and, and they believe your email to be spam, boom, you are culpable.

Easy solution: don't email people that you don't have reasonable proof that they explicitly opted in sometime in the previous 2 years. I can't think of too many situations where a 2+ year old lead would be valuable from a marketing standpoint without a more recent business relationship.

Technically, Mexico is a first-world state since their a democracy who is aligned with NATO. The term comes from the Cold War...1st world=western democracies , 2nd=eastern communist (Warsaw Pact)/ 3rd=everyone else who hadn't chosen sides yet.

Technically words and phrases can have more than one meaning and can change over time. In the case of third world countries, in recent decades that has shifted from the original definition of non-aligned countries to underdeveloped or developing nations.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetency. Or something like that.

I'm sure that the best system admins around the world have deleted a file, mistakenly reused a backup tape out of order, or otherwise screwed up and lost something irretrievable sometime in their careers.

But it's soooo much easier to just not fund it currently. It shows that they demand accountability and to stop spying on Americans...this week. It holds open the possibility to fund it later by slipping it in as part of some larger budget bill. You know, when it's politically more advantageous to "stop terrorism", "save American lives", or "think of the children".

If they make it illegal now, they'd have to go through the hassle of making it legal later, then still have to fund it through another bill.

Their goal is nothing but to separate you from as much money as they can.

This differs from EVERY other retail position how?

but it's been turned into a better word, a word to be proud of

Really? Have you seen the Washington Redskins play anytime in the past 2 decades? Aside from a brief glimmer in 2012 with RGIII, not a whole lot to be proud of.

If we have to change the name of the Washington Redskins, I say we change all the names of things in this country that have native origins. Just think of how many states, cities, counties, rivers, mountains and such have native-derived names

You'd have a point if all those things that would be changed were derogatory in nature, either once or currently. If Redskin, SD was a real town, then I'd expect it to be changed. Or Redskin River. But that's not the case.