My guess is that this is the heart of the issue. Downtown Palo Alto AKA University Ave. is a pretty vibrant place all day and into the night. But if you were to put offices there like you have in the financial district in San Francisco then you'll find the area is dead after 6PM when all the workers leave.

Wish I could like this!

So you mean there is a limit? And if I need to learn that there are limits on bandwidth then perhaps the carriers ought to learn that too and stop advertising something that doesn't exist.

I get it that there are limits in that we all share the bandwidth of some critical component at some point and I think generally we're all OK with that. But when you start to impose constraints above and beyond that then I have a problem with you describing it as unlimited.

You're talking commercial fibers. Over the last 20 years the most attractive cables to hack via submarines would be dedicated military channels which are probably not as sophisticated.

I'm ok being charged on a per bit or gbit basis. I'm ok with baselines but if I'm paying per bit then I want my netflix or torrent bit treated just as importantly as your voip or other service and don't advertise it as UNLIMITED if there are limits.

So, wait. Let me get this straight. People are typing into a form, hit back space, thinking it will delete a character and instead it goes to the previous page and you loose everything you typed into the form? How about cacheing that text in the form the you go back a page instead of reassigning the meaning of backspace in browsers? And while we're at it, how about you fix Chrome so that when I hit tab in a gmail compose window I get a tab instead of jumping to the send button. I've sent a whole bunch of annoying empty emails because of this.

I agree with you, I don't know what they were thinking. Having said that, I think it's sad that they even have to worry about that. The kid that hit them is the one responsible, and the only one. However, I do realize that he probably doesn't have the kind of deep pockets that snapchat does. Again I think this is sad all the way around.

If I left my loaded guns out on the street I might agree with you, but I don't. If you want my guns you have to come onto my property and take them. Why should I be responsible for the outcome of your illegal actions?

The relevant questions isn't where did the FSM come from. The key question is: does the person who claims it's a religion honestly and truly believe it's a religion? Otherwise we're merely saying that something has to be old enough that we've either forgotten it's origins or enough people believe it. In this case the judge is substituting his belief for that of someone else and when it comes to religion that's a slippery slope. The power to judge what is a religion is the power to eliminate religions and I don't think we want that. For instance, were I a judge I remark that they all appear to be satire to me and thus there are no religions. Would scientology not be a religion cause it's not old enough? How about mormonism? Islam? Christianity? Judaism.

Please, judging is not difficult. The idea that you need to be some expert to do it is both dangerous and ridiculous. To the extent that it is true it is a *failure* of judges and the legal system. A (not the, but a) primary goal of any system of laws ought to be the simplicity and understandability of laws by everyone as everyone is, or should be, governed by them and ought to be able to apply them. The idea that we can't all understand the law is absurd and leads to the idea that you then need to be some sort lawyer just to live.

Forget about why it's sending the hard drive serial number. Why is windows (or any os) giving an app my hard drive serial number? What possible use could there be for that without some sort of security/privacy dialog?

This is really a case about the All Writs act and what is constitutionally proper for congress to do in that vein. As you correctly point out the FBI has a legal warrant to the item. But, I might point out it also ALREADY has the iPhone. It's not asking to be allowed to seize or search the iPhone. It can already do that. The problem is that it can't understand the information that's on the iPhone and what it now wants is to compel a third party not involved in original subject of the warrant to spend it's time and resources to help the FBI interpret what it already has. If this were a physical safe would we tell the safe manufacturer that it must create new specialized tools and spend time money and resources to break into it? Or would we tell the FBI that "hey you already have the safe, breaking into it is your problem." The court here isn't being ask to grant a search warrant, it's being asked to force a third party to facilitate a search warrant against it's will. I think it should not.

I don't want to be off by two miles on any ship that has to navigate subsurface obstacles before it can produce a fix using visible land features.

Absolutely but neither is a voluntary action. If I don't have the money to pay the tax and I don't convert am I still killed?

Why don't they try to determine her original contribution and simply publish that instead?