Maybe I've seen too many movies, but I always was told there was a "DRILL" code book and a "LIVE" code book, so the operator would know.

So, the crux of the issue is what the EU laws apply to: Their citizens only, all people in their borders, or all people and objects in their borders.

Very interesting.

Is that a true statement?
My understanding, which may be wrong, is that EU law would not compel you to release that information. However, if you chose to (because you wanted to be released from jail in the US), then the EU would not prevent you.

Your case is only true if Dutch law PREVENTED YOU from accessing your own system.

You own the computer, therefore your access of the system is legal.

You are in US custody, and can be compelled to provide items under court order.

You then legally access your own system remotely, then retrieve the items in question.

Ok, so we agree. I accept and agree that you could try to gain asylum in Amsterdam as soon as you walk off the plane.

Now, take your analogy to what TFA is actually talking about. You could SSH or RDP to your computer sitting in Amsterdam from a US government computer in the states, and hand it to them after logging in. As you said, the action (the command on the computer you are using) is wholly performed on US soil.

Agree?

You're missing one critical piece in this example: the red button doesn't destroy the planet, it sends a message to other humans outside the room to destroy the planet.

This is how I understand both the US and Russian system to function, but I don't know about the Chinese system. I would hope the designers of these systems realize that leaving this decision up to a politician alone is not the right answer, as the other systems have recognized.

Let's run with that analogy:

You're presently in the US, the house you own is in Amsterdam.

You'd be correct that the US can't force the Dutch to execute a search warrant.

That is completely irrelevant, though. You're in the US and perhaps in jail awaiting trial. You've been issued a valid order by a US court to permit US law enforcement into your home in Amsterdam. If you interfere, are you not obstructing US justice?

Perhaps you could just link to the article or a particularly insightful comment you made instead of making a post that adds nothing to the conversation.

Not all of us read every comment on /.

I'm very curious as to why Netflix would degrade their own service and why Comcast and Verizon wouldn't point to this smoking gun every time they're accused of throttling.

This isn't strange, it is considering SOP for most corporations to ban "split-tunneling", where only traffic to the corporate network are sent over VPN.
It also isn't a protocol, it is just a default route to send all traffic over the VPN.

The theory is that by allowing someone to have unfiltered access at the same time as they are connected to the internal corporate network, they are creating a security risk.

The reality is that the "crunchy outside, warm gooey inside" security model as been broken for some time, and modern security is to use a zero-trust network model.

TL;DR: It is quite common but agree it is quite stupid.

You're saying that they trust their management to make the right decision? Maybe, but if they are as bright as I hope, they would have a healthy lack of faith in their management based off Windows 8/Windows Phone 8.

Which means the most talented and valuable employees will find new jobs before there are layoffs, and Microsoft will end up keeping the ones that couldn't find a job elsewhere.

How does this make Microsoft better?

I think so, but normally they don't draw less power, but just produce more light.

I suppose they could be considered slightly more efficient if you use less of them to cover a given area, or if you are only measuring lumens per watt.

Just looked it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

Yes, halogens are slightly more efficient, on average, but the best tungsten incandescent is more efficient that the worst halogen.

Wait, I just listed noble gasses, and you corrected me that they're also called halogen, which is the group NEXT to the nobles. On what planet do you call those gasses halogens?

Had I listed fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and astatine, you'd be correct.

Halogen. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Halogen lights run VERY hot and bright, but do not offer any energy savings, as they are still incandescent (glowing resistor) lamps.

Do you perhaps mean fluorescent or compact-fluorescent lamps (CFL)? They are filled with low pressure mercury vapor and argon, xenon, neon, or krypton. They are about the same efficiency as LED, but are slow to come to full brightness as you describe.

Otherwise, great post. Completely agree on the advantages of LED. I've actually skipped the bulb-style and have started installing LED strips with a standalone 12vDC converter.

Exactly. My town pulls drinking water from a river, then sends the sewage out a mile downstream.
The next town 10 miles to the south gets all of our sewage (somewhat treated), and does some treatment itself, then repeats the process.

My guess is that the "closed loop" system from TFA is actually cleaner than what I'm drinking, simply because they know they are dealing with something completely polluted to begin with and have to win the public on it.