Interesting

This is an excellent example of the problem with broad sanctions; I have a philosophical objection to these, whether they come from the UN, US, EU or my own government. The only people they end up hurting are the innocent populations of another country. There may be arguments for targeted sanctions against specific individuals, limiting their to travel or invest in the west, but that's not the case here.

I suspect China's current nukes are more than effective enough that a little extra won't hurt. Also I think any one power (even the "good guys") having overwhelming force is a bad thing where nukes are concerned, so I'd rather China's nukes are on a par with the west's.

I'm not aware of a single person who thought this gTLD roll out was a good idea. This was exactly one of the reasons why. ICANN deserve to be sued into obliteration.

Yeah but I can buy Xeons on ebay and sell them to the Chinese. What are you going to do? I'm not in America, I don't have American citizenship. In short your federal laws have exactly 0 jurisdiction over me. Heck, the Chinese could just buy Xeons on ebay. But I suppose they'll use the account beijinggovt1234 so it'll be easy to identify them and ban them?

I take it you don't actually know what the ruling was. There was no interstate commerce. A farmer was growing a regulated crop, for his own private consumption, but the ability of the federal government to interfere was upheld regardless. Precedent from drugs cases seems to suggest that the courts will uphold this even when the market in question is a black market.

So, although the (federal) government has very limited power to interfere in commerce constitutionally the precedent for interpretation of the constitution has given them carte blanche to do what they like.

That would depend solely on the buyer's contract with the seller.

I can't really think of a good analogy for this. The key analogy isn't perfect as Amazon are distributing the product, not simply selling access to it as a third party. However your licensing the product, rather than buying it, so a market stall selling fake handbags wouldn't be a great analogy either (also, generally with copyright cases, you get the real deal product even when it's not appropriately licensed; so it's not like traditional counterfeiting in that way either).

But unlicensed digital goods aren't stolen goods.

1) The final buyer commits no crime, or civil offence, (even if they know it's improperly licensed) in most jurisdictions

2) The original owner does not lose the goods, and the goods cannot be returned to the original owner. They lose potential revenues.

Also any such action would have to be allowed under the contract between the provider and the customer (in most cases I expect such contractual provisions exist, but they will carry a massive PR hit).

Presumably Wickard v. Filburn. It's unconstitutional as hell but it's currently the legal precedent.

OK, step away from Wickard v. Filburn.

It is, probably, the stupidist SCOTUS ruling in history. (Closely followed by Schenck v. US and Jim Crow, in that order.)

Actually, even if you've managed to delude yourself into thinking that it's OK to steal from people you don't like, defrauding bankers hurts us all here. Here's why: 1) It costs the bank's customers through higher credit interest and lower debit interested 2) If the bank fails customers are likely to lose out (although most individual customers will have their deposits guaranteed by the state) 3) The state guarantees deposits of individual customers (up to a certain limit) so, if the state has to bail out those customers, we all pay.

What annoys me about slideshows like this is the complete lack of information provided about the photos. Captions like "Abandoned Space Program Facilities" just aren't very helpful - we already know that. What was it? Was it a lab where they tested different propellants, a workshop where the engineers could fab prototype components for Saturn V? That's all it takes to make the difference between "meh, pretty photos" and "this is really interesting".

In general terms the second law holds that every process that ever happens increases entropy. At some point (far, far, far in the future) energy will be distributed entirely evenly throughout the universe - at this point no physical process will be possible because there can be no net flow of energy. A truly "renewable" process, according to your definition, is impossible because it would have to not increase entropy; it would be a form of perpetual motion machine.

More specifically in this case: The water in your reservoir came from rain. Rain was evaporated from the sea using the sun's energy. The sun's energy arises from the fusion of a finite amount of fuel. Once that fuel is expended there can be no more evaporation, thus no more rain and no more hydroelectric power (ignoring, of course, the fact that by this point the earth will have been fried to a crisp by the expanded sun...).

The second law of thermodynamics begs to differ.

/pedantry

a) It's a reactive system though, so I think it's a stretch to call it monitoring. From the article you linked:

b) Nowhere in that article does it state Facebook will contact a third party regarding your mental health.

c) It's a separate issue, but I don't think it's necessarily wrong that when you hit the report link on abusive content Facebook look over that and contact relevant authorities if there's something unethical: that's called running a responsible business.

I wouldn't be so sure. We should have had driverless trains for years now, for instance. Unfortunately unions keep blocking it. (We're reaching the point now where every time they go on strike about driverless trains they bring their own obsolescence closer because guess what... computers won't go on strike!)

From TFA:

So it seems they don't.

FWIW I don't believe a word of TFA.