True, but I hear it's very easy to exceed Verizon's lube cap nowadays...

I'm about to return to the United States after living in the UK for 3 years, and enjoying the benefits of its highly competitive GSM cellular market. There are over half a dozen major carriers to choose from out here, each with a wide and unique range of devices and plans to choose from, resulting in overall much greater value for the consumer than is currently available in the US.

I'm not at all looking forward to choosing whether to lie back or bend over before I get rightly screwed by whatever carrier I go with when I return. We've really let these telcos run amok unchecked, and now look at us.

These aren't assumptions, but rather theories based on observable evidence. We can only define the nature of the universe based upon what we've observed, if we are to avoid fruitless flights of fancy about FTL travel and so forth. That isn't to say that such physics are absolutely impossible, but only that we have seen no evidence to suggest that they are possible. Once we have observed evidence to the contrary, we can then reformulate our understanding of physics. Magic is merely science not yet understood.

Perhaps. But it's the judge's legal experience and his position as the courtroom big-shot that gives him the authority to research that information. I wouldn't want some backward American Idol fan looking up the definition of 'rape trauma syndrome' on some ill-conceived vlog, thinking it was somehow reliable or authoritative. Would you?

The key difference being that that judge assumes responsibility for the veracity of the information, not the juror. Given that the judge has a lot more experience with what should or shouldn't be admissable in the courtroom, this only makes sense.

Did you only read the first sentence before responding? I can run the rest by you again:

"If you have a question or need more clarification on terminology, you ask the judge. The judge then takes responsibility for making sure the information you get is reliable, rather than some shit you found on the internet."

Seems like you're the only one following the "be ignorant" rule.

Logically, and from a civilian perspective, you are correct. But this is the US military, whose ability to function is heavily dependant rigid, black-and-white, often traditional regulations. The rule is: no SIPR information on NIPR networks, period. Just because some SIPR information can make it onto a NIPR system doesn't mean it's permitted, or that the rule is suddenly going to change.

I think the biggest reason why huge leaks like this don't often occur (despite the age/maturity level of the young enlisted personnel entrusted with the information) is that it's cool to have a Top Secret clearance. It sounds weird, but when you're having a couple beers with your buddies and one of them asks a question about your work, and you realize that information is classified above them, you feel pretty tingly once you reply, "Sorry, bro. That shit's classified." Not to mention the risks for divulging that information are steep enough to deter most would-be talkers: reduction in rank/pay, prosecution, dishonorable discharge, confinement, hard labor, etc. (Active duty military here)

Hence the old expression: "High school never ends."

Do you really the think the American sheeple care or even know about these details? All they're going to hear on Fox News is that Julian Assange is an accused/convicted rapist, then they'll decide that Wikileaks is automatically bad because it is somehow connected with him. Mission accomplished.

Forgive my ignorance, but I was under the impression that Relativity defines the speed of light as basically the speed limit of the universe (stop me if I'm mistaken). This being the case, wouldn't it be impossible for the universe's rate of expansion to exceed the speed of light?

If not, it poses a few interesting scenarios. Let's say--for the sake of example--that this faster-than-light expansion carries a galaxy into my physical space. Since the light emitted by the galaxy has not yet reached me by the time its matter has, I would effectively be engulfed in an invisible galaxy.

Or have I oversimplified the concept?

True, but as the imagery business is my business, I submit that in my professional opinion, that statement is a lie. The photo itself is a lie, so I've got no reason to believe what BP says about it either, do I?

From TFA:

"Scott Dean, a spokesman for BP, said that there was nothing sinister in the photo alteration and provided the original unaltered version. He said that a photographer working for the company had inserted the three images in spots where the video screens were blank."

I don't believe that for a second. Unless this "photographer" was trying to make the photo appear doctored, there's no way an imagery professional would produce something so obviously half-assed.

BP's credibility as a responsible energy corporation is at stake, and this photo indeed was intended to be a demonstration of BP's response to the oil disaster. Knowing that they'd go to such lengths (albeit haphazardly) to doctor--and subsequently lie about--the photos further damages that credibility. Oil spills are bad, but misinformation about them is no less destructive.

Hence the stipulation "common materials". I imagine that a wide-dispersion chemical weapon system sophisticated enough to destroy a country (or even a considerable chunk of its populous) is not easy to procure/manufacture.