I hope these trains will run on a *nix/Linux system and not Windows. The security and reliability problems would be horrendous if they chose the Microsoft offering...

He doesn't say stupid things now he's dead, at least to those of us without a ouija board or those sad enough to try and contact him...

The unions will no doubt decry this as an attack on the 'working man'. I wonder how long until they go on strike over this?

Microsoft is headquartered in the US so they as an entity fall under US law.

I don't see it as an abuse of market position if it merely refuses to sell a companies products but I think it would be different if it was trying to prevent other companies from doing so. In a free market environment they have the right to sell or not to sell.

I wonder how the US would take it if a judge in another country made use of that claim for their benefit? It might be claimed that because company X chose to operate in their jurisdiction they accepted their jurisdictional boundaries. Various governments have already claimed jurisdiction in other countries for years, which is why they may claim tax on money earned by people working abroad, even though they may have done none of that work in that country...

I believe it was a reference to Global Thermonucular War from Wargames[1].

[1]: http://youtu.be/NHWjlCaIrQo

"How about a nice game of chess?"

I read they (the FBI) changed their priorities recently and no longer consider law enforcement a high priority. They instead choose to focus an increasing amount of resources towards 'National Security' and leave many crimes uninvestigated. I suppose there are always resources available to intimidate and strong-arm someone for wearing the wrong kind of glasses. I wonder how much this lunacy cost.

So, to curb 'illegal deforestation' these bright sparks encouraged it because he now needs to take the resources required to make some more. Smart move there.

Ignoring the president of the day, there are four reasons I wouldn't open start a company in the US, at least not until the situation's resolved:

1. I don't want to deal with the kleptomaniac, kiddie fondling perverts in the TSA (See YouTube for examples).
2. I don't trust American police (see YouTube and countless news articles for examples).
3. HMRC are known thieves but the IRS seem to be even worse, based on cases of people I know of and the proven abuse of position within the IRS as exposed this year.
4. Because I'm not American I know your government would treat me like a common criminal (even without any evidence) and monitor and record everything I did (digitally).

Since the TSA (or someone like them are not going away and I see the situation only getting worse, the quality of officers in the Police there isn't going to improve (not when the recruits have gone through government indoctrination/schooling), the IRS will still keep stealing from and abusing people (just like HMRC will), and the intelligence contractors that run the US's intelligence services will make sure they steer things towards bigger contracts for them I don't see it ever happening.

As a contractor, I've studied contract law. When they told her about it they were making an offer to contract and if she ignored their offer suggests implicit consent. If she replied though and refused their offer and made her own counter-offer the call situation would be different. This way, if they ignore her counter-offer and say nothing it would be they who agreed to her terms. If she rebutted their offer and made her own through an affidavit they'd have to do the same, rebutting each of her statements, point by point.

It already is, under Common Law which is the law of the land in both the US, UK and other countries. Defamation, libel, slander, etc (depending on the method of abuse). All she has to do is to write an affidavit, get it notarised and send it in to them along with demands of her own, including damages for the harm they caused her. If it was me, I'd go on the offensive as it seems they're the guilty party after all. But saying that, it's always best to study the full facts before taking action.

Considering the importance of what he does, why didn't he use a multi-drive RAID or ZFS system?

I'm not sure if I understood the term anarchists in the same way as he meant it but anarchy has two main extremes. On one hand it may be seen as another definition for libertarianism where state has less control over the lives of the people. The result would, from the point of view of those within the state, this would be anarchy. They inevitably prefer a more ordered society they can control from the centre. The other extreme to which I referred is what these people hope people will associate the word with, that of burning cars, of gangs roaming the streets looking for a victim, the total breakdown of society. Based on the context and the speaker, I suspect he meant a negative meaning of the word. Aren't you glad the government is there to protect us from freedom?

I don't as a rule like the idea of censorship as it's a slippery slope to very wrong places. This being said, I don't know what people could posisbly want to access things like that for, other than the authorities when tracking down these monsters, but even then it should be under controlled conditions to prevent their exposure.