It doesn't establish a religion, it simply respects it's existence.

Make an important practice within a religion illegal and you're banning a religion.

Contrary to how it plays on TV, the same respect is granted to any religion that has a practice of confession or pastoral counselling. Respecting one but not others would actually be establishment of a religion.

You should probably drink less. You're not even making sense.

However, we don't normally award punitive damages in civil cases here in the UK, so even if there is a definitive judgement at some stage that Google was invading privacy and failing to protect personal data, it seems unlikely they will suffer more than a token slap on the wrist from a privacy regulator provided that they cease and desist (as it appears they already have). Unfortunately, civil trials here are not very effective at recognising damage that comes in forms other than actual financial loss and doing much to compensate for it and/or discourage similar behaviour in the future.

R. Pirsig wrote a paper on the philosophical and mental challenges in defining "quality". I suggest reading it.

That's a stupendous way to end software development overnight. Yes, Apple had a bug. All software has bugs. They clearly intended for a different outcome and surely never expected Google to actively attack it.

Of the two, Apple made a mistake but acted with good intentions (at least on the surface, but there's no point going full tinfoil because then there's no point having a conversation about it). Google acted maliciously, and if someone's going to be held accountable for this then it should be them.

In before "lol fanboy": I would say exactly the opposite if, say, iCloud.com exploited a bug (not a feature: a bug) in Chrome to do the same thing. In this specific case, Apple seems to have acted honorably and Google unhonorably.

My guess is that it's only a serious issue for people with specific IP knowledge, like higher-end people in pharma, chemicals, semiconductors, some kinds of software -- the kinds of skills with very limited places to use them, most with direct competitors.

For other jobs, like mostly generic IT work, I just can't see my boss bothering to spend the money to figure out where I might have moved to, provided I keep a low-ish profile about it.

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?

I'd say the number of non-threats who were actively and vigorously blackballed might call into question as to where the boundary between legitimate fear and paranoia fear is on this topic.

Probably no one single answer. I don't think the early years of Viet Nam faced that much ideological opposition. I do think that the political-based mismanagement of the war led to "conventional" opposition to it. Then add in civil rights discontent, the exemptions that made it a "poor man's war" and the general social upheaval of the 1960s, shake well and pour over ice.

Three people in the cockpit at all times. One to fly the plane, one to take over if he gets sick, one flight crew to watch the pilots and one to FOUR! FOUR people in the cockpit at all times :-)

So the crazy suicidal pilot immediately makes a few of those maneuvers you must never make and commits the plane to the crash.

One last chance for someone to be talked out of doing something we wish they wouldn't do? Separation of church and state? (The sanctity of the confession has existed much longer than the U.S.)

It was vastly different political era.

There was a lot of paranoia about Communist conspiracies. The Rosenberg trials. Joe McCarthy was making headlines "exposing" Communists. In some sense, there was some legitimate fear of Communist actions -- the Soviets had blockaded West Berlin, leading to the Berlin airlift in 1948.

Not only was the political climate dangerous for anyone opposing fighting Communist expansion in Korea, it wasn't irrational to believe that expansionist communism was a real threat, especially after recently fighting a war against two nations who started wars of imperial expansion, at least one of whom did so under the guise of a totalitarian political philosophy.

Tell that to your six-months-ago self, who wrote the mess you've been debugging all week. :-)

Sure, and I could also hotplug USB3 disks and cut even more power/space/complexity if I wanted to futz with turning it on and off.

Power cycling a NAS may be worthwhile if it's some kind of archive you don't use often but it doesn't make a ton of sense if you want it online more than offline.

The electricity cost is what's so painful. I have an old Intel Q6600 system with 4x1TB disks. Power consumption is something like 110 watts, or $11/month.

I could swap the drives out and keep power about the same, but at some point it becomes kind of expensive to keep spinning disks.