In the UK homosexual sex was a crime punishable by imprisonment up until the 1960s. Even those who refrained from sex were often forced to take medication or undergo "procedures" to "correct" their behaviour.

Take it off and give the strap a sniff. Turns out, you do need to take it off from time to time.

The amount of error varies from watch to watch, and it's a bell curve. You are just lucky and have a single example that is fairly accurate, but that doesn't mean mechanical watches are generally fairly accurate. Anecdotes are, as usual, worthless I'm afraid.

A basic digital watch can easily manage 1 second per day. 3 seconds per day is actually quite annoying, 1.5 minutes/month of error.

Proud because in his lifetime it's gone from being something people were ashamed of and could be fired for to something he can openly state as a matter of fact.

Unfortunately we waited too long to fix it democratically. All the realistic democratic options will keep spying on us.

Because we left it so late, we have reached the point where the only option is to fight back. Hopefully we can win by making surveillance so expensive that they can't do it any more. Encrypt and anonymize everything, and make it the default option. If that fails, using violence to destroy GCHQ will be the only thing left, and I really want to avoid that.

Not posting anon because it won't protect me, and I'm sure GCHQ already have a thick file on me. Just in case any dumb fucks from the police are reading this though: This isn't a threat to bomb GCHQ.

I somehow doubt capitation taxes and import duties would be enough to cover a working legal system, at least not without crippling the economy. Beside which, if the only protection it offers is protection of private property that opens all up kinds of abuse that would be uncontrolled and ruin your life, like pollution.

Your ideal society sounds awful.

You are still thinking about this as an individual, and the right to be forgotten doesn't affect individuals. You can keep all the information you want for personal use. It's only businesses that are required to forget certain things in a commercial capacity.

I'm trying to understand how you think property works. If society decides people can own certain things, they can be your property. Government enforces property rights on behalf of society. The only other option is that you defend those rights yourself, against the rest of society which has decided on different rules.

So... Do you really think property is a question of what the individual can defend with their own resources? Or did you want government to "steal" your resources and use some of them to defend your other property?

Most of them download the MSI and do a silent install. There will still be UAC/admin password prompts, unless you disable them first. Many programs provide MSI installers already because they are very popular with organizations that want to deploy software over their network.

The current repository is added to by users. Microsoft seem like they want to keep it that way, although of course I'm sure they will take over maintenance of their own products. I had a quick look and Visual Studio is already on there.

I really doubt most clueless users will suddenly be taking to the command line to install stuff. In any case, this doesn't bypass the usual security warnings like UAC prompts or the need for the administrator password.

Personally I welcome it as it means Internet Explorer will no longer be required to download Chrome every time I do a fresh install.

Neither. In Europe human rights include a requirement for the government to ensure that everyone has access to certain basic resources. Resources are divided up by various means, most obviously what people can afford to pay for them. However, certain resources are not freely exploitable, so for example you may own a lake but you can't just drain it for your own benefit because of the impact on others. In other words, in exchange for the right to own a lake you also take on certain responsibilities like not draining or polluting it.

In the same way, if you want to live in a European society and you do certain things there are taxes to be paid. The government is required to spend a tiny fraction of the tax it raises providing people who lack certain basic needs with things. That doesn't mean they can use "violence" and take your stuff. They can't evict you and give your house to someone else. It just means that if you pay tax some small fraction of it will go to people who would otherwise be literally dying in the street.

Most Europeans are fine with that. Aside from anything, stepping over the homeless, starving bodies is tiresome and we prefer the government to do something humane about it.

I fully appreciate Christian scholar's contribution to science. It's just a shame it was tainted by a requirement to integrate it with Christian beliefs. For example, Descartes famously had to acknowledge god in his Meditations on First Philosophy, even though the only reasonable conclusion would have been to assume there was no god.

I'm only repeating what a couple of different experts interviewed on the subject said. I did a little research, it seems that explosive failures are usually not connected to the engines but rather the fuel supply or storage system.

Not according to quantum mechanics.

But now you just made up arbitrary atrributes for god, without providing any reasoning why they might apply to him. We are back to wondering why you would say god is special and does not require a case, when you maintain that the universe does. Surely a simpler explanation, with an equal amount of evidence and logic to it, would be that the universe itself simply has the special property of being able to exist without a cause.