Fun is subjective.

I can't stand cooking for myself or my wife and I. It's the most boring thing I've ever done - I'd literally rather stand facing a blank white wall for an hour than cook. I'll go to great lengths to avoid cooking, and when I was single I just never did, unless I was so broke there was no other option (and I'd go without food for a couple of days before it got to that point)

However, I will cook for my son (about a year and a half old), because he really needs all the good fresh food I can provide him, and his diet is (partly) my responsibility. Somehow I exercise much more care and patience cooking for him than I ever have for myself. I still don't enjoy it but I tolerate it for him in much the same way as I tolerate changing nappies - it needs doing so it just gets done.

Thankfully my wife is an absolute wizard in the kitchen so I don't have to cook often!

Not neccessarily. His access to Tor via the campus wifi matched the timing of the emails enough to get him in a room, and then he confessed. Without the confession there'd be a lot less certainty of conviction, as the presumption of innocence would probably compel a jury, in the absence of any other compelling evidence, to find him not guilty.

Moral of the story: Don't talk to cops.

(also, don't make false bomb threats. They're stupid)

While OSX is "certified UNIX", there's a lot of proprietary APIs and libraries layered on top of that to produce the GUI environment most OSX users interact with.

So the "With some care" you speak of to make "applications [...] easily be made to compilable on multiple Linux distros" includes a working implementation of those proprietary APIs and libraries. GNUStep is that, though it's currently more like OSX ancestor NeXTSTEP than it is like modern OSX

Hence the kickstarter

I think the blame on companies is rooted in the idea that big business will spend insane amounts of effort on avoiding taxation, or lobbying to make legal conditions more favorable to them, but then appears to resist very little when government agencies attempt to intrude on their customers (or users') privacy.

Of course, it kinda makes sense. Whilst a government might be actively hostile towards its people, big business tends to view customers/consumers/users more like cattle - dispassionately and as disposable.

In that light, companies that do tend to try to fight for their users (eg, a certain micro-blogging company) seem even more virtuous by comparison.

Seriously? The coalition's plan is "Let's take the Labor Party's plan, and shave a couple percent off the price by dropping the most important bit of the project!" (ie, converting from FTTH to FTTN and leaving everyone stuck with telstra's awful ancient copper system connecting to a large and unsightly roadside active cabinet)

If the NBN is going to get done, lets get it done properly, instead of doing some half-hearted poor job of it.

Dunno about the laws in the various US states, but at least in NSW, an indicator is just an indication of intent, and doesn't give anyone the right to change lanes. Unless it's a zip merge (where two lanes become one without a line indicating who gives way - and which doesn't require indication anyway), then someone changing lanes technically has to give way to everybody else. Obviously in practice people tend to let people in, but if these things were in Australia, and obeyed the road rules, many cars would get stuck in near-impossible give-way situations...

I wonder - does providing a third party with a digital copy of your key remove the "expectation of privacy" for law enforcement in the same way as using a digital messaging service (ie, email) does?

That is, I wonder if this will open the doorway to police in the US saying "Oh, well the defendant left their key readout with this company, which as a third party destroys their expectation of privacy to their locks, therefore we had the right to subpoena the key and then search the premises it unlocks".

Have you not been following the news? We ALL live in Big Brother land nowadays...

So it was advising you that it was a crime. The paperwork still didn't make it so in and of itself.

It's the "agreeing to" bit that's bothering me. If you're authorized to receive classified info it's either a crime to give it to unauthorized persons or it's not. Not something you get to agree to or not.

Perhaps I'm being pedantic... I'll just read "agree to" as "accept that you understand"

Except in practice it doesn't work that way for Copyright. For starters, your disclaimer works as far as the person who broke the chain. By handing over the code without that disclaimer, the contractor assumes liability. Not to mention that without a valid license, the aircraft company is in violation of copyright law by posessing/using the copy (sort of - it's complex and varies by jurisdiction here, but suffice to say the copy is illegal). There's no difference here to receiving a pirated copy of a movie - you're still in posession of a pirated copy even though if you received it in a way you thought "legitimate" from a pirate.

Surely a contract can't create a crime as such? It might have said that was a likely consequence, but contract breach is usually a civil matter in and of itself, even with the government. On the other hand, legislation (which would normally be needed create the crime) would technically apply whether you signed the paperwork or not.