Why don't you explain exactly what it is in your "secure" email (besides faith that is) that would have preserved Sony from being compromised by a system level zero day or an insider attack, hmmm? Oh, sorry, that appears to be what you call pedantry. I should expect more snot comments & not reasoned debate I suppose.

Again with the simplistic overgeneralizing and again making blanket statements. Every email system is secure until it isn't and it isn't the assurances of the vendors (nor yours with it's infantile references) that changes this essential fact. Sony thought that their email was safe. You probably think that you use an impenetrable system given how childishly petulant you behave when I call it's security into question. Your confidence in your Impenetrable secure is as childish as your snot references.

Insightful

"Actually" you've just exposed your ignorance, dumb...

OSX aggregates task execution much better so that it can put the processors into low power modes for much longer periods than Linux does. Entering/exiting low power modes is not immediate and without the work Apple has done the processors are always getting interrupted and sleeping much less in Linux than in OSX.

Stop confusing the poor man with facts!

Ah, but you can make a blanket statement saying that "secure" email could have saved Sony from embarrassment. Why? Apparently because it's "secure". Why is it secure? Because. Again, that's cute, as is your contention that use of secure email is what makes a judge think that you are a terrorist instead of just meriting a closer look. Ahhh to have such a simplistic worldview...

I doubt you have any in depth research. For whatever reason you care to justify, you're cherry picking and overgeneralizing from exceptions.

Nobody says it doesn't happen but your inability to see what is the norm and what isn't says much about your prejudices.

You're clearly ignorant of the importance of the work that Apple has performed on OSX that enables it to adjust the scheduling of tasks so that they can agregate task execution and thus place the processor into low power modes for much longer than Linux or windows do. That doesn't stop you from making side comments from a position of ignorance but if you'd like to change that, I'd suggest searching for the excellent Ars technica article on the subject.

Some of us consider battery life as an important criterium when comparing OSs for use in portable computers. Apparently you do not.

Really? You've determined that in general, "police the world over have a bad tendency to interpret an exclusive test as inclusive" because you're "getting this from the news and from actual court transcripts" and you have done this over enough cases to be sure that this is a general conclusion you can make and not the sensational exceptions? Ok, then, just how many court transcripts is it that you claim to have read and the percentage of these in which police are performing as you claim?

Having talked to people in the justice system, i'm confident that your claims are highly exaggerated as not even defense attorneys make these claims other than for specific exceptions. Oh but you certainly know better...

Who says that the drive MUST be internal for people to get work done with it?

People that need space heaters? Linux kernels are nowhere near as efficient as OSX is at sleeping the CPU. Running Linux on a macbook usually cuts battery duration by 50%.

You need to watch less TV docudrama and talk to more people in the justice system.

Cops & Defense/District Attorneys are well aware of the limitations of DNA (even though many jurors aren't)? DNA, like fingerprints mean nothing to a case if the implicated people have reasonable reasons for them being found. Do you really think DA's try to surprise the defense by trumpeting "The accused's DNA was found on the crime scene" when they suspect a guy killed his wife in their home?!? No, it's when the proof is conclusively damning like a suspect that claims no contact with a rape victim that is trumped by his DNA in a rape kit that it is useful.

However, many jurors, after watching CSI year after year, now expect ironclad scientific evidence and are reluctant to convict without it.

You think that use of an external email system that claims it's secure makes it so? That's cute...

For the first few boosters recorded intact, they will be bringing the barge back into port with the first stage on it so that they can study them (and not risk losing them). Partial refuelling & then hopping to base is only intended to be a temporary mesure depending on how long it takes for the authorities to accept that a 1st stage recovery area is safe enough for direct descent. If Space-X keeps "soft-landing" the barge, even if they don't recover the first stages, the partial refuel & hop may never become necessary.