I'm not sure if you're being facetious, or if you actually buy your own bullshit, but just in case it's the latter, I'm going to bust your chops a little here:

I think most Americans would be accepting of a dual key system as you have described above if they were able to trust the escrow... the problem really comes down to this: NOBODY trusts the US gov'ment to actually hang on to that crap. It's just too easy to exploit. You might think that hey, if only the FBI has access to this, it's cool. But in no time, you've got a US marshal that gets a warrant, and then asks the FBI for the key... then you've got a state general attorney that asks for the key, then a detective... and pretty soon, the FBI is a rubber stamp committee that just doles them out to any person who asks. Now a day doesn't go by that I don't see a story in the news about a corrupt local cop, a corrupt AG (hell we've got two in a row here in Utah), or a corrupt marshal. LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE PEOPLE TOO, and that means there will be abusers of the system. They will use their access to this system to abuse it, and the whole point of the fourth amendment was to prevent searches that were not pursuant to a specific instance of probable cause.

I have yet to see a case in the news that validates the idea that encryption hinders investigations... because in every case, there was some other probable cause that allowed them to look at the encrypted device in the first place. In those cases where law enforcement gets a warrant, if the suspect refuses, they can hold the suspect in contempt indefinitely. I have NEVER and I mean NEVER seen a case where a child was in eminent danger, and quick decryption of a suspect's data provided the key to saving that child.

I blame Jack Bauer for this. People watch too much TV and think, oh, it sure would be nice if cops could punch bad guys until they give up the location of the nuke, when in fact that is the opposite of what does happen. These things are either spotted and stopped well in advance, or we fail to stop them.

You would've preferred square tires?

Your conclusion is complete bullshit. Her role in a movie doesn't preclude her from being able to give voice to a real and pertinent issue. You asked the question... now go seek the answer. Why is some teen actress giving speeches at the UN representing women? Go find out and let us know what you find, rather than using it as a rhetorical question which implies she has no right to do so.

I came here to say this... +1!

Haha... same here. Last weekend my wife and I set out to test drive the brand new Sequoia. We made a bet before we got out of the car... I bet we wouldn't be able to walk from our car to the new car before being assailed by a hungry salesman, she bet that we wouldn't even see a salesman. She won the bet, and we were ignored for 30 minutes while we poked and prodded the SUV, and then we walked back to our car and drove away without a test drive since nobody gave two shits about us. The dealership model is dead.

http://youtu.be/Sme4BaANIxg

My understanding is that gravity irregularities (caused by the lobular shape, as opposed to a spherical shape) are going to be one of the biggest challenges. How do you calculate the correct amount of thrust when gravity decreases as you get closer to your landing spot? All these things need to be accounted for, and there are plenty of unknowns still.

Shame we can't watch it real-time... that would be a popcorn moment no doubt.

Unfortunately, with fraternal twins, there are two umbilical cords and two placentas... so there can be variance in nutrition and oxygen... heck, even with identical twins oxygen levels can vary. Still, it WOULD be an interesting study.

The problem is the clause isn't under it's own title in the contract, but instead is buried in the legal mumbo-jumbo fine print... If users knew that the clause was in the contract they WOULD walk away... but that's the strategy of the lawyers and that's why so many legal contracts are written in unintelligable legal-speak. So the people who do try to read them can't understand them, and the majority of people assume "It's just a few dollars worth of product, why would this contract have any teeth in it?" This law wouldn't be necessary if there were laws requiring contracts to be written in simple language. I think there is a line between people making dumb uninformed choices, and lawyers writing contracts with predatory language. This law is addressing the predatory nature of these contracts, because it's human nature to expect that the contract contains exactly the terms that are commonly understood. It would be like a car salesman chatting you up all day about a 2% interest rate that they can get for you through their financing... but then buried deep in the paperwork is a 7% rate... would that be legal? Yes. Should that be legal? I don't think so. It's why more and more, people are recording conversations (I'm looking at you Comcast) when they enter into some kind of contract or agreement... to protect against being told one thing, then being held contractually to something else.

This whole thing reminds me of a list I saw floating around the internet about things people had agreed to give up in a contract. It had things like "immortal soul" and "firstborn child" on it. Hilarious, and illustrative of the point.

I kinda agree with this... Google is only telling you WHERE something is... they're not the ones infringing copyright. The problem here is Google's monopoly on search... if we had more good search providers this DMCA crap wouldn't have looked like such an easy win for MPAA and RIAA. I support DMCA takedowns for actually infringing content... but I really dislike the idea of takedowns of search listings.

No by my logic you are now being a misandrist (or at least attempting to be). Now if you'd just call me Hitler so we can conclude this petulant argument.

+1 This! We're already guaranteed our freedom of speech through the first amendment, but having the cash to fight it can be tough for many people. Not to mention that in the case of financial transactions, often times the business gets the upper hand because they can report you to credit agencies, and then you've got even more garbage to contend with... the penalty clause for trying to put language like that in a contract is my favorite part of this whole thing.

Here is an example from my home state, Utah:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/n...

This crap is actually happening a lot! Its one of the rare instances where I hope the nation follows Cali.

Just because it is local lingo doesn't make it right.

No, worldthinker is right, and your provided example is perfect for illustrating the problem: Using a feminine attribute to knock a guy or "question his manhood" is exactly the problem, and it's a basic but functional definition of misogyny.

If a female did something really awesome, and a bystander said "OMG that was awesome!!!! How do you even cross your legs?" then that bystander is using a masculine attribute (huge balls) to reinforce the complement. The premise that masculine attribute = good, and feminine attribute = bad is the problem we are talking about. Stating that you can call anyone a "cunt" and it's equally damming to a male or female does not somehow elevate the insult above the level of misogyny.

I will restate: Get some perspective.