Won't someone think of the child...er vulgarity?

Thanks for the suggestion, but been there, done that.

The internet existed in 1983, and was spreading quickly in 1986. Computer crime has existed since at least the 1960s. How could you imagine that hostile foreign governments and other bad actors didn't obain Top Secret US intelligence information via Snowden since it was published in newspapers while the US is engaged in armed conflict and confronting various threats to NATO and other allies?

Being genuinely "anti-war" during a period of international strife isn't necessarily a wise position. Had the North capitulated to the demands of the South, would the US still be a nation with slavery? Where would the world be today if FDR had been anti-war and shrugged off the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor? Much of the British population was so opposed to war that it delayed Britains rearmament prior to WW2, which almost brought it to ruin. Had the Nazis met resistance in remilitarizing the Rhineland it might very well have prevented much grief later. More than one foreign leader has made the mistake of believing the US response would be weak if the US was attacked, including the Japanese and Bin Laden. Being weak in a world of predators such as them invites attack. It is generally a good thing to avoid war if possible, but not every war is avoidable.

You don't? That's funny .... having served as a state governor is generally considered a strong qualification for running for president, and a number of the Republicans either in or considering entering the race have served as such.

Do you think nobody is a serious candidate? Or is it just the Republican side you think is "lacking"? Or is it your views that are unserious?

You omitted punishing the offender for his or her crime. Surely that can be a consideration?

Does the victim have no interest in justice for the wrong done to them?

1. Why have vaccines and autism rates both grown exponentially in the last 25 years? (no, detection does not come close to answering)

Changes to the definition and protocols for diagnosing it account for the rate changes just fine.

The obvious problem is that we pay them so much more for drug busts than for traffic citations./i?

The problem is that we pay them EXTRA for drug busts: They're allowed to seize property that is "associated" with it (like the car it was in, or the money in the driver's and passengers' pockets, ...), convert the non-cash to cash at an auction, and split the swag among the officers, department, and other branches of government.

That's the same incentive structure that powered the Spanish Inquisition, and look how THAT turned out.

This has been snowballing since the passage of the RICO laws.

I am almost certain I saw this kind of thing in a Radio Shack catalog in the 80's ...

It's as old as infrared LEDs and networking.

Datapoint did it with Arcnet in the late '70s: Both infrared office networking patches (though I don't know if those were productized or just experimental) and the "Arclight" building-to-building cross-town infrared link (which had a pair of lenses each about the diameter of a coffee can.).

Arcnet was still a going technology when the first portable ("luggable") computer - the Osborne-1 - came out in '81. (But I don't know if any of them were ever hooked to Arcnet, let alone the office-infrared flavor.) With the machines being desktop devices requiring power, running coax to the desk wasn't a big deal. So I don't think the office I.R. link got much deployment (even if it WAS productized.)

The Arcnet's token-passing logical ring was self-healing, which was a decent match for intermittent connections. When a rainstorm blocked the building-to-building link the net would automatically partition itself into two working nets and when it cleared they'd heal back into one. Similarly, walking between an infrared-linked machine and its hub would cut the machine off only until you walked away and leave the net running (with a quick hiccup) meanwhile.

If the "quote" actually occurred there should be a source for it, and none is noted. On the other hand it appears to be a popular quote on various fringe web sites that are likely more open to fabrications, especially if they tend to demonstrate some sort of conspiracy involving Germany, Jews, and Churchill.

It seems highly likely that "quote" is spurious given the strange wording, the false contents, and the lack of any specific attribution. If you doubt it yourself it makes no sense to post it.

Why do you think Churchill was there?

That's a load of crap, front to back.

That's funny, you seem to have completely overlooked the possibility that you got the fake "quotes" from dodgy sources, but jump right into some sort of conspiracy involving Jews. Do you have any ideas about why that might be?

Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech is a quite famous speech. Tampering with it wouldn't be hard to find out. I think you're grasping at straws.