If I read you right, you are saying that it is illegal to use a technological measure such as encryption to prevent others from accessing data that are not copyrighted works. Please cite some authority for that claim.

It may be true, but it is nonetheless a joke.

And to top off the insanity, a so-called "hybrid" (a purely petrol-fired vehicle with regenerative braking) will be exempt, while a non-"hybrid" that gets better mileage will not? Idiotic.

Scathingly brilliant, sir.

You failed to engage the implicit argument of noblebeast that states cannot be trusted to manage a currency that they can create by fiat, and offered no evidence that your criticisms of cryptocurrencies do not apply equally to state currencies. But then, spouting unsupported assertions is characteristic of trolls, so I guess my replying means you can chalk up a success.

Originally, it meant to reduce by one tenth. It has evolved to mean "nearly wiped out".

I had exactly the same thoughts upon first encountering Conway's Life Game. You, too, have probably had difficulty persuading others that the seemingly complex relations within a simple mathematical object or function do not need to be derived on a computing device, but just are.

I think a momentary glitch in my wetware would be a more parsimonious explanation.

There is reason to believe that a 'real' universe would not also be describable by mathematics.

>0 is the first index of a typical storage location, it isn't because it is useful for counting, it is because it is base10.

This is to bring your typo about base10 to your attention so you can correct it before you get flamed.

Iterating through offsets beginning with zero is simply not counting. The writer is confused.

If writers now feel it necessary to inform us when someone with whom any state employee is not perfectly pleased has not been arrested, we are in a sorry state indeed.

If I were a Brazilian, I'd be soooo relieved to know that now the data would be in the hands not only of Google, but the state.

Well, sure, you were able to take what has to be one of the most pathetic examples of muddiness I've ever seen, and by a rather sophisticated exercise of elimination of possibilities, construe what must have been the intent of its creator. That was a much more difficult problem than the arithmetic problem that it was intended to represent, and you are no 5-year-old.

Even if we conceded the utility of collapsing the US from four time zones to two, the Atlantic writer's proposal would certainly not be the way to go. One desirable characteristic of setting time zone boundaries is to minimize the difference, whether positive or negative, between the clock and solar time. If it didn't matter, she might as well have picked any two random zones in the world. She clearly is aware of that principle, but she blew it in the application. As her proposal stands, Central and Eastern would always observe Eastern. Okay. But Pacific and Mountain would observe Central! Think about it. Central does not get to observe its own true time, while two other time zones do observe it, with one of those having a two-hour offset! The obvious solution is this: Pacific and Mountain observe Mountain. Central and Eastern observer Central. Now you would be using the two time zones most central to the country, with no zone offset more than an hour from solar. And two of them would have no offset.