Jurassic World is NOT a reboot, its a direct continuation on from Jurassic Park III - that's the reason they chose to keep the dinosaurs as not having feathers, something which has drawn ire from scientists in the run up to the release. The film also includes the ruins of the original visitor centre from the first film.

So, to improve the "reboot" there would first have to be a "reboot".

I suggest you go and read the treaties and agreements that were signed at that point by Greece - the European Monetary Union had been a long standing goal of EU founder member states since before Greece joined the EU, and provisions were included in member state agreements and treaties requiring all states without a viable opt out clause (only a couple of states had this, including Denmark and the UK) to join the EMU in due course.

The EMU became the Euro currency and the European Central Bank banking system during 1992 with the signing of the Maastrict Treaty, and member states from that point onward were bound by the agreements they had already signed when joining.

Why was the subcompacts insurance responsible in that scenario?

In the UK that would be a clear cut case of the larger vehicle that rear-ended the subcompact being in the wrong (driving without due care and attention, failure to maintain a required stopping distance etc) - in the UK, cases of rear ending are very hard to fight in court from the aspect of the person doing the rear ending, you have to have some very good evidence to prove that you were not doing anything wrong (eg you were driving along as normal, maintaining correct stopping distances etc, when suddenly someone pulls directly in front of you and slams their brakes on causing you to go into the back - if you have a forward facing camera in that circumstance, you could fight it, but otherwise you will be paying up).

The massive plus point is that the images can be stored for later analysis in situations where there is a suspicion that something was missed or glossed over.

When they joined the EU, they took on the requirement of joining the Euro, so yes, joining the EU was the problem.

How many people have been released from Guantánamo Bay without charge after multiple years of enforced captivity?

The problem is, it ends without answers - which seems to be an issue with many authors these days (Alastair Reynolds, I'm looking at you - several good concepts either dropped or petering out). Why does this seem to be a trend these days?

Eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, exercise regularly - and still end up in ER because you got hit by a drunk driver....

Except that Google is developing AngularJS 2 in TypeScript, which is also Microsofts "baby".

Except there would be no access without authorisation - Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd owns the computers and thus has the authorisation to access the data, and it says as much in the Azure terms and conditions.

Regardless of which way you cut it, no US court is going to allow the extradition of a US judge who has issued a legitimate and valid court order in his jurisdiction - the fact that his court order requires someone to potentially breach another countries laws is not in his circle of concern, and you cannot work around jurisdictions in such a manner.

The fact of the matter is that the company should not have placed itself in a situation where it comes under conflicting jurisdictions when it may be faced with either having to refuse a legitimate court order or break a countries laws. That is a conundrum the companies legal team should have been considering from the moment the company came under multiple jurisdictions.

Microsoft is an American company, and is the sole owner of Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd, and thus the jurisdiction over both entities exists and is demonstrable for an American Judicial Court and Judge.

But the Judge isn't requiring you to break the law in *his* jurisdiction but rather to follow it, and that is what matters to that Judge and that Court - no extradition would go ahead on that basis.

Your point is what, exactly? Those two groups of people cover entirely different demographics.

US courts are not constrained by laws of a foreign country, just as foreign courts are not constrained by US laws - when a US court rules within the boundaries of US law, whether or not that ruling would cause a company or person to violate a foreign law should not come into consideration. It may put the company or person in a difficult position, but that's not should not be the concern of the court.

More to the point, can a US court force Facebook to provide a service they do not want to provide and have no contract to provide?