"There are many multiverse theories and they can all be tested."

Ha ha. You fooled a few people I guess.

"and will eventually converge in a big crunch."

OK, test the big crunch, I dare you.

I doubt that there is any possibility to observationally test such a thing, and even if some weird experiment can be devised, I doubt it would really do more than hint at, rather than prove other universes. After all, by definition these other universes are not part of ours, so we can't get at them.

But let's just assume for a minute what is likely, that it can never be proven... Will the pointy headed boffins admit that it is not science, its... well.... something akin to religion really. About as scientific as any religious belief. In which case, shouldn't we really stop the whining between the scientific and religious factions? The scientists must admit that certain things could well be true that they can't prove, and that such things are worth talking about in the same breath as "real science", i.e. the things that pretty much everyone admits is true because it is science.

Next time some pseudo intellectual proclaims "that's not science", just remember... neither is a lot of stuff that gets published under the name of science, and which nobody seems to complain about.

Errr, yeah, but they could have just used Intel chips like everyone else. Ultimately it would have given better performance, saved themselves a lot of pain in switch over, and put themselves ahead of the curve selling to people who wanted to dual boot. So did IBM save them or cripple them?

Haha. But the court's business goes on regardless of its reputation, so it can't really suffer.

Properly represented? You shouldn't even be in court in the first place to need representation just because you made a comment about a restaurant.

And if this blog article comes up "too high" in Google's search for the town, can you seriously blame the blogger? Blame Google if you want to blame anyone, but don't blame the blogger because of Google's page rank algorithms.

Ha ha. My dad the school teacher was once asked to write a reference for the worst kid in the class, a real trouble maker. So he wrote "This is to certify that Bill Bloggs was a student in my class for the year 19XX". Apparently the kid was happy. Always laugh when I think of that.

"Is the service bad (as was the case)? Is the food bad? Do they try to screw you with the bill? Are other patrons too loud? Is the place dirty (inside)?"

I think all those things would turn off pretty much everyone. It's not like there is a shortage of places to eat.

"What you can do is write a review that is so incredible positive"

No, what you do is something like this..

"Well.. I guess the napkins were a nice colour. That's all I can say".

So what the AEC is saying is that the election is safeguarded by what is called "security by obscurity". Or in other words, rather than having the software open so that security researchers can point out its flaws, you leave the flaws in place and hope that nobody knows what they are.

People who rely on this method, are known in security circles as "blathering idiots", "damned fools", "corrupt officials hiding something", and various things like that.

It's the moral equivalent of giving all the paper ballots to one single pointy headed official, asking him to count them, and then believing whatever number he decides to cough up. That's what you expect in Cuba, and other dictatorships.

Can you go to jail for obstruction before any lawsuit was even on the horizon? I doubt it. And maybe it was setup that way not so much to obstruct US law as to satisfy foreign law. What then?

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!

I guess they can ask a US company to violate foreign law, but they can't ask foreign employees of said company to carry out those orders. And without that vital piece of the puzzle, its kind of silly, right?

Yeah but we're not talking about "moving" data, we're talking about data that always was there, and never was in the US. The question is about what does a company do when the law of different countries contradicts each other.

Whether and to what extent "upper management" have control over subsidiaries depends on a lot of factors, how the company was set up, what its charter is, and so forth. And remember we might be talking about foreign corporation law here. What if under foreign law you can set up a company with directors where there is 10 days notice to sack directors, and the directors have instructions to destroy all data upon this scenario of a foreign subpoena?

It's not quite the same, because imagine that Tobacco company had a Mexican subsidiary with Mexican documents stored in a Mexican storage facility under Mexican law, which may well be at odds with US law.

I think you'll find that even in the old paper world courts tend to accept the reality that some stuff is beyond their reach due to the practicalities of international law.