There's a little box in the settings.
Next to it is the text "Allow some non-intrusive advertising"

I unchecked that box a long time ago and haven't thought about it until just now.

If you RTFA, they use a laser wavelength that reflects off the steel instead of being absorbed.

The FBI's problem is that, soon, even warrants won't be sufficient to pry open the encryption protecting consumer level devices.

Well, it doesn't have to be cheaper if you can sell some VP or an influencer on the idea of never having to enter a password again.
"Cheaper" is just the easiest way to argue your cause. "It's worth the extra money" is usually harder, but not always when it's some gee whiz technology stuff that the users will physically interact with.

The answer is almost always inertia.
Someone setup (or worse, paid consultants to set up) the current system and that's what everyone is stuck with because no one will/can propose anything better.

Figure out how much time and effort tech support spends on dealing with forgotten or compromised passwords.
Factor in the time lost by employees while they wait for tech support to deal with password problems.
Find some research discussing the cost of a compromise.

Figure out how much a token based system will cost. Assume people will lose their tokens.
Make the case that your solution is cheaper than the existing solution.

Then prepare to deal with "but we won't get compromised, so this is a waste of money"

We have three branches of Government and the NSA belongs to the Executive Branch.

From what we've seen so far, the Legislative branch has simultaneously expanded the NSA's spying powers and been kept in the dark about the scope of the NSA's activities (which prevents meaningful oversight).

The Judicial branch's oversight of the NSA is something of a mystery.
We don't know what the NSA tells the FISA court and the FISA court doesn't know what the NSA isn't telling them.
And pretty much any other judicial cases involving the NSA get shut down with the claim of national security.

We know for certain that the Executive branch has been issuing classified opinions and directives to give the NSA expansive powers.
They're under "under effective political control," just not the kind of control that the majority of Americans desire.

I think the GP's point is that they are "accurately" gathering information on a biased slice of the population.

The GP doesn't understand what the "Google Tax" is about.
This previous /. thread has an article about Amazon that lays it out

This is what the UK is trying to stop.
A small transaction tax would do nothing to prevent naked abuses of transfer pricing.

The video says it has a max input speed of 3000 rpm and a max output torque of 3Nm (~4 ft/lbs) with a gear reduction of 1:20.

He's taking 207 individual problems and making them 1 problem.
More importantly, he's taking 207 databases and putting them in 1 place, which significantly reduces the impediments to data sharing.

There are still government offices that have to print something from one system and input it by hand into a second.
Whatever we can do to get rid of that type of friction is a good thing.

I have to ask, what kind of polish do you use on your granite?

I have a special polishing compound that's custom made from Fijian coconut shells.
It really expands the sound scape without affecting the mid-range.

Does this mean Miss Heineman got id Software and ZeniMax onboard with releasing the source for the 3D0 port?

Yea, I bet it had nothing to do with China dumping ore and finished steel products on global markets.
It's not like the USA and other countries have spent over a decade suing China via the WTO over their steel exports.
And it probably had nothing to do with the growth of lower fixed-cost just-in-time minimills that took over half the market.

Or we can go with your union worker theory.

If this was a civil trial, you'd have a point. But it isn't, and you don't.
The case is Elonis v. United States, not Elonis v. Ex-Wife.

Well, then the Constitution isn't absolute.

Constitutional literalists seem to ignore that there was an extensive body of common law and common interpretations of law before the Constitution was ever written. Things that were illegal didn't suddenly become legal just because they weren't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

/The only crimes mentioned in the Constitution: piracy, counterfeiting, bribery, treason, and "high crimes and misdemeanors"
/But the Constitution doesn't state what "high crimes and misdemeanors" are, so i guess that's not enforceable?

It's not just enough to have no legal obligations, you have to make sure you do not take any actions that could be construed as accepting an obligation.

The exact term escapes me at the moment, but I'll bet Cox created itself some legal issues when it partially went along with the various copyright enforcers.