Ah, through the femoral artery. My imagination went to a much more horrifying place when I read "catheter."

I have a bad feeling tech journalism forgot all the lessons they should have learned from the Nanniebot hoax.

As other posters have commented, there's a wide range between "small town" and "major city." Many cities with populations around or below 1 million have vibrant communities and relatively low costs of living. In one of Ohio's larger cities, I'm able to own a cape cod in a nice neighborhood on an income below $100k.

Not gonna knock New York and LA here. Just saying, midsized cities can have their benefits, too.

I suspect that Facebook's reputation for being a brogrammer culture is an exaggeration perpetuated by the movie. If there was even a time when their work environment resembled anything in The Social Network, the company has matured since then. This article about their release process paints a different picture.

That's because the U.S. Constitution does not declare any rights unalienable. It only limits the power of Congress to legislate them.

The concept of unalienable rights comes from the Declaration of Independence.

I imagine that the $1.9B purchase price reflects the value of EMI's recorded music in the current market, not what its value would be if piracy didn't exist. Nonetheless, I don't disagree that the RIAA's figure is grossly exaggerated.

According to TFA, EMI owns about 9 percent of the recorded music market.

Check if the book's Simultaneous Device Usage says "Unlimited" in the Product Details. If I understand correctly, that means it does not have DRM.

You only need to prove their intentions to the satisfaction of a court of law.

I still see a different intent there. If you send a letter to express a grievance, your correspondence has a legitimate purpose. If you send them junk in a deliberate attempt to disrupt them, you're harassing them. DDoS is more analogous to the latter.

No, not necessarily. Sending a political statement to a congressperson arguably serves a legitimate purpose besides nuisance. I didn't assume that the "you" in the question was a public figure whom civilians might sincerely need to contact in an attempt to participate in the political process.

It's harassment if their intent is to cause nuisance. Asking them to stop helps prove your case, but it's not required for a crime or tort to have been committed against you.

Yes. It's illegal for people to harass you through the mail.