One example: source trees that come from Linux are blissfully unaware of any restrictions, and may for example have a README and a Readme file. On the default Mac OS X filesystem you just can't store this source tree.

I'm very much afraid that you are right. The biggest gripes I have with it is that (a) it comes from Adobe, and (b) the map functions don't work on a case-sensitive file system on Mac OS X.

Adobe for reasons only known to itself absolutely refuses to support case-sensitive file systems for Mac OS X. For Lightroom this `only' means that the map functions don't work (at least in LR 4; LR 5 may be better or worse). For Photoshop it means that it can not even be installed on a case-sensitive file system; the installer refuses to do so. The official fix for this problem is to reformat. This stance of Adobe is at least a decade old (as is Mac OS X support for case-sensitive file systems...). Of course this restriction is not documented in sales documentation.

Of course that's a concern too. So you try to understand what the supply chain is, you try to get recommendations from people you trust, you avoid the most dangerous foods, and you hope for the best. There is no perfect answer, you can just improve your odds.

The point of organic food is not better taste, although that may be a bonus in some cases, it is mainly about the toxins in the food. And in countries with lax oversight that is a realistic concern.

That's a bit too simple. Saudi Arabia decided years ago to increase its production capacity. It then started an official project to get an increase of 10%. Given the existing production capacity at the time, that was an enormous project that took many years. They made that investment to use it, not just so that they could open the oil tap a little more one day to give Putin a black eye. Was that extra capacity intended to fight wars? Who knows. But if so, it was to fight all competitors from non-OPEC oil producers to green alternatives.

Ah, it is simple! Good. So, let's run a testsuite over that simple algorithm of yours:

Were the people who fought for the creation of the state Israel terrorists? Remember that at the time Israel was not a `true nation state', and this fight involved attacks on hotels, Palestinian farmers, and similar non-military targets.

Were the people who fought for the creation of the USA terrorists?

Were the people who fought for the independence of Ireland in the early 20th century terrorists? Remember that as far as the UK was concerned, Ireland was not a `true nation state'.

Are the Palestinians who fight against past and future Israeli injustice and encroachment on their land terrorists? Remember that almost all Israelis are or have been in the army, and are reservists for a large part of their life. And like it or not, these Palestinians consider their land, and a lot of the land that is now Israel, as part of their own `true nation state'.

Was the Saudi national who argued that the US military bases in his country were a form of occupation, and who founded an organisation to fight against this, was he a terrorist? I presume Saudi Arabia falls under your definition of `true nation state'. Hint: he was deeply involved with the immediate causes of the report we're discussing.

The question remains why nobody has been (and likely will be) prosecuted for these war crimes. Sure, a few underlings got a little punishment, but it has been very clear from the early days of the Obama administration that the guys where the buck stopped would never face any prosecution. The parts of the report that have now been published suggest the buck stopped at the CIA top, but from other sources we know that at least Cheney, Bush, Rice, and Rumsfeld were so deeply involved they deserve at least some investigation. At least Cheney has been pretty open about his involvement.

So why did this prosecution for war crimes never happen? The most charitable explanation I have been able to come up with is that Obama thought the unrest this would cause in the USA would be unacceptable, but I admit it is a weak explanation.

Oh, and yes, the things described in the report were war crimes. Waterboarding is explicitly mentioned in a UN definition of torture, and after World War II some Japanese soldiers were tried and executed for waterboarding allied soldiers. And that's just the waterboarding.

.. or at least people who think they are clever. Occasionally they are right.

Cheap and easy to fly drones are a new phenomena that have an obvious potential to endanger airplanes. Reports like this indicate that this is more than a theoretical danger. Surely there is a risk-management angle then? It seems to me you are denying the obvious. What is your agenda?

We were talking about this particular communication of the CDC. I see just facts and reasonable-sounding suggestions to doctors, and no ranting anywhere. So why is this 'yet another alarmist virus scare', as you claim it is? Quotes please.

Issuing reports like this is just the CDC doing their job. You do not complain about the weather service issuing reports about tornados, do you? Or CERT issuing their reports? NHTSA?

It seems to me you are the alarmist here.

Grow up.

And give us a report of at least 20 pages about the legal and societal differences between these two cases before Monday, or you'll go to bed without desert for two weeks.

Although not everything is a slippery slope, the invasion of privacy by the state is a classical area where there is a very delicate balance, and the analogy is relevant. This is well known, and the discussions about this balance go back millennia. Just dropping the word 'fallacy' in the discussion contributes exactly zero bits to the discussion.

Well, he has the power to veto laws he doesn't like, so things are a little more complicated.

Still, the complaint is not that he doesn't do anything with the laws that the Congress passes, the complaint is that Congress doesn't pass any laws that address important issues.

Funnily enough, President Obama addressed that very issue in his speech: he said that if Congress doesn't like what he's doing, they should come up with a law themselves. So in the President's considered opinion the issue is so urgent it trumps this principle you mention.

Sound like a legitimate argument to me, that needs a serious refutation if you disagree with him.