Well, only the usual attempt to mislead that underlies most marketing. By using words that make the process sound more technical, they help convince naive buyers that they need this service. A more honest description of the services offered would probably inspire slightly fewer people to buy it. Hence, the attempt to mislead is intentional, but not especially severe.

Who decides who is working as an enemy combatant? What is the due process that ensures this decision is correctly made, and corrects it when (not if) errors are made?

Think about this the next time you leave the US on vacation. You have no way of knowing if you have been somehow designated an "enemy combatant".

No, a completely closed metal cage doesn't need to be grounded. You only have to ground the cage if the device inside has some other connection to ground.

The quiet parts are supposed to be quiet, but they are also supposed to be listened to in a theatre with good acoustics and a completely silent audience. If you've ever sat in a symphony performance with someone nearby moving around you'll know how much even a small amount of background noise interferes with the quiet parts of the music. When listening to the music on CD, one often just doesn't have a quiet enough background to appreciate the quiet parts at their intended volume.

Unfortunately, the majority of computer users are jackasses, and do better with the menus.

Lonely people are more likely to be depressed and to spend time on the internet, and they spend proportionately more time browsing sexually gratifying websites, online gaming sites and visiting online communities. No surprise there.

Not to start fusion, but to get fusion that sustains itself, so that more of the fuel in the pellet is consumed. They have been getting small amounts of fusion in these pellets for many years.

This approach has the side benefit that the pressure and temperature conditions in the pellets are suitable for studying the physics of nuclear weapons. That makes it easy to get funding for it...

No, the gp was right but you misunderstood. "Ignition" means that the laser triggers a self-sustained reaction within the pellet. The laser fires once per pellet. By itself, the laser doesn't provide enough energy to fuse more than a tiny fraction of the atoms in the pellet before it explodes. Ignition means that the energy from the laser-triggered fusion helps sustain the temperature and pressure in the pellet long enough for a greater fraction of the atoms to fuse. I don' t know if the amount expected to fuse is a significant fraction of the total atoms in the pellet--I suspect not, but ignition means that many times more atoms fuse than would otherwise.

You can do those things with a laptop, but form factor does make a difference. The laptop form is great if you're going to be doing a lot of typing, especially if you're going to be sitting at a desk or table. It's not so convenient if you're going to be sitting in an easy chair passively enjoying content. I bought an iPod Touch a few months ago, and found that when I'm home I often end up doing simple tasks like checking email on it, rather than my laptop or desktop computers. The iPod starts instantly, and it's more convenient to grab it and take it into the living room than the laptop. The screen is small, but if I'm just going to read a few emails and check Facebook it's more convenient than lugging the laptop and mouse around.

Note that he didn't say "fully" blind. Perhaps he meant legally blind. One can be legally blind and still have some vision.

The analogies are important here, because this is a legal argument. Besides written laws, there are judicial decisions covering thinks like the privacy of an item in a locked briefcase, or of material stored on a landlord's premises. By making analogies to these things, the author is arguing that the principles in those judicial decisions should be applied to cloud storage as well. If that argument succeeds, it may not be necessary to make any new laws at all, just to correctly interpret the existing ones.

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure from the wording that the "opaque case" idea is a specific reference to existing judicial opinions. It's an important principle, even for cryptography: it says that the government is not allowed to break your encryption merely because they can. By encrypting your data, you did more than just secure it, you also made it private, in the same way that an opaque container makes the contents private, even if the lock fails or can be broken or picked.

Strange. Maybe I'm misreading something, but the deletion logs don't show any sign that the article on Metz on the English Wikipedia was ever deleted. Nor the redirects "Metz, France" and "Ville de Metz". I believe what you say, but can't verify it. I was hoping to check whether the person who wrote what you described was an admin, or just a random vandal deleting the text. The current article on Metz was started in 2002.

I don't think wrongful blocks are very common. In a typical case, I would think a "contributing normal user" would drop the admin a polite note requesting he/she reconsider, and would be quickly unblocked. The conditions under which admins are allowed to block users are pretty well established—they are not supposed to be blocking people arbitrarily, and are supposed to try to be impartial. There are appeal mechanisms available if the blocking admin is unwilling to reconsider. Wrongful blocks are more of a problem with new users, who may not know what to do.

Note that admins do not permanently "delete" or ban a user for a single offense. Even outright vandalism typically gets a 24 hour block the first time, and even then only after several warnings. Admins who abuse their tools can and do get de-admined.

I don't get it either. Somebody mod grandparent up; at least "under-rated".