(I like the English "not proven" wording better)

It's only a side point, but for what it's worth that's a possible verdict under Scottish law, not under English.

The tree is willow, but I understood that Hippocrates used its bark rather than its leaves.

You give the impression of not having read more than the first sentence of the post you replied to.

US law should have absolutely no meaning for anyone outside the US. Why would an EU citizen expect US law to have any relevance at all?

Have you read Twitter's Terms of Service? Even the soon-to-come-into-effect version says that

You understand that through your use of the Services you consent to the collection and use (as set forth in the Privacy Policy) of this information, including the transfer of this information to the United States, Ireland, and/or other countries for storage, processing and use by Twitter.

I agree with you. Yet no need for the quotes around social 'scientists.' Psychologists, socialists, etc. employ the same experimental designs and mathematical techniques in experiments as doctors or others performing drug efficacy or medical outcome experiments, for example.

That sounds like an excellent reason to use scare quotes around "scientists". When only 25% of published biomedical results can be reproduced, that field needs to do work to justify the claim to be science as well.

The original word for the final evil in the box, elpis, has roughly the same range of meaning as the Spanish esperanza. Linguistically it's as likely that the thing which remained trapped in the box was expectation of evil as that it was hope, and if that's understood as foreknowledge of the evil that will befall you then it's both easy to see why Zeus (or Hesiod) would consider it worse than those which escaped and to hold the aetiology as consistent with the state of things which it's supposed to be explaining - whereas positive hope is clearly not outside the range of human experience.

TL;DR: Nietzsche is probably working with a bad translation of the Greek.

I would have thought that most of his Turkish friends would have a low opinion of him already for choosing a Greek handle.

Some research into what proportion of programmers do know this kind of basic stuff would have made a much better paper.

It is bad, but I've seen worse.

Interdiction or USB. NSA has plenty of experience in that side of things.

Stenography is typing. You mean steganography. But even that is missing the point, which is one thing the title does get right: air-gapped. There's not supposed to be any communications channel at all between the two computers, but this technique creates one.

Ah, looking at the other answers it turns out that I'd missed that the Data Retention Directive has been overturned by the ECJ. Still, I hope I've given you a useful framework for understanding other news about European legislative matters.

The short answer is that a national judge's ruling doesn't directly affect other countries, although it could indirectly affect them if it leads to an appeal to a European court and their ruling clarifies the law in a way which is incompatible with other countries' implementations.

The longer answer: EU law works by means of "directives" which each country then implements in its national law. Each directive comes with a deadline to implement it, although typically most countries miss the deadline. But in principle the European Commission can sue a country which fails to implement a directive, and fines can be levied. The issue here is that the Dutch implementation of the Data Retention Directive went further than the minimal requirements, and the judge has ruled it incompatible with other European law. (It's not clear from either of the articles whether that was the Data Protection Directive or the European Convention on Human Rights*).

The two main options now would be that the Dutch government appeals to a European court (the European Court of Justice if it was the Data Protection Directive that formed the basis of the ruling, or the European Court of Human Rights if it was the ECHR); or that it passes a replacement law which sticks closer to the Data Retention Directive. If it doesn't do either of those, it would be failing to fulfil its obligation to implement that directive.

* Not EU law, but I think all EU countries are members of the European Council, and the most recent constitutional treaty of the EU commits the EU as an organisation to acceding to the ECHR.

Is filesharing that high on your list of things to do on holiday?

The idea in GPP was to call the burner phone with the SIM, not to put the SIM in the burner phone, so it does require both phone and contract.