An oversimplification. The US, UK, and allies variously broke many cipher systems throughout WWII. Still the US benefitted from this.

What if the Germans were using, say, Windows, Android phones, SSL, Gmail, Yahoo, and Skype, instead of Enigma machines?

I presume you wouldn't say it was "wrong" of the United States to crack the German and Japanese codes in WWII...

...so when US adversaries (and lets just caveat this by saying people YOU, personally, agree are legitimate US adversaries) don't use their own "codes", but instead share the same systems, networks, services, devices, cloud providers, operating systems, encryption schemes, and so on, that Americans and much of the rest of the world uses, would you suggest that they should be off limits?

This isn't so much a law enforcement question as a question of how to do SIGINT in the modern digital world, but given the above, and given that intelligence requires secrecy in order to be effective, how would you suggest the United States go after legitimate targets? Or should we not be able to, because that power "might" be able to be abused -- as can any/all government powers, by definition?

This simplistic view that the only purpose of the government in a free and democratic society must be to somehow subjugate, spy on, and violate the rights of its citizens is insane, while actual totalitarian and non-free states, to say nothing of myriad terrorist and other groups, press their advantage. And why wouldn't they? The US and its ever-imperfect system of law is not the great villain in the world.

Take a step back and get some perspective. And this is not a rhetorical question: if someone can tell me their solution for how we should be able to target technologies that are fundamentally shared with innocent Americans and foreigners everywhere while still keeping such sources, methods, capabilities, and techniques secret, I'm all ears. And if you believe the second a technology is shared it should become magically off-limits because power might be abused, you are insane -- or, more to the point, you believe you have some moral high ground which, ironically, would actually result in severe disadvantages for the system of free society you would claim to support.

Time for the militant misogynistic, homophobic white guy brigade to raise hell until they're the only ones represented again.

Personally, I find the world to be much more interesting when it is populated with different, interesting people who aren't exactly like me in every way. I'm also a Crazy Person, so that might just be me.

Can't imagine it would matter much, it's not like they'd want to fuck you either way.

In summary: if you're talented and exceptional and want to make the most money you can, you become a specialist in the art of making money, not in the art of making code. The business people are the ones calling shots and signing checks... any genius should be able to see how this leads to them getting all the shots called in their favor and all of the biggest checks being written out to them.

"Robot" means "slave". That's where the word comes from. The best robot stories HAVE to be about slavery, because tautology.

99% of malware targeted Android. Neat, but it doesn't really mean anything.

What percentage of mobile malware infections did Android account for? What is the infection rate for those devices? How serious have most breaches been? These are all more meaningful security metrics than "number of times targeted". In particular the rate is extremely telling: if there are, say, 100 infections per 100,000 for Android, and 85 per 100,000 for iOS, that is certainly troubling for Android, but hardly damning.

Someone said there isn't? When?

I suspect that the plan is to integrate smartwatches into the already existing smartphone ecosystem, rather than try to lure anyone away from it.

As a Massachusetts resident with a pretty clear memory of Romney's campaign, election, administration, and effective resignation, I feel pretty good about saying the OP has a reasonable point. I never had the slightest doubt that he was a lying scumbag, and I have nothing but contempt for the people who bought his ridiculous schtick. Frankly, the only thing he kept any promises on was that he told us from the get-go he wanted to gut the schools and destroy our public education system... thanks a shitload.

I'm still pissed that his response to Goodridge was to go on FOX News and insult the state and everyone in it. He couldn't even have the good sense to shut his stupid pie hole and try to undermine it from a position of professed disinterest like a modestly competent sleazebag politician... he just went straight to badmouthing his constituents on cable news as part of his preliminary presidential run. What a jackass.

If his choices were to sign a non-compete or not be employed in the industry, that's not a real choice.

And violent coercion? Bullshit. If you violate a non-compete, who the hell do you think the company goes to for enforcement? We allow, and even expect, government to interfere with contracts all the time: either because they have no meaning without some third party to actually enforce them, or because some contracts are so reprehensible that we as a society do not allow them to be made. Do you believe that government should not interfere with a contract that, say, grants ownership of one human being to another?

If you're going to be dumb enough to spew anarcho-capitalist nonsense, at least have enough self respect to be good at it.

It's neither. He has announced that he will not run because he doesn't want to serve another term as governor, not because he can't due to term limits.

I always just assumed that Tie Fighters and X-Wings had vaguely aerodynamic designs because they weren't pure spacecraft, but rather transatmopspheric dogfighters. Given how often both are shown to do precisely that in the films, it never seemed like much of a stretch.

The X-Wing's variable geometry does make some degree of sense from that perspective as well, with the X formation providing greater fire variability and the flat providing better aerodynamics and lift in dense atmospheres, as well as a better profile for evading fire. Of course, they never seemed to give a damn about that part in the films, so maybe I'm way off base.

I strongly suspect that both of those theories are completely invalidated by the non-movie canon... in which case, I still don't care about the extended SW universe.

What "free market" are you referring to here? We never had one with regards to the telcos, and the content side can only barely pretend to show some semblance of free-ness. Get a grip.

You're right, 6' tall is a bit taller than median, but well within the fat part of the bell curve. I am somewhat tall, but not particularly.

If you don't believe that your son has ever unintentionally seen down a woman's shirt, you are simply incorrect. Either that or he has never spoken to a woman shorter than about 5'6" wearing a low(ish) cut shirt. It just happens.

As to my being a pervert who can't get dates... I don't have that particular problem, and while many members of society dislike me for a variety of reasons, I have no evidence to suggest that undesired ogling is one of them.

Good luck with the bizarre moralism you've cultivated, I hope it serves you well.