BUSH WAS RIGHT!!!
You're going to be killed. I'm bound to be right, because when you die of natural causes in many years a bunch of muppets will claim I said you were going to "die" and thus I was right all those years ago
but you can't actually ignore that there's a treaty (the UN Charter is a treaty) that's US law under the constitution, and signers agreed not to cross other nation's borders with force without security council authorization..
Sadly it seems pretty clear that you can ignore it as I'm yet to see any remotely serious consideration of the idea of actually doing anything about the, imo, illegal intervention in Iraq.
Where was their market research? Where was their marketing? Any traditional non-technology startup that forgets do do these things will fail.
Bullshit. You think Facebook did market research before starting up? It's ludicrous to think that most companies do extensive market research and marketing at launch. It's also equally naive to think that doing market research and marketing automatically means you'll be a success.
But then this is the internet where you can respond to a post that in no way mentions market research, let alone says they didn't do any, by suggesting that's where they went wrong so obviously it's a +5 insightful post.
That said: Who the fuck wants to stream 2160p medium? I personally haven't found benefit from 720p and given that few of my monitors support 1080p there's no benefit to streaming at that resolution, especially given the mean quality of video entertainment available nowadays.
There isn't a screen in my house that isn't 1080p (even tablets and phones). The difference between SD and 1080p is huge (though I expect that a good quality 720p signal probably gives 75%+ of the benefit). I wasn't an early adoptor of HD but I'm a convert now I'm on it. I doubt I'll be an early adoptor of 4K either, and certainly don't expect the difference to be all that noticable but I'll probably get in on it in around 4-5 years when it's lost most of its price premium and become established.
London's Tube Drivers are extremely militant - it's normal to have a couple of strikes per year (sometimes over "normal" industrial disputes like pay, sometimes because, I suspect, they just want to remind people they can do it).
And it's worked for them so far sadly. They have an incredible deal compared to equivalent workers on other networks, regularly shake down the government for more by threatening not to do their job during major events, and continue to whine incessently. I'd pay more for my travel if it meant getting rid of drivers sooner because they're a liability to London's public transport.
How do US authorities feel about foreign nations hacking into US military and corporate computers?
As absolutely wrong as their position is ethically I don't think there's quite the hypocrisy being claimed. I doubt the Chinese are punishing the people hacking into American servers for them either, warrant or not. In theory a US warrant shouldn't even be valid for a server in the UK, so the FBI is commiting a crime in Britain by hacking a machine that is located there without a UK warrant. The question is whether the laws of the country the server is in make what the FBI did criminal, whether the country is willing to take it to court and whether they can do anything about it anyway.
The American soldiers in the Revolutionary War, the same; they may have resorted to some guerrilla warfare type tactics, but against British soldiers
Learn a little history before lecturing people on it. There were plenty of appaling crimes against laoyalists by patriots during the revolutionary war. It's naive to think that the biggest difference between terrorist and freedom fighter can be found in semantics. Hell the US support of the Taliban followed by all out war against them should make a mockery of any attempt to pretend the labels are anything more than political these days.
To some extent, our Human Rights Act here has served a similar purpose in recent years, but of course the Tories want to get rid of that as well.
Those Tories that you decry for wanting rid of it are the same party that were extremely influential in drafting and spreading them across Europe. As long as you, and so many others, see politcal parties through such a biased lens we'll continue to make poor politcal choices. The ECHR is a small group of unelected individuals, they just happen to align better with your (and my) opinion than the conservative party on human rights. Should we have joined the Euro to take economic policy off the small group of lawmakers you think we can't trust and hand it to the EU who you claim have our interests closer to heart? Or have you arbitrarily decided that Europe will protect human rights correctly but won't protect our economy correctly for some reason...
I've come to the conclusion that we have to protect our own freedoms. The internet gives us a unique opportunity to do that with strong cryptography that even the government can't break.
I'm not so optimistic. We're already seeing hard push back against Apple's decision to design its device encryption in a way that stops it (and thus government) from being able to decrypt it. You can already be compelled by law in both the US or UK to give up encryption keys. If you travel through a UK airport you can be detained and and questioned, without the right to legal representation, under laws that make refusing to answer the question a crime. Governments could block encrypted communication between 'non-certified' parties, where they certify, which would make your self-protect by encryption idea implausible.
As long as a majority of the population is either uninterested in, or against encryption/privacy etc, then there is very little those of us who are bothered can do to protect themselves. Yes I can send my mundane day to day emails encrypted and no one will care, however if I ever did anything that drew attention (supporting a group the government doesn't approve of) then chances are all the steps I take won't stop them.