Is the iTunes Store not to your satisfaction? It's always worked fine for me. I never notice the DRM.
Facebook is the same anomaly as AOL was -- critical mass and everyone was there that most people wanted to talk to / find. And MySpace was the same animal for a while.
Can you tell us what the song Now I Am An Arsonist is about? It's not as obvious as the title might suggest. It talks about astronauts and acrobats while arson is hardly mentioned. Did you have the backstory of some particular arsonist, real or imagined, in mind when you wrote it?
No, I think you didn't parse the story carefully enough. If you look, it's saying that MITM attacks are the kind of thing that COULD be used to break SSL, if you had bogus certificates. It does not say that there's any evidence of this actually happening on a large scale, and indeed one of the surprising things about the Snowden leaks so far is that there isn't much (any?) evidence of SSL sabotage, even though it obviously must be one of their highest priority targets. The MITM attacks that NSA/GCHQ have been doing have all been reported as being against sites that, at the time the attacks took place, were not doing SSL.
Regardless, if all you want to do is inject an exploit into a browser you don't need to beat SSL. It's not widespread enough so eventually someone will browse to a non-SSLd website (like slashdot) and get pwnd. At that point you can read all traffic before it gets encrypted.
Syria is a country far from the UK that has no connection to Britain at all, and despite that we (I'm also a Brit) are so amazed at ourselves for the fact that politicians finally voted no. Why the hell did the decision even come up in the first place? Right, because both Blair and Cameron are warmongers who squeal with delight the moment a far off country destabilises because it gives them a chance to prance around on the "world stage", as they put it. Not so different from what they accuse Putin of, is it?
Ukraine is right on the border of Russia and has a lot of Russian people in it. The first thing the new Ukrainian government did (if you want to call the outcome of a revolution/coup a government) is start to try and suppress the Russian language. If you're looking for a better analogy, perhaps look at Ireland, the long-festering Troubles and the occupation-like conditions that parts of Ireland were put under by the British Army at times.
George Bush and Obama were also very popular at times. Is the majority of the USA suffering from mass psychosis?
Putin is popular because the economy of Russia has recovered a lot since he took power. There isn't really anything magical about this. It's the same with China. Leaders that make poor populations a lot wealthier get a lot of slack in the authoritarianism department.
Actually the latest polling on Scotland gives more like 38-40% in the "yes" block.
I would like to see evidence for your claim that Ukraine is not really a divided country and that's all Putin's propaganda. Everything else I've seen suggests that Ukraine really is a highly divided country with a large population of people who would prefer to be a part of Russia than the EU. I'm not convinced this is something Putin is just making up.
The problem here is that the west has already decided it doesn't matter what the outcome of the Crimean referendum is - if Russia wins, that must be because of foul play, intimidation or excessive "propaganda" (as if western elections are not also filled with propaganda). In fact, I don't see any way the people living there could ever actually decide they prefer to be aligned with Russia without western powers decrying it as the work of the dastardly Putin.
Here's an idea. Why don't you go compare American propaganda (Obama's comments) vs Russian propaganda (Putin's comments). In particular note that Obama doesn't even bother taking press questions any more, whereas Putin takes lots of very aggressive and straightforward ones.
I think it's something specific to MacBooks. I used to find I could hardly see the background, but if I tilted the screen a bit suddenly there it was back in the old yellow colour. The new yellow "Ad" icon is much easier to see though.
Google went public a decade ago. I think you have to do a better job of showing cause/effect than that.
It's also just wrong. From 3G onwards phones authenticate the cell towers. Even with a full stack running you wouldn't be easily able to force a phone to associate to your tower, at least not without jamming all the other towers in your vicinity.
For example, scaling the network up to 2000 transactions per second would result in a Bitcoin node downloading about 1 MB per second. No big deal, until you realize that means each node will need about 2.6 TB of bandwidth each month, and that's just to handle the needs of 10% of the population of the United States, assuming 5 transactions per person per day.
As pointed out by another poster, 2.6 TB of transfer quota per month is trivial even by today's standards: anyone can afford that. And should Bitcoin ever scale to those levels it won't be relying on today's resources, it'll be relying on tomorrow's. So your own example falls apart almost immediately.
Also, rather than just guessing what the US population "needs" why not take a look at existing networks? 2000tps is about a fifth of VISA traffic for the whole world. Of course not every transaction goes via VISA, but it should indicate to you that maybe your numbers are once again a bit sketchy.
You can read an article I wrote a long time ago here: http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability. It goes over the various ways the system scales up. Performance is unintuitive, there's no substitute for just working it out on the back of an envelope. Bear in mind we live in a world where single websites can generate a large fraction of total internet traffic and not go bankrupt.
What you call "out of circulation" could also just as well be called "savings". By forcing savings to be spent via taxes on them, all you actually do is artificially move spending that would have happened in future into the present day.
This is terrible outcome for two reasons. One is that it results in huge liabilities for future spending - we can see this in the various insolvent pension schemes that are looming on the horizon (e.g. CALPERS which will never catch up to where it needs to be by now).
The second is that the so-called "growth" in the economy that results is in reality merely some arbitrary economic activity: the fact that it took place can be measured, hence growth, but whether it was actually useful or increased societies wealth is harder to measure and often explicitly ignored. If by taxing savings you force people to instead put their money into a housing bubble, that then triggers a construction boom, this appears to central bankers/planners to be successful economic growth whereas in reality it's merely a gross misallocation of resources towards investments that wouldn't normally make any kind of economic sense.
You can't have a printing press controlled by humans and not have it be ultimately end up abused for political purposes. Central bankers are not somehow magically immune from bad decision making just because they're unelected and unaccountable: they are explicitly given their mission by politicians and their mission is economic growth at any cost, even if it means sacrificing long term stability for short term gain: exactly the same thing as the politicians mission.
We can easily see this in recent times, with central banks desperately trying to jack their economies via free money in order to try and solve political problems, like recessions or possible Eurozone breakups. Does this really make long term sense? No - running the printing presses at full speed in order to make something, anything, happen is not a sensible economic policy. Nor is doing so to bail out profligate and badly managed countries to achieve the entirely emotional and political goal of keeping them inside the Eurozone. And indeed Draghi resisted the latter for a long time, but eventually the public pressure being heaped on him daily ("Draghi will destroy the euro" etc) got too much and he caved.
This is why Bitcoin has the most sensible economic policy of all. Long term, it's meant to have no inflation and no deflation. It's meant to provide a stable monetary base. And critically, it's independent of any individuals who will inevitably give into temptation to try and shape things through money creation.
Haha, yeah, anyone who can take on the US Government and win is by definition an expert in national security. By now he probably also read more documents on national security than even the most highly cleared guys. He had everything from the minutiae of NSA tech to reports written for the inspector general. Given the rampant lying that occurs inside the security state he's probably the only guy with any clarity on how things really work at all, especially because judging from previous behaviour around the Wikileaks incidents, a lot of the NSA/DoD guys will have refused to read any of the public reports in case they get "contaminated" by classified materials!
Lots already. Even if you ignore the Constitution, people running the NSA and general security state have been caught lying to Congress (a crime), lying to the kangeroo FISA court meant to be overseeing them (contempt of court), lying to regular courts about whether defendents were being informed about the origin of evidence against them (more contempt of court), violating FISA court orders (more contempt), and re-interpreting the PATRIOT Act in such a way that even the guy who wrote the damn thing was shocked - that's just normal law breaking: you aren't supposed to be able to "reinterpret" laws however you see fit.
But when you ask "is there a way to charge anyone with a crime", I think you already know that the answer is yes just because there are so many vaguely worded laws in the USA that basically anyone can be charged with some kind of crime. What matters is whether you actually ARE charged, and that's an entirely politically driven decision.
That's the situation in the USA. In the UK the laws are much worse and much vaguer, believe it or not, to the extent that there's basically no functioning oversight at all - the UK equivalent of FISA is not only not a court, it's actually staffed by anonymous people! There's no way to find out who even sits on it. And they have never ruled against the intelligence services even once: FISA Court has at least made a token effort to appear useful. RIPA, the law that is claimed to authorise such collection, is so vaguely worded as to be basically useless as a law - it would appear to authorise practically anything. And the Prime Minister, unlike Obama, has rejected the very notion that there might be a debate at all - simply asserting that if GCHQ does it, it must be by definition be OK.
So even though the situation in the USA is dire, it's actually not as bad as it could be.