In general, the *USA* laws say that you can legally photograph anything visible from public property that does not require "specialized equipment", and anything on public property. You cannot legally take photographs of places where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, including in restrooms, within private dwellings, and underneath clothing. Exceptions exist, but the law is far less restrictive than social norms are about photography.

The UK laws imply that you have the right to apply lubricant, if you brought it, before they violate your rights.

IANAL, but I have fun with a DSLR, and educate myself on what I legally can or can't do with it.

In the parking lot, the most the guard has the rights to do is to ask you to leave, and to escort you off the property. The police can escort you off the property, should a representative ask you to leave. Confiscation of cameras in the US is theft. Charges of wiretapping are bullshit, and routinely overturned when some police officer feels threatened by a camera.

You must've never played on "Hard" or "Realistic". It's fairly tricky to set up an agent with believable vision and believable hearing. Being able to distract guards by throwing a bottle, and having them investigate fallen comrades, was a new level for agent environment awareness for the day.

Another good way to dissuade coworkers from hanging around is to pull out a camera. It's the shotgun of office politics ~ there's no mistaking the sounds of the lens covers coming off, or the click of the shutter. Point'n'shoots, with that whirrr-whir as it extends the lens, also gets people's attention. Just some exposed glass has been enough to clear some of my coworkers out of the 4-plex, from time to time. Every now and then I even turn the camera on and get some random pictures. 55-200 lens get REALLY CLOSE UP from 10'.

SSC never went active, whereas these data centers went live, were monitored, and deemed to be excess infrastructure that didn't help the deficit. Something similar happened around here, with the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF). Could've been pumping out medical isotopes, but noooo, we needed to shut that thing down.

That's pretty stupid, overall. He should've done his research before doing some experiments, and the government shouldn't've gone in with a vengeance. As far as silly ways to get arrested, though, it's sillier than getting arrested for making moonshine in the US. http://www.burningstill.com/?q=node/57

I keep saying that "I don't get paid to trust people", here at work ~ most of my job is to find bugs and squash them, whether in the code or in the model files. Some days it's the model, some days it's the software, some days it's the user. Then I talked to my neighbor and learned about his soon-to-be-ex wife problems. That simply reinforced the point that I don't get paid to trust people. Then RSA, Sony, and everyone else got hacked. That really reinforced the point. So hey, don't trust people. Trust the facts instead.

I want to observe that 'their models suggest that the planet is habitable'. Don't get all excited until their models are validated, verified, and well-tested. Until then, it could indeed turn out to just be that trick of curved space-time that brought in a few funny photons in the right place.

...because oh so much evolution occurs over the course of ten thousand years. There have been much heavier influences on human development, such as agriculture, metalworking, medicine, and similar technological discoveries that have either overshadowed or also influenced our development. If anything, there's been too much noise in our systems to observe any small changes in the last 500 generations.

Still waiting for either an engineering or science field to be mentioned.

The problem is that you have to be defined as a "data access provider" to have the protections of a data access provider. Netting that definition requires you to play by whatever the written rules are, both in the law books and within your contract with your ISP. It's not so much a question of if I think I should be held responsible if someone else is speeding in my car, it's an issue of how the laws are written and how my insurance policy is written. Lawyers have this funny stance that "it's not real until it's in writing" ... similarly, you'll be held responsible for what you've presumably read and signed your name to in agreement.