Windows 7 is notorious for always preparing to do something.

Preparing to download updates.

Preparing to install updates.

Preparing to restart machine.

Preparing to remove device.

Preparing to install device.

JFC! Just do it already. Stop preparing.

This is one of the most stark contrasts between XP and 7. XP didn't waste time preparing to do something, it just did it. In 7 you might as well go get lunch because it takes so long to do anything (or find anything for that matter because things are deliberately hidden.)

For certain limited definitions of "support".

For some tasks I can understand recycling. I use older hardware to build routers, anti-spam gateways, VPN appliances and the like. Normally these are fairly low-cycle tasks, at least for smaller offices. But I've learned my lesson about using older hardware in mission critical applications. I've set up custom routers that worked just great, until the motherboards popped a cap, and then they're down, and unless you've got spares sitting around, you're in for some misery.

Honestly, what a fantastic way of completely screwing your enemy. smallpox bombs are a fantastic weapon that will make the people turn on their local government and military as soon as their children start dying.

Biological and Chemical warfare is worse than nuclear warfare, and it's heinous to it's core.

The court actually took a pretty sensible view on this, I think.

The judge's reasoning was that the use of data that was recovered and stored was (as a matter of law) subject to the same test of reasonableness as what could be recovered in the first place. He considered trying to decide how long was reasonable now, but decided that he wasn't in a position to do so, since he didn't know how the investigation would go. Better for a later court, looking back on all the facts, to decide whether what was done was reasonable, than for him to try to decide what would be reasonable based on a guess as to what would happen.

In other words, there are limits on storage and use of the data, although they aren't rigid, and a court may be called on to decide whether they have been breached at a later date.

"No difference"?

Yep, exactly the same...

Who else is going to pay the neutral third party? The tooth fairy?

Whoever you choose is going to be paid by the state.

I think it is easy to imagine circumstances where what you call a 'blanket' search - a search for specific categories of evidence, but which isn't limited by particular approved keywords - would be justified. I would expect it to be common, because I would expect it to be the only reasonable way to conduct the search in a great many cases.

I am a litigator. We regularly conduct similar searches during what Americans would call discovery - the pre-trial process where you look for evidence. Even if you know exactly what sort of thing you're looking for and are using specialist software designed for this process, it can take hundreds of man-hours and cost well over a hundred thousand dollars to search a large body of correspondence. I can tell you from experience that it is very difficult to pick keywords in advance without making them incredibly broad. If the person may have done something that they don't want to set out explicitly in an email, it can easily be impossible.

There is a strong public interest in effectively investigating crimes and bringing the perpetrators to justice. There has to be some mechanism to get access to email correspondence in order to conduct that investigation. In a big investigation, I can't see that it would be reasonable to require Google to carry out the searches required - it should be done by the police. I therefore think it is entirely plausible that a 'blanket' search warrant would be granted, and I haven't seen any reason not to trust the judge's assessment - after all, he has heard the evidence and you haven't.

Michigan Amish also have TV sets and Dish TV. I see the dishes cleverly mounted to try and hide them.... The amish are not as pure as they want you to believe.

Instead of announcing they will stop processing on saturday to increase profits. they would have announce it as, "here at netflix we love our employees so starting now we will be giving all of them saturdays off. It's because netflix is an honest company that loves it's employees."

We all know it's as far from the truth as possible, but it's all fluffy and feely that makes people smile..

Or those that wants to watch a movie that is not on the streaming side. well over 50% of what I want to watch is not on netflix streaming OR hulu plus.

No, only when there is a profit motive in supplying does it become a criminal case. If you're supplying without charging it's still very much a civil case.

Well, it's not for free. The industry is paying ISPs £750,000 one off + £75,000 per year. The ISPs have to pay £250,000 towards it and £25,000 per year.

I'd be amazed if they even ever see a return on that investment. As someone else pointed out in the UK you don't get the absurd escalation of penalty costs in court that you do in the US, you actually have to prove damages and only get actual damages. Even if they do litigate that amount they'll gain from doing so would be so small it wouldn't cover the cost of staff time in collating the information to be sent to the lawyers, even if the lawyers fees themselves were covered.

I really don't think this will achieve anything other than getting a few kids told off by their parents.