I don't think Google is remotely invested in Android as a platform. They're interested in getting more ad revenue, and Android provides a convenient vector for that right now. But once the lawsuits start coming to completion I suspect the economic incentive to supporting the platform will dwindle to the point where Google will let it whither on the vine. It's a business decision; Google doesn't care about free and open, they need to make a buck just like everybody else.

No. In a GA aircraft (at least those flying under FAR 91, which covers private pilots) you can use whatever portable electronic devices you'd like. There are FCC regs that disallow the use of cell phones in flight, but I've never seen them obeyed, much less enforced.

Also I think you meant "untowered" airports. It's legal to land in controlled airspace without a radio, as long as that airspace is class E.

Aviation GPS uses WAAS to get increased accuracy (roughly 10'). Also aircraft, being up in the sky, can see many more satellites than somebody standing on a hill. WAAS informs the GPS receiver of errors in the signal, as well as failure of portions of the constellation.

The GPS on aircraft use RAIM to detect and predict GPS failures, and can use inertial guidance (among other) systems as a backup. The entire GPS system has never gone down, and there are backup satellites in place in the event of failures of nodes in the constellation.

No you're not. You're just not identifiable.

I'd be happy if they started hosting the 6to4 anycast address (192.88.99.1) internally. I use 6to4 and am looking at 133ms just to hit the 6to4 gateway. Native IPv6 would be phenomenal.

If you do something stupid then piercing the S-Corp layer isn't that hard. At the end of the day you are really a sole proprietor, and having paid a few hundred bucks to file some paperwork isn't going to work any magic in court.

Not remotely true. If you keep your paperwork in order (not just upfront, but ongoing) piercing the veil is nearly impossible. The upfront paperwork takes a few yours, after that you're looking at one or two hours per year.

This would work if the owner of the S-Corp was someone else. As the sole owner of the S-Corp and the only person who does any work for the S-Corp then you are deemed to be an "active" owner. You owe SS and Medicare on all of the income, including the pass through income. You may not report the income this way, but you should be. I'm guessing you haven't been audited yet.

The IRS allows you to pay distributions to shareholders that are above "reasonable" compensation for the work done. They haven't yet defined "reasonable," although there's never been a case where employee/shareholders have been prosecuted if they are paying a fair amount of tax. Google John Edwards and Payroll Tax for more information.

As an S-Corp owner I legally reduce my tax burden by thousands of dollars while shielding my personal assets from lawsuits. Yes I need to file an additional return and do some additional paperwork, but the benefits far outweigh the costs.

OpenDNS allows you to turn off said feature. I did, and get NXDOMAIN back instead of the IP of their goofy page when I typo or try to resolve a non-existent name.

The charge is that the contests of the hard drive are illegal. That's not just "evidence", that's the entire crux of the case. The question at hand is, "are the contents of this drive illegal?" If the prosecution can't prove that it is, that's their tough luck. If they can't view the contents of the drive then what the hell business do they have prosecuting this guy? Their inability to break encryptioon isn't the defendent's fault or problem. The state wants to prove that the guy did something wrong? Okay, let's see the proof. You have the guy's laptop, let's see why you think he's doing something illegal.

The prosecution could move forward with the case without the decrypted documents, presenting the sworn testimony of the ICE agent, but they're within their rights not to. They've decided that they need to examine the contents of the drive, shown probable cause to a judge (based on the testimony of the ICE agent), and gotten a warrant. The judge compelled the defendant to supply the documents pursuant to the warrant. He's not complying, therefore he's in contempt of a court order.

The defendant could easily claim to have forgotten the password, and the case would move forward without the evidence (although that's clearly not the prosecution's preferred outcome), but the judge would then instruct the jury about the defendant's claim, and let them weigh that against the ICE agent's sworn testimony. That doesn't look like a good option for the defense, so they're trying this first.

In any case, the 5th amendment doesn't protect defendants from handing over incriminating evidence, only from making self-incriminating statements to the government.

As many others pointed out, had the defendant not shown the documents to the ICE officer, the prosecution would not have probable cause to search the drive, a warrant would not have been issue, and we'd all be wasting our time discussing something else on slashdot right now.