Violation of an NDA is considered breach of contract, which in the case of two private parties, is generally settled via a civil court, not a criminal one.

If there are extenuating damages that extend beyond the private party harmed by the release of such information, then the matter may fall before criminal court... but this is not generally the case.

So... unless your employer is the government, or some branch thereof, you cannot go to jail simply for revealing trade secrets of your employer. Your life, as you know it, may still be over, however... unless you are living a life where you have absolutely nothing to lose (but that's incredibly unlikely, given the employment circumstances under which an employer would require an NDA in the first place).

How do they prove that you remember, exactly?

They might be able to prove that you knew... at one time, perhaps. But they would *NOT* be able to prove that you had not actually forgotten the specific details they were asking for at the time that they asked them.

Clearly then the NDA I signed on my first day of work is unconstitutional as it violates my first amendment rights as I clearly have the right to go to the local media and spill my guts as to what my employer is building in secret (all legal projects, just not yet publically known).

Of course you have that right.... but your employer also has the legal right to sue you, and the NDA that you signed would ensure that he would win.

But you wouldn't go to jail for it... nor would you necessarily be breaking any laws by divulging such information unless it involved state secrets of national security.

No nerd rage here. Your perception of Superman as so overpowered as to be uninteresting is simply far too common today amongst young people to incite any particular feelings of vengeance against you specifically.

The point of a Superman story isn't to improve the protagonist. The point of a Superman story is to make the kid in all of us think, "wow, it'd be so neat to be able to do that". The point of a Superman story is to see the wrongs get made right. It's to see the bad guy get his comeuppance, and cheer for the hero who saves so many, asking for nothing in return but to be allowed to live in peace, faced with a world that by all rights could easily reject him, wanting him to leave humanity alone. Some might feel people would be better off failing on their own than be rescued when the going gets really tough? After all, without him, humans would still get by. But look at it this way... when he *does* save people, isn't that still a good thing? The point is not for humanity to always depend on Superman to always save the day, but to simply be glad that he somehow always does.

The notion that he is somehow the very "personification of good", as you call it, is not inherently part of what Superman is, it comes forward because he was raised by down-to-earth human beings with good character who were also willing to instill good values into their adopted son. Somehow, some way that is never really explained, nor can I expect it ever be, young Clark resisted the temptation that almost certainly would certainly take any one of us, and never became absolutely corrupted with the possessing of such power. Maybe because as an alien he also possessed a greater amount of restraint than what humans necessarily have, I dunno. And I'll admit that's probably the hardest thing about the character to ever relate to. Regardless, I don't think explaining it would make a good Superman story.

But Superman still loves, laughs, grieves, and can experience pain, even if not necessarily physical. And that, I think, makes him just as human as anyone.

Not the state no. This is Canada. You might mean province.

But in Canada, people do not mineral rights on their property. Mineral rights are owned by the government and cannot be purchased... only leased. It has been this way in Canada since the early 1900's.

So yes, I would expect the province to take care of it, and if it were of unnatural causes, they could then proceed to make the individual or corporation that caused it foot the bill.

If $5k is such a small price to pay, why doesn't the province pay it instead of burdening the people who happened to find it, and in particular.... who aren't profiting from it?

A system of which is only effective if more than a certain threshold of devices actually utilize it... since a would-be thief is not likely to know ahead of time whether or not your device has a kill switch in it.

Sure, you might be able to render *YOUR* device unusable to a thief, but as a general discouragement against theft in the first place, it's only effective if it actually is generally practiced among more than perhaps at least half of all devices, so that a thief will have no particular reason to expect that a given phone, chosen at random, will not be usable if they steal it.

5 years might be enough for some types of works, but for other more long-lived works it's not practical. 25 years isn't really *THAT* long... certainly it'd generally be the case that anyone born during a period when a work was copyrighted, or if a particular work was created and copyrighted while they were growing up would still likely spend most of their adult life in a period where it wasn't. Pushing a century, however, as things are right now, is utterly absurd.

Fixed, reasonable length, and COMPLETELY unextendable copyright terms are needed for copyright to have any hope whatsoever of still having any relevance in the future. Publishers are otherwise only going to get increasingly reliant on systems that introduce layers of complexity to the work that are not strictly required for the work to be utilized as intended, simply as a means to keep people from making what they think are unauthorized copies, and so for the consumer, all these additional complexity layers do is create more additional points of failure for the work that reduce its value for the very person who would actually have patronized the publishers of the work.

... but I find myself far too flooded with feelings that almost qualify as psychotic jealousy about your working hours (while still being paid as a full time worker) to be able to answer your question productively.

The problem is people will lose the key; how do you handle that without it becoming a logistical nightmare?

Roughly the same way you handle people losing keys to their home.

When does Apple say it's for anybody's protection?

It's their fee. Plain and simple.

Apple is a for-profit company, not a charity. They are allowed to profit from charging for whatever they think that people might want, and they are reasonably entitled to charge as much as they believe the market can bear.

Because if so, locking it down isn't locked down at all, since it can be unlocked with a simple jailbreak.

And if not, then I fail to see why Apple should be terribly worried about jailbreaking at all if it can permanently lock down a phone... since people who do jailbreak are voluntarily creating a situation where a thief could profit by stealing their phone where they otherwise would not.

It is if each of those combinations has to be manually reported... you know, as in a police report?

And of course... it's a false proposition anyways, since there are definitely things that people will hide even though there's nothing wrong with them. Genitalia come to mind as a most obvious immediate example of this. They are not hidden because there is anything necessarily wrong with them, they are hidden simply because they are private. Building any sort of policy around the premise that if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide is about as horrifyingly destined for disaster as what happened to the Jews during World War 2.

It's my understanding that such projects are not part of the Wayland project itself.