What euphemism would you rather people use, milady?

(Remember the time when people didn't automatically assume they were qualified to speculate as to others' motivations, and found better things to do than bicker over semantics?)

It's within my "rights" to call you a simpering faggot with a Napolean complex, but that doesn't necessarily make doing so the right (and/or moral) thing to do.

Maybe you should quit jerking off over these purely semantic notions you seem to have acquired, pull your head out of your ass, take a good long look around you, and form a spontaneous conclusion or two, based not upon "given Deeply Held Value x and stimulus of situation y ergo z", but rather "situation y is bullshit, pure and simple, ergo it is wrong, and if Deeply Held Value x contradicts this basic notion, then Deeply Held Value x must itself be less than fully correct, full-stop, end of sentence, end of chapter".

Here's the thing. The government really doesn't like going to court.

Requesting extradition means that the Feds are dead serious about prosecution.

Plea bargains are much less common - and much less generous - in the federal system.

Foreign based intrusions on US military networks do not get the kid glove treatment - no matter how trivial.

Is that the entire basis for "it was 14-year-old Willow whose dignity was flung in the mud,"? It sounds to me like the joke was clearly a reference to the daughter that got knocked up.

The fact that that daughter wasn't even present at the game is hardly relevant, considering it's obviously a joke and not a credible claim.

Any real criticism that Sarah Palin has had about her daughters was, as far as I know, all concerning how her family values apparently included getting knocked up before marriage.

Simple:
when trying to remove the last character, print the character to the screen

The underlying quantum state *is* observable. Why wouldn't it be?

If you RTFA (and not even the paper is necessary for this), you will see that they are limited by the fidelity of their setup, ie. signal to noise. Hence, when they improve their apparatus, they will get more accurate results.

"The result sets are independent of each other."

Yes, that's why he could just multiply them like that.

The cynic in me thinks it will go this way: They make this announcement today. For the next few months, they do absolutely nothing. Then, they fabricate a bunch of data, and announce that they've determined that 99% of all P2P traffic is protected by copyright. Authorities cowtow, and those "three-strikes" laws get put in place (and enforced) everywhere.

It doesn't matter that the data was faked...they expressly stated that it would all be anonymised and not linked to any specific customer...so how can anyone prove it's been faked?