You know about this? http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/13/us-filesharing-extradition-idUSTRE80C15C20120113
A UK subject is being extradited for actions that his lawyers say are not illegal in the UK (I'm inclined to agree, immoral as they are).
Basically US media companies are currently somehow managing to own worldwide formerly-democratic states to the extent of enforcing US law in, for example, Australia and the UK.
>"Atheists" aren't and haven't been in a position of power to do such things,
Um, OK comrade whatever you say
Invisible things can't have a colour (in the visible spectrum). Your argument is internally contradictory. If it's a unicorn it has a corporeal existence that such that I can readily confirm it's presence in my room.
Whilst tales of invisible beasts (I would say mythical but I gather a unicorn instances is confirmed fact) and teapots and all are very nice they don't actually gain any ground. The fact that it's possible to create a story that is untrue doesn't mean that all stories are untrue nor that any other particularly story is untrue.
Not being able to demonstrate something to be true doesn't make it false either (an apt point in this context).
In short your logic (itself axiomatic of course) needs some work.
>*They turned a blind eye to it when he was working at Bletchley and was regarded as "indispensable" to the war effort.*
Do you have some evidence for this.
His fiancée was apparently, by accounts/letters I've read, surprised to find out that he was attracted to males and she worked directly with him and spent a lot of social time in his company.
Also, as details are scarce on this point could you tell me if all his liaisons were short-lived flings with teenagers or only the one that lead to his trial.
>*decide that looking at certain information is illegal and use that to control citizens*
I don't find it a problem that it be illegal for Her Majesties subjects to gather data on making bombs at home that are optimised to kill said subjects as efficiently as possible. Indeed if no-one is allowed domestically to amass this sort of information then what exactly would we lose as a society?
I'm going to guess that it's something to do with action at a distance. The hardware has shown to be of pretty good quality with low failure rates but the wireless interaction built in makes the user vulnerable to targetted attack in a way in which a hardware defect doesn't. Also that the appropriate health authorities, it seems, don't bother to review code but do look at mechanical and electrical construction.
>"It is very unlikely that the source code in these devices have any remaining bugs due to the length of time that these devices have been used."
I gather that the space shuttle wasn't flown over a year end because the clocks didn't roll over correctly
http://slashdot.org/story/06/11/06/2320235/computer-date-glitch-may-limit-next-shuttle-launch
Also, basically your point appears to be that having the code won't make any difference. Well then the company can just divulge it; what difference will it make?
Well, the USSRC say "The USSRC, NASA's first visitor center, opened in 1970 and has served over 12 million visitors to date." and that's where Space Camp is held, in "NASA's first visitor center". Also in the film I watched on the Space Camp website attendees had NASA badges on their suits. Lastly the USSRC "houses NASA's Educator Resource Center"
So it seems they have something to do with it; but sure as anything they don't run it.
No need to guess [so much] the info about the system is online http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/disability/thecomputer
Does Kmail allow you to use html in emails yet?
Harrisberger's Fourth Law of the Lab: Experience is directly proportional to the amount of equipment ruined.