$100k hardware firewall? what he's talking about is an easy task for reverse proxy / load balancing. Has been for years. It's a very common setup where you have multiple worker nodes answering. It's the typical setup for 'elastic' style amazon stuff. one load balancer, as many nodes as the current load requires behind it.

To pull out the most wildly stupid example I can think of, I put to you:

I've lost my key. But having lived here quite a while now, I have a fair idea I can jimmy the kitchen window. I proceed to do so, and happen to be caught in the act by the local bobby.
Now, just like every "freeman" on youtube tells me, I shut my mouth and tell the police nothing. I'm arrested, obviously, and events take due course. But I hold my "god-given right to silence" just like youtube tells me to.
When I stand before the judge and finally announce "your honour, that's my house", I'm basing my defence entirely on something I didn't admit during questioning. And I'd deserve to be treated like the idiot I was.

Obviously, I'd hope to never see this example play out in real life. But yes, withholding during questioning can very much work against you.

This is the stance under English law. Providing a password to encrypted data is allowing access to a search. Refusing such a (court-ordered) search is analogous to refusing entry to a search warrant. Opening the door is not self-encriminating & does not bear witness against self - what's on the other side of the door is your problem.

(for clarity; not disagreeing with you, but providing the analogue)

This is a strange one to get past the american audience, because despite the two legal systems sharing a common root ("common law"), they functionally operate very differently.

So I put to you a scenario. I've just been shopping for some housewares, and happen to have in my shopping bag a l large flat-bladed screwdriver. At the same time, the same object can be found about the person of another chap with a known drug problem and a history of breaking & entering.
Now, under English law, I'm doing absolutely nothing wrong, but it would be quite simple to confiscate the screwdriver from the chap with a history of breaking & entering, enquire about his business this evening, where's he's been, going, and even remand him for a more formal chat if his answers aren't convincing, or he's uncooperative.

In English law, this would be "Going equipped to steal"; the American reaction would be "Screwdrivers are illegal? since when?" Which is where we differ so wildly. It's often said that "possession is nine tenths of the law". In English law, Intent is nine tenths of the law. We really do depend on the judicial system showing some common sense, and protest when it fails to do so.

Which is exactly how this case works. If I encrypt my financial documents, my employer opts to encrypt my harddrive, a journalist encrypts their research, etc, this is prudent, and I would call any overreach against this "abuse of police powers" or "abuse of regulatory powers". But if a convicted terrorist has a cache of encrypted data, yes it's kosher for a court to demand the contents to further their investigation.

I'm quite sure all this makes me sound like an apologist; I believe nothing could be further from the truth. I do value my privacy, I do encrypt things "simply because I can", I'm disgusted by untargeted, dragnet surveillance, etc. But I'm also a realist, and there's a very simple problem here: Outrage at stories like this actually damages my position against such breaches of privacy. Internet Pitchforks are far too readily available, but they make us look like the tinfoil nutters. Where common sense dictates that an investigation is overreach, then yes, yell at the top of your lungs. But to protest a court order made during the investigation of a convicted terrorist - use some common sense.

Luckily, archive.org has facilities for this; https://ia601001.us.archive.org/zipview.php?zip=/26/items/MAME_0.151_ROMs/MAME_0.151_ROMs.zip

I don't believe they actually require legal standing to board you if you're unflagged. Declaring yourself a no-man's land causes as many problems as it solves.

They do have a footprint in Europe, which is why they had the Irish Data Commissioner crawling around for 3 months last year. Multinational means multi-juristictional too, something to do with having your cake and eating it.

My father was on submarines, and would come home from a 10-12 week patrol mildly short-sighted. He was ordinarily long-sighted, with a prescription to match.

We tell cube droids to 'rest their eyes' periodically during a 8 hour shift, by taking some time to focus on something that isn't 2 feet away (out the window, etc) exactly because this is a known issue. How did no-one assume that the same would happen on the ISS?

The shift you're talking about pretty much defines mass media. When you were commissioned to paint a chapel's ceiling, or portrait some fat cat, it's in your better interests to tell them whatever they want to hear. You do the job, they pay you, you walk away. Shifting units is a whole 'nother ball game. Instead of walking away, you can keep selling that piece over, and over again, for as long as you can remind people it exists. It being *your* piece of work is central to your legitimacy

those 'old desktops' are probably costing you more in running costs, and decreasing your available runtime on battery. Just a thought.

weather.com were using backweb.com to do this in 99. backweb seems to stem back to 96-97. The user installed client-side backweb agent, then subscribed to one or more channels. The backweb agent downloaded new content from these channels as and when it was added to the channel. The content was 'multimedia', being pretty much anything that could be encapsulated in flash or java. I don't know how it handled low-disk conditions for part 4 of claim 1, but "not dying horribly" should be an obvious extension to parts 1-3 of claim 1.

I'm on UPC/NTL. On the other side of the country. But yes, regardless of how the service is branded, it's pretty much cable=UPC, DSL=Eircom. No matter whose name is on the bill

It's a lot more 2D than you'd assume. To maintain any kind of launch readiness, you want to spend most your time as close as possible/comfortable to hover/launch depth. A few sane points that are being completely missed here, are that "playing games" with each other is the job of attack boats, not bombers - and the English Channel, separating England and France, and home to atleast one of the Royal Navy's principle ports (however, not home to the clyde submarine base nor relevant RNAD), happens to be relatively shallow, and one of the busiest seaways in the world. It is a shame tho. They finally managed to stop the acoustic tiles from falling off the the Vanguard class, and now they keep playing contact sports just to foul them up again.

Since we took them away from the RAF, the UK's nuclear fleet is our only nuclear capability. Considering even the French manage to bear four SSBN and an airlaunch capability, I think maintaining the Trident fleet is the least we can do. We really can't be shown up by the French .. And as to the actual article, the comment made to the BBC regarding trusting the navy is spot on. If you don't trust your Senior Officers with a nuclear arsenal, don't send them off to sea with 40-off warheads.