I think I've seen those in the local deli.
The computer in the watch can do that, no biggie.
The key is user interface and that seems unlikely.
I was assuming that we would at least stop at destilled water.
Applying the "sewage' attribute to pure water molecules would be superstitio, unless you assumed the sewage was somehow radioactive.
Usually towns located at a river will pipe their (hopefully treated) sewage into that river.
Towns downstream will often get at least part of their drinking water from groundwater taken near the river (the river guarantees a steady groundwater level), treat it again, then use it.
This adds some cubics of soil as additional filter, but is basicly the same thing.
Really, unless the town is lucky to get first access to some mountain's stream, the drinking water will always be at least part 'treated sewage'.
For me, RSS is the stuff to justify playing around with fancy desktop gadjets and mobile apps.Setting up the perfect desktop/homescreen with INFORMATION everywhere. So efficient!
Then never to be used, or read afterwards.
Maybe that is exactly what they were trying to set up, hence the need to send such information to test it.
Of course they should have used bogus information in that case...?
Maybe they were setting up a system to automatically detect and intercept all emails containing 'sensitive client information'.
Probably because it is not a precedence based jurisdiction, so this case has no concern for them. They can relax, wait and battle when/if they are actually target of a lawsuit.
Of course this decission may be an indicator of how the law is to be interpreted, but that is a problem with the law itself and winnning this case for the guy will change nothing about that for the ISPs.
Read the arcticle so you don't have to:
This is about removing artists from Youtube, not from the Google search engine.
And no grip whatsoever in curves. Weeeeeee~
That was only the partial quote in the summary.
What he really meant to say was:
"Now that we got tanks, America has become a warzone."
The first part 'loss of life' should already be covered by simply applying murder and/or manslaughter charges. There is no reason to invent a new law for this, only because it's done with a computer.
The second part 'threat to the country's national security' on the other hand is such a broad term, it is basicly a blank check where they can fill in any sentence for any crime as they wish.
So I guess it's really about the second part, and the first part is only there to give it more weight: 'HACKERS MIGHT KILL YOU!'
Maybe, but it is their cash.
One spends gov money more easily than one's own.
No problem, the EU just raised 2.8 billion to pay for lawyers.