Keeping it because it might be useful is trumped by deleting it because it might be used maliciously. Every extra copy of the data makes it more insecure. Is his copy encrypted? Who else has access to his computer? Can he be trusted with it?

If you see someone's diary lying open you do not take photographs of it. If you find someone's data exposed you do not copy the data. It is not yours to keep.

Now that you've analysed your copy of the data, please delete it.

Or maybe it's Opposite Day and nobody told me. Again.

But on the last Opposite Day you said you absolutely definitely wanted to be told about the next one, so I thought that meant...

Never mind.

I just have the hardest time getting used to seeing people spell math with a "s" on the end of it

It's so it balances out the word "Lego", honestly.

In the UK we have Maths and Lego. You swap the "s" over and have Math and Legos. From either side the other side looks strange and frightening and it makes you wonder how the people on the other side can get through a day while being so WRONG, but seeing as Math(s) and Lego(s) are two of the most wonderful things on Earth I say just accept it and move on.

why are we worried about this if the only ones who will really benefit are drug users?

What a cunt. They're human beings.

You think people who take drugs don't deserve to live? Fine. Go and live in a world without all the music, books and films created by drug users. No more Rolling Stones for you. No more Burroughs. No more Blake or Shelley. No Hunter S Thompson. No Carl Sagan. None of the beauty and insights and technical leaps forward that people who take drugs have given the world.

In fact, no more computers for you. Piss off.

I will write up a summary and send it via email asking them if I missed / misunderstood anything.

Well... "persay" and "alterior", for a start.

because our politicians can then turn around and tell us here in the states that we need to "harmonise" with our trade partners,

Funny how it always harmonises towards oppressive control.

Human morals do not require a belief system with a basis in religion any more than monkey values in monkey society require a belief system with a basis in religion.

Your rant about non-Christians condoning honour killings I'll just leave where it is.

Where do you think morals were originally derived from?

They came about because they're good survival strategies - read The Selfish Gene.

And what belief system do you think binds these morals to the greater society?

I don't need to believe there is an invisible sky being to help my neighbour prune her hedges. A belief system is not required for someone to be part of a community. Society works not because everyone has the same beliefs, but because within all the differences between people there are commonalities, and helping others makes a society better.

For example, "love your neighbor as yourself" is universally understood to be a true religious principle - in that it goes well with you if you consider other people and look out for their interests as much as you would your own.

No, that's a good moral principle. All the religious parts of religion are bollocks.

It only apples to ISP's with over 400000 customers

And how long will that last?

Just change to one of the many other ISP's out there

Yes - just change to another, more expensive, ISP because a law is being introduced that makes your current ISP worse for no good technical reason.
When a bad law is introduced the correct response is to fight it, not to skirt around it. If you do that you are willingly giving up your rights. We are racing towards only having access to a subset of the internet in the UK and the lack of dissent is staggering.

I actually know a man called Daniel Oliver. He doesn't get how cool his name is.