It is, in my opinion, acceptable for law enforcement to demand cooperation from third parties when that cooperation is limited to turning over data which the third parties have in their possession. So, for example, if Joe Smith backed up his criminal plans to Apple's servers, and Apple has access to those backups, then it would be reasonable for Apple to turn them over to law enforcement when law enforcement presents a court-issued warrant for the backups.

The San Bernardino case was different because Apple didn't actually have the data in its possession. What the FBI wanted was not the data, but instead they wanted Apple to crack the security on the phone. One reason that is different is because it harms Apple to even admit that the cracking is possible. Apple was not a conspirator. The government should not have the ability to harm a private company to solve a case that the company is not involved in.

Put another way, if someone used a motel room to plan a terrorist attack, it would be reasonable for law enforcement to demand, again through a warrant, that the motel manager unlock the room. However, it would not be reasonable for them to go to the company who made the locks the motel uses and insist that they provide a master key. Even if the FBI accidentally dropped the only key to the room down a sewer grate, it would still be unreasonable to have the lock manufacturer reduce the security of their product.

Of course, all of that is just my opinion (which is what you asked for).

>How will it affect eyesight and vision and other things?

This is what I'm wondering about. Our brains expect the focus of our eyes to correspond to the thing we're looking at (ie, if you're eyes are pointed at something 2 feet away, your brain expects your eyes to focus 2 feet away). That's one of the reasons people get eye fatigue or headaches in 3d movies. I'd be curious to know if they've done anything to solve that problem. If not, I suspect they'll have long-time users experiencing vision problems.

According to the article, the people in China wanted healthy lung xrays because they could sell the images to infected people who would use them to prove that they don't have infectious lung disease, even though they do. That allows them to travel and share their infection with people in other places.

Personally, I would consider that to be actual damage. I'd rather not wait to see an infection spread before we decide to be concerned.

I wonder if the half conversations via cell-phones are inherently louder due to less than perfect transmission. I witness people communicating effectively in person while whispering, but I can't imagine being able to be heard while whispering over a cell connection.

However, if you want to see what researchers found, I located an article:

http://healthland.time.com/201...

If the material is hydrophobic, and the dirt is not, then it wouldn't be self-cleaning, but it would work much better than what we have now.

Get some soapy water. Wash your car. Let it air dry. Do you see spots? That's the dirt that was mixed with the water droplets that were stuck to the surface of your car. If those droplets couldn't stick, they would have rolled off carrying the dirt with them.

Imagine you're lazy and never wash your car. The first time it rains, anything water soluble dissolves in the rain and rinses right off.

However, if I was then to go burn his house down and torture and then kill his family because I was so consumed by rage that I wanted to end his entire genetic line, then I've gone too far.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Did I misunderstand you, or are you using the Nuremberg trials as an example to suggest that patent trolls are too evil to deserve legal representation?

It should be tied to housing costs instead of prevailing wage:

H-1B wage should be 5 times the annual mortgage payment for a 30-year-fixed mortgage on a median 4-person home in the county where the job is located.

Here is a discussion of the definition and the purpose for the narrow meaning:

http://www.nytimes.com/1861/01...

Activision/Blizzard distributes its games and patches (for example world of warcraft) through a customized bit torrent tool.

Nope. Citations to published opinion pieces - or even news pieces - are still just hearsay unless the document cited is considered "ancient" (i.e. hundreds of years old) and bears other hallmarks of authenticity. There is no special magic to owning a newspaper or magazine that converts a reporter's words into magical factoids. (This assumes a U.S. basis and rules of evidence that resemble the federal rules and the published uniform rules of evidence - see: LII).

Yes. I want your shotgun. Not all shotguns - just yours anon - just yours. /s/ The Democratic Party.

Thank you for so astutely reading that thread; I thought maybe I was losing my mind :) I keep disagreeing with him, and he keeps saying we're on the same page :)

Yeah that's neither right nor left, it's the universal language of greedy bloodsuckers.

The fact that Democrats support something doesn't negate the possibility of something being right wing. The Democrats are not ideologically pure, or ideologically homogenous, and very few of them can be considered "left".

To me, pretending that copyright is only about property rights, and ignoring the fact that copyright was also supposed to be about free speech and about making material available for free to the public after a limited time, is definitely "right wing".