I'm curious about a couple of things. Of course pretty much everyone here is screaming "source control" But how is that you have a programmer working on THIRTY projects at one time? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your use of "project" but I think I would go crazy if I was trying to juggle thirty different projects. Perhaps some sort of consolidation is in order.
You also mention if you sync the whole thing, navigation would be a problem with too many subfolders. A good source control will help alleviate this issue as a programmer could only checkout a portion of the system. But I think you have a bigger problem to solve if you have too many subfolders. Perhaps you need to solve your project hierarchy.

I'm a fairly earlier adopter. A good reason to upgrade my DLP HD TV would be to get some better connectors (like say HDMI). But the next gen is a 4K OLED. It has higher resolution (but no content) with real black blacks. But they cost an arm and a leg. When those TVs come down, it will be time to upgrade.

In the video in the article, Bill Wolters, president of the Texas Automotive Dealer Assoc claims "everyone wants an exception to the law" I'm thinking if it is true, that EVERYONE wants an exception, then perhaps there is something WRONG with the law?
Mr Wolters also claims that Tesla could do BETTER selling through a franchise dealer network. But shouldn't that be Tesla's decision? And if they COULD do better, wouldn't they actually do it?

From TFA:

So what's next, do we target gun safety instructors, who teach people to shoot, and thus teach them to murder people? Do we target driving instructors because you can commit DUI after learning to drive?
I'm in the process of watching the World Series of Poker. Top prize is millions of dollars. One big skill in poker is knowing how to convincingly lie.

I believe it was for propagating fraud. For telling one of his clients to lie, and say that he doesn't know what his cousin (who is supposedly a drug dealer) does if asked. From one of the articles:

Of course posthumous copyrights encourages creation of new works. But life + 50, or a solid 120 years is too long. But imagine someone has a good story to tell. The person knows they will die soon. They decide to spend the last few months of their life creating the story so their kids might grow up out of poverty. But if there were no posthumous copyrights, that person might just decide to spend the last few months of his life doing nothing.

Of course you can, assuming you still own the copyright. Just like you can give away the rest of your estate to someone other than your children. But if you don't have a will, or you don't spell it out in the will...

Ignoring the fact that Happy Birthday should no longer be under copyright (and ignore the insane length of copyright's now a days, longer than a lifetime strikes me as unconstitutional), The point of copyright is to be an incentive for a creator to create MORE works. If a "popular" work automatically moved into the public domain (and what determines that?) then there is less of an incentive for someone to create a popular work.

I wondered how this speech could even be copyrighted, as apparently it wasn't registered. Mr wiki says there was a lawsuit a few years ago to determine whether the speech was copyrighted or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream
What I don't get is, Mr wiki also claims the speech is under copyright for 120 years, but shouldn't it have been death + 50 years?
The worst part about it, is I find it difficult to believe that someone who made a speech like that would not want it in the public domain. Not having it in the public domain sort of defeats the purpose of the speech.

Yes, but some airlines/airports lose luggage more often than others. And some airlines are more helpful than others when they do lose the luggage.

This seems to be similar to asking the question "how many bank robbers families went hungry because the Fed's confiscated the money the bank robber stole." I'm not a big proponent on software patents, most of them aren't really novel. But company A invents something cool. Company B likes it, copies it, and sells it. Of course it was a cool invention, so company B's customer love it. And of course the B's customers are going to hate it, and complain when B can no longer provide the invention. That is kind of like the whole point behind patent protection. If B doesn't want to license the invention then they need to come up with some other solution, that might not be quite as cool.

From TFA:

Apparently if you tell someone who claims their brother or cousin is a drug dealer, to tell their potential LEO boss that you don't know what your brother does, is a crime against children!

If someone said their brother was a drug dealer, are you required to call the cops? You have no evidence, other than hearsay. If you knew that person was going to apply for a LEO position, would you tell them "I wouldn't mention that you know what your brother does?" Well there you go, you are a heinous criminal and should be locked away.

Did you really read the article? From TFA:

One agent was posing as a brother of a drug dealer, and apparently he told the agent to say "look I don't know what he does."
Of course the prosecutors brought up the fact that he supposedly taught 9 sex offenders. Although they offered no evidence that he taught them to hide crimes, and in fact in one instance he notified authorities.

Is everyone just ignoring the reasons given for a recall? From TFA:

Quite a LOT of stuff is sold that is low utility to consumers, and not necessary. Should something, bought by consenting adults, for adults, be recalled because it might pose a danger, and is "low utility?"