We will build. We will become more, and many.

Bobiverse begins.

US code 441 e
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...

  441e. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals (a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly,
to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value,
or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution
or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering
communication (within the meaning of section 434(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in
subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

*Sorry, 2011 case that references the 2002 law.

As I replied to your original post but you're still asking questions I'll link it here as well:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...
Section e Paragraph a

Quoted above but the basics are that it's illegal to solicit, offer, or accept anything of value by a foreign national to help an election.

So there's the law.

It's also been cited in previous court cases in case you're wondering. And the judges summarized it pretty well in those cases as well. Just look online.
http://www.politico.com/static...

is a good example of a 2002 case.

You are not even trying here. It took all of 1 minute to track down the actual law. And if I can do that without too much effort with just a single google search you might want to go back to the Fox News forums and let them know not to go to Tech websites where we can actually RTFM when asked.

The law you're "looking" for is US Code 441 section e paragraph a. Abbreviated in many places online as: U.S.C. 441e(a)
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...

Which states the same thing that has been repeated many times on actual fact based news channels and websites:

  441e. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals (a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly,
to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value,
or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution
or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering
communication (within the meaning of section 434(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in
subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

So the parts you want to re-read are where they mention the illegality of giving, receiving, or asking for things of value from foreign nationals to aid in the election.

They are: http://www.gizbot.com/mobile/exclusive-sony-launch-smartwatch-2-september-news-013162.html
Releasing in Sept.

Small but functional display. No specs on the battery life but I'd guess pretty good from the history of transflective displays.

The juice of sapho.

"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion."

They are the gatekeepers for the masses. If Google were altering search results for Egypt because of its political beliefs and a large portion of the population were thus kept ignorant of facts or at a minimum, oblivious of opposing opinions because of the filtering; the damage caused could be much more wide spread and dangerous than the incidents themselves. Remember, the slow steady changes are hardest to guard against. The tides of public knowledge and opinion can be diverted slowly to great effect and with horrible consequences. I think that it's a fair warning that if news organizations are not the greatest threat of evil today, then they have too much control of what we are allowed to see without any regulation of real content or mandate to provide the not-so-often fair and balanced reporting that almost all claim.

No.

From a 2004 estimate article:
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM75BS1VED_index_0.html

That's about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe, which is (I think) called 1 billion trillion?

I'm not talking about plans for room temp superconducting intel chipsets, but things that the company has said are proprietary and they would not like to have public or in the hands of their competitors. This could be something as simple as a demographic response report of a new product design. Something that's not earth shattering and needs every protection but that you could have the responsibility to protect. Then do you tell the employer that it's now a matter of police record? It's all about balance here, everything isn't so important as to need a dual key, voiceprint and retna unlocking self destruct verification system but it may be under a contract to keep trade or process secrets, secret. Get it?

The problem is that even though they have the right under a certain law, maybe that law isn't just. Or necessary, or narrow enough to actually do more good than harm to our rights. This isn't even taking to issue that I don't want my personal data out there even if it wouldn't ruin my life, I may just not care to have it viewed by others, and keeping it under a basic encryption set and taking care not to lose it should be enouogh protection for not "top secret" but personal information. At least in the land of the free.

And since we are not all perfect, don't work for the brightest company bosses, and even the US government is still trying to work out a good process of handling sensitive material that needs to be transported by the user masses...

What happens when a business or government employee (ours or theirs) travels through one of these nations or states that have enacted a search process that allows them to take and make copies of data stored therein? Even if they're not in the limited class of people traveling with diplomatic immunity they should be given some measure of protection to the data they carry with them without having to do the almost impossible task of completely encrypting all data and making impenetrable any possible methods of gaining access by unauthorized peoples.

Even if they had a perfect system, they need to get to the data while traveling so they would have to have a method of accessing the data.
If traveling through the airports (and now we're one step away if arrested), then they can request the password to encrypted files. So the basic question stands...

If you have signed an NDA and have the unfortunate set of circumstances put upon you, do you have any option that would not land up with you breaking at a minimum a contract, and at worst the law?

How about you have data required to do your job on a device supplied by your employer that also happened to have you sign a NDA?

How would this play out with a cellphone or a laptop now that you have two distinct laws you have to abide by.

Should the govt be able to request your password for information stored on your (or a company) device that you have signed contracts to keep secret?

You missed the point; we all have to agree on dates to communicate so you should get your facts straight.

You said that:

This is factually incorrect as centuries END in that format. The last year in x00 is the end of that century, not the beginning.

Then you state:

This is incorrect in itself because it claims
A: setting dates is an arbitrary way for a bunch of people to agree on time, against the claim B: that there is not "something concrete about what dates are what". I would ask you to point to your sources for that claim and find an example of people not using their calendar and matching it with different calendars from other cultures and having them all match up to form a cohesive timeline with whatever reference each culture has set. This is accepted as standard and there is no arbitrary old or new method of referring to dates just what calendar you choose to reference. Please show authoritative examples if you disagree. Just because uneducated people think something doesn't mean that they change scientific fact or change the accepted method of referencing or calculating things by people in the field who have the education to make claims about the proper way to do something in that field.

To address your original claim: please reference this site to understand the year 1 issue:
http://www.vpcalendar.net/Millenniums.html

If you have another viewpoint please cite examples.

You don't want to be, as you say:
a pseudo-intellectual halfway thinking through a subject, making a mistake, thinking they have found an "ah-ha" idea, and then refusing to re-evaluate when it is pointed out that they are wrong.

Even confused a former science fiction writer and current Makezine author into making the following statement:

He does not acknowledge the existence of this video:

http://www.fasterthanthewind.org/2010/07/video-from-richard-jenkins-world-land.html