Is the person who ignored Pelosi in the room with you right now?

This "AI" seems to be severely lacking in training, in that no superior/invincible force (e.g. a party simulating law enforcement) showed up and demonstrated the downside to taking certain actions.

Dammit, can't anyone make some stylish cyber-shoes? That looks like shit! Anyone who goes around upskirt-snapping with shoes like that, is going to get laughed out of the ballroom by all the snobs.

Is it ok if I show up in regular glasses, but where an always-on LED is attached to the one of the corners? (I understand pervs are falling out of popularity, but that doesn't mean we need to abandon the whole aesthetic!)

Do we really have to reinvent the wheel every damn time?! It used to be that you just got Voight-Kampff tested, and the administrator of the test would sign your PGP key. WTF was wrong with that?!

No. While parts C, D, and E are legally shaky, A and B, so long as they are temporally centered around the event, aren't on shaky legal ground at all. So if he had destroyed they data prior to attempting to cross the border itself, the government would almost certainly lose in court. But if he wiped the phone after he entered the checkpoint but before they asked him for it, they would probably win, and given that he caused the destruction of the information after they seized the phone, they will certainly win.

Only if A) he can convince a jury that he's the type of retard who would setup a duress password so that a 1 or 2 letter typo of the real password would activate the duress password and B) the feds weren't monitoring the phone electronically and able to see the inputs. One of the first questions the prosecutor would ask would be "So you've never mistyped anything in your life? Note that they would take the time to get all his old texts from his service providers and any posts from his online accounts, so assuming he followed his lawyers advice he would say yes he had. Then there would be a series of followup questions which would make him look like an idiot for choosing that type of password, before the prosecutor would wonder aloud why an idiot would install a separate OS on his phone, leading the jury to conclude he was lying about the real password being close to the duress password.

You can simply state because you felt like it. They have no authority to search the cloud servers and they cannot legally compel speech, only truth.

False statements to the FBI are illegal, and what with them not keeping recordings of their interviews they have conveniently charged people with this before. CBP is not the FBI however. That being said, providing a password that wipes the phone is destruction of evidence, regardless of whether there was anything illegal on the phone or not. He's proper fucked.

My first reaction is that if one company is selling at half the price, that company will go bankrupt at twice the speed since every transaction was already a money-loser. Customers are absolutely the worst thing for these "businesses."

But is revenue really significant? I can see how neither reducing the price to $0 or increasing their price to 10x what it was, might not really have much of a different impact on the bottom line, compared to all the debt.

Make IBM Great Again: go back to .. leasing computers?!

Nobody remembers or cares that a B-2's toilet cost $23k, so the Pentagon is updating to a newer, better form of government waste that kids today will better understand.

Who says California is not conservative?

Finland's last landline call has been made as the Nordic country becomes the latest to retire copper-wire phones in favour of fibre.

Finland on Tuesday pulled the plug on analogue landline phone calls after almost 150 years, the latest country to push forward in a global transition towards digital infrastructure.

Estonia, the Netherlands, Norway and Spain have already made the jump as countries across the world roll out fibre optic cable that can handle both internet services and voice calls.

https://www.euronews.com/next/...

Malware is any software that runs on your computer but is intended to serve the interests of someone else.

Calling it malware isn't so much inaccurate as it's unspecific. Not all malware is adware, but 100% of adware is malware.

I don't think Google should be required to provide anonymized search data to rivals. Firstly, that's effectively their intellectual property.

Oh, I wouldn't worry about that. I'm sure the others will do something transformative with the data.