EU should just order META split up as an illegal garbage monopoly.

...nd I am equally sure that Google has been working on this for ages too just in case the need it. It's called getting ahead of the problem.

Considering that the type of censorship demanded calls for human-level intelligence, how do you expect Google or anybody else to solve that problem given the current state of the art?

I have a Mac Pro tower...I might try to repurpose at some point with Linux.

So, there's no problems with any of the Apple "security" hardware on the Mac boxes with respect to installing Linux and having full access to SDD, memory and other fun hardware stuff for computing?

And here I thought that the way to appease Trump was with a Golden Shower...

Ah...the Russian Hoax documents generated by the Clinton campaign still run STRONG with this one....

Hmm....trying to figure what to do with a 2019 beefy Intel Mac Pro...?

Can one put Linux on those? I ask due to all the Apple hardware "security" chips I understand are in there....

Seems it would be nice if I could eventually repurpose it with Linux, maybe throw in a couple of NVIDIA cards to be a local host for some larger AI models...?

I just KNEW it was a good idea to hang on to all those old roadmaps from days gone by...

Oh sure they'll be outdated in some aspects, but largely, roads and highways don't just get up and move themselves....

And they laughed when I said I don't wanna throw them all out....

[Citation needed]

Yes. I remember, years ago, writing a program where I reversed the standard meanings of TRUE and FALSE, not to obfuscate the code (although it did) but so that I could write the one test central to the program in the way that looked right to me. It's a tiny change from what you'd normally use, but most people reading over the code wouldn't even notice it at first and end up completely misunderstanding how it managed to work. To me, at least, that's what the judges should be looking for, rather than odd formatting and other typographical legerdemain.

I take it, then, that you're completely indifferent to the fact that the Islamic radical's publicly stated goal is to drive all Israelis into the sea?

This creates a covert listening device, which a crime to operate it in many places and a crime to own in some. That includes the US under 18 U.S.C. 2511. But rest easy, the maximum penalty is only 5 years in federal prison and a $250'000 fine. Nothing to worry about.

You are missing a nuance here in the Federal law.

This is with reference to INTERCEPTING conversation / communication. Federally, it is considered a one-party consent rule situation....as long as one person in the conversation knows, it's ok....so if YOU are recording it is presumed YOU know you are and consent is satisfied.

This law is primarily considered for wiretaps, bugging places, etc.

Legal to do covert, hidden recording? I doubt that.

Happens all the time in the US my friend...please do research this, it isn't like in EU.

Many if not most states in the US have the one party consent laws....so if one person in the conversation knows it's being recorded, no problem.

How do you think all these undercover news stories and blogs get these undercover footage and audio to back up their stories of corruption, etc?

Anyone can do this...and no, there is not a "special carve out" for being a news reporter. There's no special "news reporter license" over here in the US, anyone can report what they want.

For a simple example...how do you think all these undercover footage citizens over here get away with ring cameras and the other myriad of cameras set up to record their property and anything within view of their property?

Please believe that is is true, that in the US, you are largely able to record anything almost anywhere in public without consequences.

I was about to say "Fuck the Moon".....we need this tech for riding a motorcycle in summer here in southern Louisiana area (New Orleans)....

It's barely June and already sweltering....80+F by 7am these days....

Years ago, I was giving a physicist (who happened to be a friend of a friend) a lift home, and the conversation drifted to the problems of reconciling those two theories. I had a sudden inspiration and suggested that the main problem might be that relativity deals with point sources of gravity but at quantum distances Heisenberg raises its ugly head and what you get is "blob sources" that relativity can't handle. My acquaintance was quite impressed that I'd come up with the idea on my own and told me that this was, in fact, a major stumbling block. I'm not sure where the idea of knowing what happens inside a black hole came from, but under the circumstances, I doubt that it's as important as you were told. Of course, I'm a layman so ICBW.

Thank you. I was considering posting to make that point, but you beat me to it. I would like to point out, while I'm here, that the OP's argument boils down to, "We tried it about fifty years ago and it didn't work, therefor it will never work."

And how is this any more compelled speech than having to show proof of your age to buy tobacco or alcohol? In all cases you have a choice: prove your age to the seller's statisfaction or don't buy.