When I worked on post at a US military base, years ago, all the phones had BIG RED STICKERS on them making clear that calls were monitored. Not even close to ambiguous or unclear.

There have been an ongoing series of Guardian articles that cover much more than what the President addressed in his comments.

Assuming you're referring to Bill Clinton, he was fully impeached (a function of the House of Representatives, analogous to indictment), but then not removed from office by the Senate. The article of impeachment that passed accused him of lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice, but not lying under oath to Congress.

One good reason would be because not all disclosure of classified information is equally broad, and rather than defining some complex standard to determine whether the information is truly and completely out of the bag, they simply require evaluation according to a set process to declassify it.

There's always EVE Online, which is about as far from a WoW clone as one can get. It's not an alternative to WoW, but a successful, different MMO model, and I think there's a lot to learn from the differences between the two of them. For the record, I've played both extensively.

That's because adults realize it's rude to play with their tablets at the dinner table.

I'm not sure I agree. The concern is presumably that the board, presumably not experts on engineering, would interpret his work mistakenly as having been prepared by a properly trained traffic engineer and assign it more than its due weight as a result. It's possible that this problem could be cured by simply adding a disclaimer to the work to ensure that it's not misinterpreted as the product of a licensed traffic engineer. In any case, reading farther along in the article, they mention that the likely outcome is that the engineering licensing board would write him a nasty letter, which I gather would be in lieu of charging him with a misdemeanor.

From FAR 121.317:

(f) Each passenger required by 121.311(b) to occupy a seat or berth shall fasten his or her safety belt about him or her and keep it fastened while the "Fasten Seat Belt" sign is lighted.

So, no.

In early 1996, I was a software engineer for Mitsubishi Consumer Electronics, in meetings to plan their first generation implementation of the ATV standard, on which current, U.S. HDTV devices are based. A huge priority for them at the time was to build a web browser into their television sets, and many ways to do this were investigated.

WebTV, which was pretty much the same idea in a set-top box, was in development at the time, and provided a model for that kind of thing, so Mitsubishi announced that they would, at some unspecified point, begin selling TVs with a feature they called "Diamond Internet" built into them.

It never happened. I don't know whether the issue was politics in the software department, or maybe just management recognition that it was a gimmick, but they never delivered such a product. Probably it came down to there just being too many other issues to manage to get an ATV set out the door.

However, it's clear that the idea's been there, lurking in people's minds, for the thirteen intervening years, and hasn't become any more useful a concept.

Incidentally, around that same time, I did buy a wonderful set-top-box by a company called Videoguide, that delivered TV schedules and news headlines to the device via unused text pager bandwidth. It was a great product, inexpensive and very useful, as even though I did have internet at home at that time, it wasn't an always-on connection. However, between shortened times to come out of sleep for laptops and PCs and the ubiquity of always-on internet connections in the home, I think the utility of a product like that isn't what it used to be. And anyway, Videoguide ended up getting bought out by Gemstar after spending tons of money.

Not surprised you didn't turn up positive on the test. I'm pretty sure those target specific high explosive substances that could be used in small amounts to bring down an airplane, and are not intended to detect common low-explosive propellants like gunpowder.

> As a pure unpaid contributor of source code you have no patent liability.

Unfortunately, that's not true. Actually, as an unpaid, noncommercial USER of a software product, you CAN have patent liability.

Patents extend to the right to control all development and use of derivative technologies whether commercially or noncommercially.

I believe you'll find that a government actor is held to an entirely different and much stricter legal standard than a private actor with respect to 4th amendment limitations.