So was the user(s) of the account leaking information illegally or not? May not have any bearing on this, but it seems everyone is glossing over that question for some reason. It's either a dissenter of which there are many, or someone breaking the law and we should probably establish which.

The request for the user's details from the government doesn't allege illegal leaking of information, so why is that relevant?

If you're so concerned that the Trump administration is actually doing the right thing here and they are being inappropriately maligned, you can certainly go look at the legal request and check for yourself on what grounds it was made. You don't need to wildly cast about searching for/inventing some reason the government is right -- they are supposed to do that themselves and write it up in a public legal document, it's called the rule of law.

If they had any such information logically they would have presented it to a court of law. The inference that we the citizenry and indeed that a court of law ought to draw is that no such evidence exists.

Certainly the governments lawyers aren't morons. Had they had such an easy route to take they wouldn't be attempting to misuse the law this way.

That still doesn't explain how whether or not the user was illegally leaking documents is relevant. The request has nothing to do with that. You can read it yourself.

Guns are a solution in the right hands, that's what the founders believed, and if these stats are correct it proves that they can be used responsibly if society is stable enough. I think we're approaching a time though when guns will be a net negative, but by then, the USA will cease to exist as we know it today.

History has way more moments where guns were used for terrible things that good things.

That's awfully cynical, but maybe correct, though I have to believe that even the CEO of a giant defense contractor firm is proud of what they do.

You're so optimistic. The CEOs of large companies i know don't even pretend about having a higher purpose

Why do you have to believe that?

"Threatened US default over debt ceiling" as I recall both parties play chicken with the economy to get their stuff passed, but the Democrats have the media to get people (perhaps like yourself) to buy that it's only Republicans who can take a hard line stance. Actually most of your examples are either complete strawmen or extremely biased and one-sided.

> "Threatened US default over debt ceiling" as I recall both parties play chicken with the economy to get their stuff passed

Can you name something similar the Democrats have done? As I remember it, nothing like it had ever been done before; they threatened to bankrupt the United States government, and caused the government's debt rating to be lowered, increasing the costs to taxpayers of of interest payments.

Saying 'they all are the same' is the bane of serious analysis and a well-established tactic of propagandists to shut down criticism (not that you are one, but my point is that there's a reason they use that tactic).

Can you illustrate that for most of the examples? I sincerely want to understand why someone would think they are not fair statements.

Each example was given from the context of the worst-case expected outcome. I could make a similar list starting with "Democrats want citizens to be raped and murdered by illegal aliens", "Democrats want to keep high health costs to the benefit of the insurance companies", "Democrats want to keep increasing taxes while spending it on frivolous pursuits, often on programs to ensure their re-election (by entrapping people into economic slavery)".

So do it. But it has to be fair.

"Democrats want citizens to be raped and murdered by illegal aliens"

Rape is already a crime and illegal aliens commit these crimes at lower rates, so from a rationale of preventing rape/murder/{insert violent crime here} spending resources on a group that's less likely to do it isn't a good solution.

"Democrats want to keep high health costs to the benefit of the insurance companies"

Actually their favored policies like Public Option would destroy insurance companies. Also, single payer systems prevent buyers from competing, and as patio will tell you, when buyers can defect, you can raise your prices. Meanwhile sellers still compete. So single payer systems achieve lower prices for the same outcomes around the world. (As the data around the world proves.)

"Democrats want to keep increasing taxes while spending it on frivolous pursuits, often on programs to ensure their re-election (by entrapping people into economic slavery)"

This may be true. :)

It amazes me how often Symantec is in the news about the same subject, yet they seem to be incapable of learning a lesson from it.

As they say "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

I don't think that's the case here, I think Symantec understood perfectly but thought they were too big to get anything more than a slap on the wrist from Chrome. Chrome's previous sanctions on Symantec, though very helpful for those trying to evaluate Symantec and inconvenient to implement on Symantec's side, were not much of a threat to their business.

If they were learning lessons from it, they wouldn't be in the news so much for it.

Yes, very silly place for a power button if you ask me. It will get pressed accidentally by virtually everyone who picks it up and moves it, or uses it, or bumps it into the side of something.

You can configure the power button to do whatever you want it to do of course. I think the default behaviour in Ubuntu's Unity is to show the shutdown menu (shutdown, reboot, suspend, or hibernate), not simply suspend the laptop right there and then.

Plenty of laptops have a power button on the side now. Lenovo's Yoga series does this too.

Please no, they already made Swordfish, we don't need another attempt.

Asymmetric encryption can't be reversed by the sender, assuming you use the recipients public key. When I was dealing with PCI and other frameworks, PGP encrypted data was given additional leeway for the sender in terms of how it could be stored or transmitted because in the context of the sender, the cipher text is gibberish.

I don't follow... since the use case here is personal storage, then the sender and the receiver are the same person

How hard is it for games to ignore SLI entirely and simply use a second or third GPU to offload things like post-processing effects ?

Or even better, how about if you had 3 1080 Ti's and 3 monitors, could the application/game just easily assign one GPU per monitor without having to resort to using SLI (which has such a bad reputation)? This would make things so simple, want an extra monitor or two? Just add a GPU to power them. I cant imagine that the coding for something like this would be anywhere near as complicated as SLI/Crossfire.

I think you can do that using some virtualization software. Really depends on the graphic card drivers and game engines to expose that ability to the actual game programmers.