Perhaps it's to avoid using cellular networks, and instead allow for calling via WiFi?

No. Sysadmins have literally zero control over how Crowdstrike deploys this type of update - it was bound to happen, and ideally this forces change in that posture.

At least it's not the usual cause of death - "suicide, two bullets to back of head".

Which is discriminatory towards white candidates, because you're now treating them differently than non-white.

Newsflash - entering into a bar with friends doesn't automatically assume you're going to be drinking. There are already laws that prohibit carrying firearms on your person while under the influence of any drug - whether it be in public or otherwise.

They may not have any competition within their municipally-granted franchise authority - but I can virtually guarantee that their monopolies are in jeopardy when the neighboring cities get gigabit from Google, Cox, Verizon, CenturyLink, et.al. Local franchise authorities are well aware of the technology that's available, and are applying pressure to get it. They're also aware that their cities grow when the infrastructure is there.

And if you're a household in one of those communities, I suggest you contact the local franchise authority and complain. Squeaky wheels get the grease.

Comcast is slow and shitty and definitely won't hit their "goal" - but they're not completely stupid either. They're just following trends.

Amazon wants this for at least two reasons:

1) they don't have to employ a legion of tax specialists / lawyers for sales tax (which cuts at the bottom line)
2) they're betting the Federal framework will result in a lower overall rate (which keeps their competitive price advantage over brick-and-mortar)

I'm going to assume that you meant Fox News. I'd like to point out that while their bias is clear, there is also clear bias in all of the other news outlets in the US (to varying degrees). Deny that, and you're showing your bias also.

My point is - the "gullible and easily fooled" don't just watch Fox News. That category spans the political spectrum, believe it or not. I wouldn't confuse "gullible" with "too lazy to do own research" either.

He WAS on the plane, but his explosives failed to detonate. Same thing happened to the underwear bomber - failed to detonate, just burned the hell out of his private areas.

Both were subdued by passengers, which I'll argue is much more likely to happen now that we know the attackers' intent is to take over the plane and fly them into buildings. It used to be that the hijackers just wanted something so they'd hold everyone hostage. That made passengers compliant to demands - their lives weren't in imminent danger.

I'd argue we should go the other way - arm the pilots, arm the stewards, let the passengers be armed. It's widely known and statistics prove that attackers favor "soft" targets. It's also less-widely known but statistics prove that in a life-or-death situation, with seconds to decide, the police are often minutes away. We need to take personal security seriously and stop being sheep. Nobody can protect you from a person willing to do you and others harm ... except yourself.

The argument you referenced came about during the attempt to ban "assault rifles" as if they are somehow scarier and deadlier than anything else on the planet. When in fact, assault rifles are statistically less often the tool of choice for murder than blunt objects, as you pointed out. The issue many raised was that the knee-jerk reaction to the school and theatre shootings was just that - a knee-jerk - and wouldn't solve anything except show for the politicians and anti-gun folk. The point of the statistic was to reinforce that point - though one's "preconceptions to the truth" may lead them to another conclusion.

That's a broad assumption given many future congresscritters are staffing the current congresscritters' offices - and likely learning bad behaviors.

Depends on the case law - but basically the 4th Amendment was supposed to protect everyone from this sort of thing - every gov't entity is supposed to get a warrant before spying. The fact that every gov't entity isn't disavowing this program, but instead saying "we get a warrant to look at the results" is really disingenuous. They shouldn't be collecting the information in the first place.

I don't think Google is doing this because they've been libeled - it seems they're doing this to "fight the good fight". How interesting (ironic?) the same government that corporations bribe through special interests and lobbying now have to fight against their bribers for Constitutionality.

Disagree. I, an American by birth, own firearms for several reasons (not necessarily in order).

1) Recreation - shooting a firearm is a great stress reliever and fun to boot.
2) Sport - I actively hunt game for food.
3) Protection - I am responsible for the safety of my family.
4) Rights - in this country, it seems if you don't exercise your rights, the gov't will have more fodder to take them away.

By the way - I may not represent all Americans with my ideals or standards, but I'm not the exception to the rule either - I'm not fearful at all.

Thanks for the sensationalist tripe.

First of all - we already have military-grade polymer firearms that are "detectable" by modern scanning technology.

Second - a plastic "printable" firearm is pretty worthless without ammunition. This would be the doomsday scenario you describe when they manage to make a plastic bullet, and a plastic casing, that won't fragment/explode in the firearm when the primer ignites the powder.

Finally - if instead of banning firearms from those places, we allowed those with the means and the methods to carry firearms where ever they wanted, this argument wouldn't be happening.

Freedom has its price - and that price is a little risk.