Do you have any proof for this "Microsoft decides they should come back" actually happens?
I never claimed that it has happened, so I'm not sure why you're asking for proof of that. I'm just pointing out these things:
A: Windows Update can update the registry (I think this is true though I haven't verified) B: Windows can be configured to automatically install whatever updates Microsoft chooses (I think this is the default configuration)
Given these facts, if a system is so configured it naturally follows that Microsoft can undo your solution whenever it wants. Will they do so? How much do you trust them not to?
I would consider it if skype, which I need for work, was at all functional on Linux. Maybe there's a distro where it works but on Mint on the machine I've tried it on it's completely broken. Since it's owned by Microsoft, I don't expect that situation to improve.
Every other person seems to believe the police are corrupt, are hiding or manufacturing evidence, are lying on every report they write, are intentionally trying to harass and screw over over the piblic, etc. So, trying to talk rationally with people that have that mindset is futile, but for everyone else, I'll offer some insight.
Obviously not all police are like that, but there are way too many stories of police corruption, dishonesty, and violence.
Gone are the days when people trusted the word of a police officer.
With good reason. Police are just like anyone else - likely to lie to protect their interests.
The rest of your comment - good information. Body cameras are not only not a magic bullet, but probably more expensive and difficult than is generally recognized.
I would say whether it's "too much" of a hardship depends on the department's budget. They can only spend money they've been allocated, and if they don't have personnel available to do the work, then it can't get done. If whoever controls the purse strings wants this done, they have to make sure it's funded.
But it is asinine to assume that any company (even a large one such as Blizzard) would be "okay" with licensing out their game when they have little or no control over its administration. That would expose them to a degree of liability that their lawyers would never allow.
First, that's what limitation of liability agreements are for. Second, lawyers have to do what their clients tell them, not the other way around.
"Confidential Information" means data that is protected from disclosure on a computer, computer program, computer system or computer network and that the computer, computer program, computer system or computer network does not transmit or disclose unless initiated by the owner of such computer, computer program, computer system or computer network.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it seems the google search example falls down because data is not confidential unless it's both protected from disclosure and not disclosed by the computer owner. Since the former condition is not met, anything publicly available would not be covered by this statute. Not that I think it's a good law or anything.
Booking.com also tries to skirt the very big issue that TLDs like ".com" are not considered in trademark analysis. The determination is made on "Booking" which at best is descriptive, if not generic when referring to a travel booking site.
This really should have been described and cited in the article. Tim made absolutely no mention of this fact and it's critically important in evaluating the claim.
The idea is that the NSA had already accounted for all those other factors, and the Snowden revelations sped up the timetable putting us seven years ahead of where we would have been without them. Whether they actually successfully accounted for all the factors and their timeline is accurate I have no idea. Sounds like it would have a pretty large margin of error. Maybe plus or minus seven years?