A relevant detail to that story is that he admitted his guilt under questioning. Had he continued to deny any involvement, they would not have been able to prove that he was sending the bomb threat, as it could have been from someone who wasn't on campus.
Is it really? That's 16 hours of work 5 days a week. If you sleep for 8h you don't do anything but work or learn for all of your waking hours.
A more reasonable person would probably put a fair amount of learning time on the weekend, but even then you leave very little time for a social life, physical exercise, eating, relaxing.. things that most healthy people, if not everyone, requires.
This website shows all popular products that were spawned from the Soylent "craze": https://www.blendrunner.com/
Personally I use Joylent (I think it's the most used brand in Europe; also they now call themselves JimmyJoy/Plennyshake) and as far as I am aware they never had any issues like Soylent did. It's also a bit cheaper than Soylent, but sadly doesn't offer a liquid version. Just powder that you have to mix with water and a snack bar.
As the article states, the top 100 chess players in the world are male. The field is incredibly male-dominated and even though women and men should be equal, the reasoning between splitting it tournaments by gender is that women would otherwise get discouraged.
You might want to be careful with that. The Myers Briggs test is most likely pseudoscience and you shouldn't base any important-ish life decisions on it.
What prevents people from withdrawing all their money in 500€ notes from the bank, trading them in for 550€, exchanging the money for 500€ notes at the bank and repeating this until they're filthy rich?
If you send the input through the eye it would still appear in your regular field of view, right?
But what if you want to keep looking at whatever you're currently looking at without obstruction?
If you project the input directly onto the brain you could have two separate images, similar to how you can create a picture of, say, a bear in your head while still looking at your computer screen.
A prominent example is the mastermind behind DotA, Icefrog. The public has no idea who he is despite the fact that he has been quite famous for several years.
After some contemplation I must say I agree with you. Using technicalities like "well I didn't ACTIVELY say anything!" to get around the law shouldn't work in any situation - your example makes this very apparent.
At the same time, companies should not be forced to try and circumvent the law with cute tricks. Preventing companies from informing their users/customers that their privacy has been breached by a 3-letter-agency should be illegal.
We shouldn't be arguing about the legality of canaries, we should be arguing about the legality of gag orders. Arguing pro canaries is fighting a losing battle; it's fighting the symptoms instead of the cause.
The thing is: if encryption is illegal and you encrypt your illegal material so law enforcement can't convict you for it, they can still convict you for using encryption.