indrax

You mean like inventing robots that take away american jobs? That's just the free market.

Projecting a criminal future adds to the harm to him, don't do it.

Is the structure of that argument the same as the structure of your argument for physical property? (in which case my argument would be that there are very relevant differences)

There are pragmatic arguments against it: The costs copyright and patents impose on the market are huge. Not the prices, but all the good things that become difficult or illegal to do.

On principle: even if an IP system has some practical benefit, we usually set a pretty high bar for restricting people's communication or creativity. Is copying properly up there with fraud and slander?

I think we can come up with much better ways to pay for art. (Kickstarter is one.)

DRM movies are already encrypted. The DMCA does not seem to include an exception for law enforcement or intelligence gathering.

We just need an easy DRM format that allows content producers to licence and make available for viewing (but not arbitrary copying) custom content for specific viewers.

I'm sorry you thought my statement had 'such generality' to apply to any defense from any robbery. If you look back at the point I was making you'll see why this isn't relevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#State-by-state_...

Louisiana appears to allow lethal force just to prevent unlawful entry into a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

You're also looking at one law about one situation to dispute what I conjectured about a different situation. Is it not legal to chase down the thief yourself? If you are threatened in the process, is it not then legal to defend yourself? Are 'dead or alive' bounties not legal? The effect may well be the same.

Texas was the first thing to come to my mind : http://nation.time.com/2013/06/13/when-you-can-kill-in-texas...

The laws do seem to allow less after the fact, with good reason. My point was that we clearly allow for people to value money over lives.

When is a robbery over? The stuff never stops being yours, and they never stop running away with it.

A lot of things come into play here, but I'm pretty sure you could still post a reward, 'dead or alive'. I think it's legal to try to catch the robber yourself indefinitely, and defend yourself if threatened in the process.

Our wild west laws are only slightly less savage than what was alleged in this case.

ETA: Also, you highlight my omission of the mention of the dismissal, as if that's relevant. Why?

I wonder: If the money had been gained legally then stolen, what steps could the victim legally take to recover it?

>>"The professor sued for defamation various colleagues, administrators, and a former grad student whom, according to his complaint, he had previously dated; "

She's repeating a 'fact' out of the professor's complaint, while leaving out the supposedly defaming statements. The additional relevant information might include the conditions under which they started and stopped dating, or if it happened at all.

So this person said something about a sexual assault suspect, then got sued for it, and he said they had dated. Then some other professor writes about her, and nothing about what actually happened. (And we, still now, are mainly relying on that other professor's narrative.) And the article she's mentioned in is extremely dismissive of the whole situation.

So who's getting attacked for free speech and stating facts here?

Let's not forget the professor's most recent book "Men: Notes From an Ongoing Investigation (Metropolitan Books, 2014)."

I don't understand how she's shocked that this could be taken as retaliation. It's disingenuous to say she "mentioned no one by name" when she was clearly talking about the student that filed the complaint.

If you think professors should be more 'free' than corporate executive, how do you ensure the students aren't more vulnerable than corporate employees?

This is a person in a high status position mocking someone for being intimidated.

Does this bill just target the phone record collection, while it gets subtly branded as a fix to everything Snowden revealed? Is it a law against illegal things?

The phone record collection has already been ruled unconstitutional, so they concoct a congressional debate on it. They sacrifice a program that was already killed in the courts, and distract from everything else.

One kind of security researcher we would want to protect is the one who finds out they can get information, but doesn't get everything, or doesn't keep what they get, or doesn't get anything really sensitive. Or who establishes that they can modify a system, but doesn't change anything important.

If someone gets my credit card number, and doesn't use it, and points out the problem, I want to thank them.

We make the analogy of breaking into houses, but bad information security is more like someone putting up a post-it note that says "This is a lock."

Sometimes just looking past the lock violates the letter of the law.

It's about presenting dedication, not being correct.

This inefficiency would still be great in space because you don't have to carry reaction mass with you. (and hovering on earth would mean sustained 1g acceleration in space, which is fantastic.) But if you're swimming through reaction mass anyway, then just push it as efficiently as possible.

You could have separate smaller color sensing pixels, using only a fraction of the surface area.

ETA: There are also transparent solar panels which only absorb UV. If that were tuned for visible colors, you could have three transparent layers over an ordinary panel, and maybe not lose anything.

Bernard got to rule out two months based on Albert's information. Albert only had to rule out the 14th, which he did based on Bernard's being able to come to a conclusion.

This also applied to Beanie Babies.

It's is not anyone's place to assign to the oppressed the duty of changing their oppressors' minds.

The Founding Fathers were just victorious. Being powerful enough to deter enforcement is not a reliable indicator of moral high ground.