I'm unsure as to whether or not that's illegal or not (definitely unethical), but it doesn't matter because it's a different circumstance, and what's legal can change depending on the circumstances. For example, it would be illegal for me to pull out a knife and stab somebody under normal circumstances, but if I can prove that I was defending myself then it's alright. In a similar vein, borrowing a computer from somebody is different from stealing it because somebody who borrows a computer has the owner's knowledge and consent.

No they aren't, because the only people with access to the photos are lojack, the cops, and (probably) the judge and jury. That doesn't qualify as the photos being "distributed around", that's the photos being presented as evidence for a court case. I agree that these photos are super-private and all, but they're still evidence because she couldn't have taken them without possessing the stolen computer.

No, they need all the evidence they can get. When you watch court proceedings on TV, you will rarely see the prosecution present only a single article because more evidence == stronger case. All the location does is prove that the laptop was used to access the internet from her house, which could mean anything. The defense could argue that the perpetrator might have figured out how to connect to her wifi network, or maybe lojack screwed up and somehow got the wrong IP address. If the prosecution also presents pictures that the defendant took of herself using the webcam, then the prosecution has a much stronger case because they now have evidence that the defendant actually came in contact with the laptop.

She's not being punished; TFA clearly states the charges against her were dropped. She's now suing Absolute and the police for violation of privacy, which is crazy because those photos were taken with the authorization of the laptop's owner and they were legitimate evidence in a criminal case.

The owner of the device authorized lojack to gather evidence by accessing the owner's device. Just because somebody else possessed the device doesn't change who the owner is. And these photos were legitimate evidence because they were pictures of the people who possessed the stolen laptop.

Totally different. When I rent an apartment, I sign an agreement with my landlord which basically gives me the right to treat the apartment as my own so long as I do not damage it, bother the neighbors, etc. A more appropriate analogy would be if I broke into somebody else's house and then complained of wiretapping because his security camera recorded video of me.

And how exactly would they do that? It's impossible to compete with somebody giving out free copies of your software when you're footing the cost for development.

The state of South Dakota does not shoot cruise missiles at people, although it would be pretty badass if they did.

Maths? In my life?

son of a bitch!

That's how military technology works: Somebody invented a spear, so somebody else invented a shield. Then another person made a bow. Fast forward a few thousand years and we have robot planes that blow people to kingdom come before they even see them coming.

It's inevitable that the rest of the world will get their own version of the drones eventually, so Uncle Sam's just going to have to keep building better weapons like he always does. The entire history of mankind is little more than a massive arms race.

If this didn't happen in such a rural county, there could have been major damage. Virginia doesn't get earthquakes very often, and our buildings aren't made to with stand them. There were some reports of buildings that caved in in Mineral - imagine what would have happened if the epicenter was in a more urban area like Arlington or Richmond.

Not only that, but our emergency crews aren't prepared to respond. Most of our people have never even felt earthquakes.

My argument is based on the concept of responsibility, so you say that me and those who hold similar opinions should take responsibility for all the world's unwanted children. Let's put your side of the argument through a similar challenge:

Hypothetical situation: a man impregnates a woman. He wants to have the baby, but she doesn't, so she gets an abortion regardless of his opinion. Now let's reverse the genders: She wants the baby, but he doesn't. She decides not to get the abortion, so she takes him to court and he has to either help raise the child or pay child support payments.

How come being pro-choice only works one way?

Because I don't want to control womens' bodies, I want to protect an innocent life. I'm willing to make exceptions for cases of rape and cases where childbirth poses a risk to the mother's life, but for every other aborted fetus out there, there are two people who should be forced to take responsibility for what they created. I don't feel that abortion should be allowed to be used as a backup for when birth control fails or is forgotten.

I don't have an orphan for the same reason that I don't have any offspring of my own: I don't want to become a parent at this moment of my life. If I made a woman pregnant, though, I would take responsibility for raising the child. I might make the best parent, but I would do my best and I'm pretty sure the child would be happier than if it was dead.

As for Africa, I'm really not very educated on their current social problems. I give some of my money to charities, but they're usually domestic because I'd rather take care of the downtrodden in my own country than those on another continent.

Getting rid of the no-fly lists is totally acceptable and I could get behind that. I'm just worried that making this public would turn it into something akin to the sex-offender lists sans due process.

If it went public but it doesn't get removed, this list could go from being a major pain in the ass to being something that could totally ruin your life.