Unless there's a hardware component (say a physical key you need to insert into a slot on the side of the phone) ....

What about having to physically enter a passcode on the device's keypad? The locking itself can be in software, but that locking software can easily be hardcoded onto the silicon, and not something you can bypass with any software technique.

No different at all, as long as you can't bypass the lock screen by changing the sim card.

The Android app does not lock the phone, it erases it. The phone itself would still be usable once you replace the sim card. The point of the law is to make the theft of protected cell phones unprofitable by requiring that the functionality be embedded into the device itself, and make the phone unusable for anything beyond making an emergency call, or using the keypad to enter in the appropriate unlock code.

I'm sure competent hackers will immediately find ways around this stupid "Kill Switch" idea.

I would assume that reversal requires physical access to the phone, and also the manual entry of the correct password into the device itself, the password being one that is created by the user (initially randomized at manufacture, the default code for it being on a small slip of paper that comes with the phone when you buy it brand new). Since each password attempt would have to be manually entered, there is no viable way to expedite cracking such a phone, and I would imagine that most people even trying to do so would probably quickly abandon the attempt. And if the point of the law is to simply make theft of cell phones unprofitable, I think it would probably succeed.

I would draw the line at anyone who plays games frequently enough that they can personally identify with a subculture in society that plays the same games they do,.

So that would include Candy Crush.

It can also include people who play Monopoly, Football, or Mahjong.

Who is saying they only play it 5 minutes a day?

..... is that when they don't succeed at something, believing that they should have been smart enough to succeed, they can easily come to the conclusion that others are to blame for their failure, and can discourage them from trying again, believing the deck has been stacked against them all along.

"With threats of executing an official search warrant and taking the matter to court...an agreement was quickly reached to close down the site"

Really, if he really wasn't doing anything illegal in the first place, I can't see any reason he should have caved in on this... and this is in the UK, where it's my understanding that if you try to bring someone to court and lose, then you have to pay their costs, which I imagine exists to discourage overly subjective, baseless, or slapp-like lawsuits.

The fact that he yielded on this suggests to me that he was aware that a search warrant would find something on his computer(s) that shouldn't have been there in the first place. It's unfortunate the site is gone, but we're not actually seeing the whole story here. Sadly, because of how things have already went, we probably never will.

If one is opposed to confinement in a cage for nonviolent crimes, then why should one go to jail for contempt? That's a non-violent crime too.

But on slashdot, perfection is encouraged... and nothing less is tolerated. You have a 6-digit sid.... don't you know that by now?

One can approve of caning as punishment for particular crimes without themselves being guilty of the crime for which they would approve of the caning, nor even particularly "like" caning overall, but believe in the premise that it might stand as one of the most effective means of preventing a repeat offense without simply executing the person. The most effective means of preventing a repeat offense that does not involve execution is when the violator genuinely repents of the crime, but this is something only the person themselves can control... it is not possible to directly induce it or bring it about, although it can sometimes be achieved indirectly by whatever discomfort the criminal might be made to experience from the punishment for their crime, which is probably the single strongest argument that may exist for supporting punishments like caning for particular crimes.

So I take it that you believe that people who commit tax fraud should not go to jail either?

Citation needed. The offence is "possession," not "viewing."

Actually, the offense is any of taking, making, distributing, showing, or possessing. Merely viewing such pornography, when it is done with intent (ie, you clicked play on a video where you could have reasonably known its contents before you watched it), would constitute a form of "taking".

Not all types of teleportation necessarily involve creating a copy.... quantum teleportation, most notably.

Since society wouldn't allow it to happen to humans...

Today's society... with today's moral values. Who knows what things might be like in a hundred years?