Okay okay, sure it doesn't appeal to the whole process.

But we are talking about something that seems, to me, like it would end up in the Supreme Court anyway. If true, why spend a bunch of time and money just stalling the inevitable.

No no, I think it brings up an excellent point. (Okay maybe he does have an axe to grind, but does that excuse what's actually going on?)

In a recent meandering about the nuances about cell phone plans, in an attempt to find the best one for the lowest cost, I came across fine print details about tethering. Pretty much all prepaid services (Net10, Straight Talk, Aio, iWireless, etc.) forbid tethering your cell phone to any other device. Which is... Well absurd when you think about it.

But it's somehow legal.

Should an ISP be permitted to tell you how you're allowed to connect to their network, explicitly prohibiting setting up a wireless network? It's tantamount to having a toll road forbid anyone from using their road because they passed over a bridge a few miles back (and they don't want any bridge crosser coming through their road).

There's a practical reason for it, sure (tethering increases data use which means greater cost), but as I said before, this illustrates a greater point. And that's that we like to find excuses to find ways around rules to partake in exploitative behavior. The question of it being right or wrong never even entered into their minds; instead it's, "Can I get way with doing this?"

Hobbes would have a field day with this.

Not when brave rhymes with stupid.

Sounds like this whole situation could have been prevented if the NSA didn't overstep their authority.

Well, it's likely he won't stay anonymous for long.

The whole thing makes me scratch my head though. Seems like a bad and unprofessional idea to just announce it's a honeypot. If I were setting it up I'd just say the site is closing down then dish out lawsuits or what have you or whatever else, I don't know. An anti-piracy stance (in the typical MPAA fashion) is a very unpopular one on the internet. There's nothing to gain.

But he even announced he's doing it again, and it's likely he'll be tracked down and effortlessly exposed.

Sounds more like some script kiddie who is pulling some prank or what have you. But apparently tracking down who was behind was just handed to us on a silver platter, right here. Names and address included.

So it's a legitimate business. Well good luck against the internet, if they even take your vBulletin forum and website that was coded by fifth grader seriously. I wonder if they even know how to extract the data in any meaningful way.

If that's true she can sue the government for the lost wages.

You're right!

Self-driving horse? No thank you.

That's funny, I'd rather someone remove my blood marrow than have the flu.

No one who works nights is ever productive.

Your own fat. Caffeine increases fat catabolism.

I thought this at first too, but then it occurred to me that the opposite is more likely.

The Chinese government is cracking down on corruption, and in turn the corrupt are cracking down to silence anyone who would make them look bad.

A bit of a correction:

I seem to have misunderstood the article. If they are penalizing credits for quitting, then it does count as forced labor. Keep in mind "offer himself voluntarily" doesn't apply if you offer yourself for an electrical engineering position but they make you clean toilets. Which is synonymous to what they're doing here.

Actually if you read the law in question then you'll see that forced labor is defined so it's under "menace of penalty". I suppose a lawyer could argue the credits are a reward for the course and not a penalty and thus legal, but that would be defying the spirit of the law.

I'd like to see U.S. customs seize the items the moment they hit our borders, but I doubt they will.

Freedom for all, except if you're a large corporation, it seems.

We'll just be footing the bill.

My mistake.

I got caught up in my moral outrage.