This is a personal anecdote so I can't accurately generalize against all Libertarians, but all those that I have encountered and discussed their position with really break it down to "what is the least amount of government that benefits ME".

Maybe there are those with an altruistic bent, but under questioning I've yet to meet one.

Show me a retail camera that triangulates gunshots.
And if you can, which I doubt, make sure it's under the 100 dollars amount you refer to.

You didn't read the article, you made an ass of yourself, and then tried to off-load your own ignorance.

You failed.

So you didn't read the article. Congratulations.
The cameras they've built do more than just take a picture. But you'd know that if you actually read the article you're commenting on.

The scale in which is takes place now is much higher due in part to imitation on the app store.
There's a cottage industry of businesses which do nothing but duplicate every element of a newly successful game except the art.
It's not just like the Tetris clones we used to see, but companies who monitor up and coming games and work to duplicate and capitalize on them in mere days.

I'm going to use a tank of Nitrogen and put on some good music.
I'll end up feeling happy and die in a matter of minutes.

(Not now, when I'm older, and don't have pets and don't want to go to a home)

So if someone doesn't like your post, you're okay with getting phone calls at 3 in the morning threatening your family members?

US law extends wherever the treaties they have with other countries allow them to.

I found that the problem with Twitter is that they were presenting the false image of a company that doesn't tolerate users harassing and threatening others, via their policies, but not living up to that image. And not giving the community better tools to deal with such users.

If they are going to claim that they do not tolerate threats then they should deal with them and "jail" the abusers, keep evidence intact, etc.
Obviously some people are going to try and work around that by creating new accounts to harass from, but as long as Twitter presents the facade of giving a damn they should act.

Otherwise there are community tools they could create. Harassing messages could be flagged and meta-moderated by third parties. Similar to here. Build up a record of abuse and it essentially mutes you. It should be easy enough to prevent false-flagging campaigns just by utilizing the extremely large pool of users for meta-moderation.

A couple of years ago, a user by the name of @goferet was sending regular rape and death threats to women. I saved links to 8 of the rape threats and 2 of the death threats, and contacted Twitter support.

They responded that his actions did not violate their terms of service. I pointed them directly to the terms of service page, and the specific mention of threats.
They didn't see a problem with what he was saying. Specifically things like he was planning to climb in their windows at night and rape them, some of them past rape victims who were campaigning for better investigations and fairer treatment of victims.

I thought maybe it was just the one idiot in support I was getting, but even the @support account didn't think anything of it.

What eventually did stop him making the threats was that I contacted people that he was associated with on Twitter and suggested they read his feed directly, so they could see what he was doing in his mentions, outside of the regular feed they saw. There was some disgust, and one person who knew him got him to finally shut his mouth.

Obviously there was an element that could have been "Leave it to the police", especially when some of the people he was attacking lived in the same city. But since Twitter was ignoring their *own* policies to let him threaten other users it was pretty vile on their parts.

Copyright law has nothing to do with how you use license free software. It only refers to your right to create copies of the software.

Hmmm. I looked at my hammer and my axe and can't find the license.
I guess if I kill someone with them the creators are liable?

I think there was an example of this in The Cuckoo's Egg by Clifford Stoll.
It might have been in Hacker Crackdown or another book at the time though. I devoured them all at that age :)

It wasn't the value that was relevant. The laws existed regarding theft of utilities and had penalties associated with it, so they were able to use that whatever the cost.

I don't see what's odd about the charge for fraudulently obtaining telecommunications services.
If she pays for her voicemail and internet and he accesses that voicemail as her, eg. using her pin, or remote controls her computer and uses it to send data to him (again on her dime), then he's fraudulently using her services.

Back in the early days of prosecuting crackers/hackers they used the 'theft of electricity' laws to nail them because there weren't any laws to cover their actions. So if you penetrated a computer at location A they would nail you for the electricity used while that machine was under your control, as the victim would be paying for the power used by you.

Don't forget that the original was 'a sucker born every minute, and two to take him'.
So that accounts for 75%.