While I agree in general, for the sake of dissoi logoi, allow me to present the counter-argument. (I had to look up dissoi logoi by the way, it's not a phrase I've used before.)

I've worked in environments where drug tests were required and very similar environments where they were not. After working in both for several years and getting to know co-workers well, I feel I have a pretty good idea how common drug use was in both. I can say that I don't believe it wasn't totally eliminated in either, but was less common in the workplaces that at least used it for initial screening. Both had excellent longetivity and reasonable productiveness from their employees. I'd be hard pressed to make the case that the places that screen get better employees, but if your goal is to hire employees that won't use drugs, I think that testing as part of the employee screening process has some success in discouraging applicants that are likely to use drugs.

Further, I can say that in some jobs I've had, drug use was rather common and in those, testing wasn't even considered. In those jobs where drug use was common, I can say that it cost the employer higher turnover as a result. If I were made manager in that type of situation, I can certainly say that I would institute a drug test screen for hiring. If I knew that my company would be more profitable as a result of that type of screening, even if it was only because the less suitable candidates would be less likely to apply if they expected to fail, then certainly I'd seek to do the screening. I suspect that is why minimum wage jobs are more likely to have a screening policy.

If I worked for a government agency where I knew the stable and productive employees were those most likely to be willing to take a voodoo test, why wouldn't I want to screen for those type of employees? I'll agree that the polograph is essentially voodoo so lets take it literally for the sake of discussion. Lets say that I'm in charge of setting hiring policy for the TSA (voodoo is a reasonable connection in my mind for this.) Lets say that my bosses will agree to a voodoo test where I shake a rubber chicken and maracas in a dark room to "test of theiving spirits" and experience has shown employees willing to take the "test" are less likely to abuse their position, then I'd do the test. Even knowing the voodoo test in itself had no real effect, if I also know that the result is better employees, assuming that's my priority, why not?

Wow, not only an arsonist, but also an anachronist!

When I write a program with my own resources, regardless of what is in that program, it doesn't violate anyones rights. Only when I use it is it possible for me to violate someone's rights. If I do something with it in a way that gets me in trouble with the law, then yes, I may loose rights.

I've seen a lot of arguments to my comments, and dismissed most of them, but you actually presented your argument logically enough that I must concede that you have a point. I disagree with the judge's ruling, but not your arguments.

Should I ever have such a restraining order, and cure cancer while saving nuns from a burning orphanage and by doing so violate the terms of the order, and have charges pressed against me for doing so and have a judge decide to punish me by taking away my rights to use, sell or give away programs I've written... then your argument would still be valid and I'd still believe the judgment was a bad one. Why? Because I believe some things are important enough that they shouldn't be ignored.

Free speech, the right to own property and the moral obligation to save nuns from a burning orphanage while curing cancer if you have the opportunity are among the things that I don't believe someone should be deprived of by a judge without a very strong reason. I don't believe Blizzard's arguments are a strong enough reason for for a judge to deprive someone of any of them. Were I a judge or the defendants' lawyer, I would disagree with this particular judgment for that reason.

I have mod points, but I never use them on a discussion I'm involved in. I don't know if it would work anyway, but I hope somebody else gives your comments a bump up.

1. The developers and community for WoW is not the same thing as the legal framework of the United States of America
2. Software designed for one purpose usually has many thousands of lines of code that are useful in dozens of potential scenarios
3. The US doesn't take away your right to say something because somebody else doesn't like it and it might get repeated... or at least we didn't

Does it say they own rights to something I create on my own computer in my own time? Because otherwise it doesn't have any relevance to my arguments.

There is a big difference between saying "you agree to not use our software and servers a certain way" and "any software you build on your own computer belongs to us."

I'm genuinely curious how people keep making this mistake. Software I build on my own computer, regardless of what it might be intended to do is not in any way the same as my rights to use somebody else's service. One is a right to use something somebody else provides and one is something that I create and own all the rights to independently.

Okay, I'll buy that. Let me amend my analogy.

You'd have to say that the ATVs were custom built for [that specific] golf [course] and those ATVs and anything based on the work that went into building them should be banned everywhere forever by law because they were used on [that] one golf course. Which would prevent them from selling other custom built ATVs based on their experience and parts they were able to reuse. That is clearly an infringement on their normal rights to conduct business.

That is a bit better, but it's wordy and a little complex. I guess that's the problem with accurate analogies.

I had a little trouble following that, but I'll assume you had a good reason for the missing words, like a bottle merlot or something. (Which is my current excuse.)

you agree that blizzard can do whatever they want with your account, for any reason at all.

I didn't say otherwise. There is a big difference between "your account" and a program that you create.

They can [ban] you, at will, because you agree to let them.

Yup. I didn't say otherwise.

They can [control any aspect of] you[r life and work outside of the game], at will, because you agree to let them.

That's what I actually disagree with... but I doubt you intended to say that.

Your argument about someone "hacking" their servers, etc, would only imperil the original authors to additional civil fines and possible criminal charges (as going against a court order would do).

You're right of course. They'd probably be pulled back into court where someone would have to prove that they were intentionally responsible or negligent in protecting their computers and CDs and any flash drives where they might have put a backup. That can be difficult to prove to say the least.

Had they open sourced it to begin with, then it wouldn't be a huge issue. Then again, if it were open sourced, there would be tons more compromised accounts because of dumb people....

Yeah, um, sorta. I wonder if you meant banned accounts, but I don't have any problem with people who like to cheat being banned.

I accept that Blizzard is an entertainment company. I like that they put effort into protecting the game experience of their customers. I don't even play and I appreciate that a company will go to court and fight to ensure that the service they offer be as fair as they can make it. If I was at a golf course and someone was messing up the carefully maintained surface with ATVs, I'd be happy when the course owners banned them. If I was playing competitive online solitarie and someone found a way to have a computer make their moves for them rather than play fairly, I'd be happy when they were banned.

I'm okay with a judge saying that you cannot break the terms of service (which I assume they did.) Up to that point, I feel like we're in agreement.

However, the software I build myself on my own computer is mine and I believe I have a right to use it on my computer, or sell it or open source it as a basic free speech right. So long as what I do on my machine or contracts I enter into that allow other people to use the software doesn't interact with Blizzard, my rights should be protected. I haven't read the TOS of WoW, but I doubt there is any clause that says anything like "by agreeing to this, you also give us rights to anything you create which might be related to the service we offer."

That's where the ATV and solitare analogies don't make sense. If you wanted those analogies to be fair, you'd have to say that the ATVs were custom built for golf and those ATVs should be banned everywhere forever by law because they were used on one golf course. If I made a cheat friendly solitaire program, and used it to cheat, it is reasonable to ban me from using it on specific systems where the TOS disallow it, but to say that the program I wrote is itself illegal and can never be used, sold or given to anyone because it broke the rules on one system; that's just wrong.

I honestly hope that this judgement gets thrown out on an appeal or someone "hacks" into the computers of the developers and makes it open source, distributed from a server not under the jurisdiction of this court. I don't say that because I think the bots shouldn't be banned by Blizzard, I think they should be. I think the court would be reasonable to say that using them is breaking the TOS and anyone doing so is subject to the terms they've agreed to in order to use Blizzard's servers. However, I think that banning the sale or open sourcing of software that someone creates which is an original work is morally and ethically wrong and I hope that for that reason, that part of the judgment will be overturned or clearly demonstrated to be worthless.

I thought it was just me. I enjoyed a subscription for quite a while, and was content to ignore the political and social commentary for quite a while. Eventually, however, I found it just more effort to focus on the actual science than it was worth. With plenty of other sources to turn to for actual science, finally I just decided not to renew.

I miss the old days when I could hold the printed pages in my hand and learn something. I still get the data from other sources of course but it isn't quite the same. From time to time I have considered resubscribing in the hope of finding that missed feeling, but it sounds like I wouldn't be pleasantly surprised.

He promoted the website using his real name attached to a gmail account with his real name as part of the address. They may not have found that out until they were ready to make a bigger case against him, but as I was reading the criminal complaint and saw that, I was dumbfounded that anyone could actually be that dense about security. Reading an older article, I see where he was asked if he was worried about law-enforcement agencies trying to track him down. He said "I have confidence in our security measures."

Yup: murderers, rapists, robbers, fraudsters... why do we bother with all these laws when some smart enough people will get away with each of these crimes.

I don't suggest that people shouldn't be prosecuted when caught or that nobody should bother trying to catch them, I just expect you to be aware that with the internet, there is a far lower chance of getting caught and prosecution has very little deterrent effect. I'm not trying to say "don't bother" so much as "it obviously isn't working very well."

It wouldn't be a threat if there weren't people who wanted to exploit vulnerabilities. Circular argument, sigh.

There are plenty of examples of companies that have done stupid things like putting customer information in a URL they didn't expect people to stumble onto. Bad security practices cause problems that go beyond "someone really clever might find a buffer overflow." If there weren't people who actually seek to exploit the vulnerabilities, there would be a lot more companies with terrible security practices and there would be a lot more accidental personal data breaches. It isn't circular, but obviously I needed to be clearer.

You know what makes a strong immune system? Exposure to germs. Guess what makes a strong internet society?

You know what germs aren't? Human. Stop reducing humans to factors in a flawed model.

An internet society is made up of computers and people. It is a complex mix and a model would need to be complex to represent it accurately. This however, is an analogy, and the analogy is solid.

Sure, let me know how that works out for you.

Meanwhile there will be many, many people who are getting away with doing bad things because they are smart enough to figure out how to and hard enough to catch that they can get away with it for a long time, maybe forever.

And your morality is what fuels some of them, at least the "build a better society" part. See the thing is that security vulnerabilities need to be exploited in both high and low profile companies in order for those and other companies like them to spend effort and money on security. The very thing that you believe is good for society would be ignored or even punished if it weren't for the very real threat that is posed by people who exploit the vulnerabilities. You may think they're immoral or amoral for doing it but they're providing a very valuable service to society even as they harm it.

You know what makes a strong immune system? Exposure to germs. Guess what makes a strong internet society?

Somebody beat you to it and I'm not talking about the film. There is a product called Solent intended to be an inexpensive meal substitute. Apparently it is not too bad, and leaves you feeling full (and gassy.)

A good story about somebody who tried it for a week: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/08/nothing-but-the-soylent-were-trying-1-full-week-of-the-meal-substitute/
Their site where you can pre-order: https://campaign.soylent.me/soylent-free-your-body

Pity I couldn't see the result of the link without an account. I'm genuinely curious if the officer is issuing invalid tickets. That sounds like a story in itself.