Frumious as it sounds, it's better than naming your movie production companies "Manetheran" and "Red Eagle" (i.e. straight out of the books), producing an allegedly crappy version of the books, and then suing.

I've actually seen data from my laptop showing up on a TV. It was out of sync, so it was only part of the screen, repeated multiple times and scrolling slowly. This was back in the 90s, probably a 640x480 screen, and probably the radiation was mostly emitted from the external-video-monitor port (VGA or whatever we used back then.)

it is against the constitution for them to censor speech in such a way.

False. The Constitution applies to what the GOVERNMENT can do regarding speech. An employer or business is free to censor within certain bounds such as preventing their employees from talking about an upcoming product, internal financial figures and so on.

Further, this is Steam's property. They can do what they want, just as any other business can do with their property. You know those signs which says, "No shoes, no shirt, no service"? Guess what, they're not censoring your right to walk around barefoot. They are only saying on their property you can't do so.

Finally, anyone who didn't think their comments regarding how to not pay Steam for the games they developed wouldn't get censored is an idiot.

and ended up appreciating the simplicity of a plain old light switch.

What a stunning revelation. A simple analog switch is better than hundreds of dollars of technology.

The familiar phrase rears its head again: Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Saying you were only following orders is never a defense for committing a crime.

If I'm running (yeah, like that happens a lot), a phone's annoying, though an armband helps. A well-designed small pedometer wouldn't be as annoying, but the basic $5 waist-band-clip step-counter pedometers fall off.

For walking, though, I'm normally wearing clothes with pockets, and the phone's not an problem; if I wanted to track motion with it it would be fine. (The basic $5 waist-band-clip step-counter pedometers? Still fall off.)

but that negligence shouldn't be overlooked.

What negligence? You mean someone left their door unlocked and they deserve to have their stuff stolen? You're blaming the victim?

As I said in my initial post, how about people not steal other people's stuff or go places they shouldn't be? Or is personal responsibility being cast to the dustbin of history?

You can try to spin it all you want, but in the end it comes down to one thing: people doing things they shouldn't be doing in the first place. If it were done to them they would be screaming bloody murder, yet when they do it to someone else, "Oh well, they shouldn't have left their door unlocked."

Or, and I'm just spitballing here, people could not commit a crime or go somewhere they're not supposed to be.

You know, personal responsibility, do unto others and all that other crap I keep reading on here about how we're supposed to be caring and understanding of our fellow humans.

If you think it's acceptable for someone to do whatever they want to someone else's property/equipment and not expect to be penalized, then I will be sure to do the same to you and expect the same treatment.

Paintballs might also be effective since they are hard enough to do damage at reasonable distances.

This keyboard seems to have already filled this role.

there is also a certain amount of logic to the view that if those substances weren't illegal, none of that shit would have been going on at all,

Right, because legalizing something instantly removes the criminal aspect. Look at Colorado. Legalized marijuana and the Mexican gangs are moving in to supply cheaper product.

Of course the real issue people will say is, "The government shouldn't be involved with this. People should be free to drink/smoke/inject what they want." Then, in the next breath they say, "Oh, btw, the government needs to provide money to treat these people."

Apparently just like the banking industry or Wall Street firms, government regulation is evil until the government is needed to intervene, in which case no amount of taxpayer money is sufficient.

Here's the deal. You want to legalize this stuff, go for it. However, don't expect anyone to pay for what you do to yourself. If you don't want government intervention you can't be a hypocrite and expect it to intervene on your behalf. If you can afford to buy drugs you can afford to pay for your own treatment.

I know they're evil words but personal responsibility comes into play in this situation. Everyone knows what happens to people who use various drugs, yet if one is going to ignore reality then there is no reason for anyone to come to their rescue because they ignored science (see the current and ongoing measles and whooping cough outbreaks).

Maybe I'm missing something, but it is repeatedly said that everything should be free.

So how is it that this guy needed money to continue his work? Isn't it free? Why would he mysteriously need money when everything is free?

Free things don't cost anything so are we sure he's not pocketing the money?

Most jets are made with 11 inches of steel.

I defy you to find one jet whose skin is 11 inches of steel.

Yes, I do have that much money available but I'm not the one forcing people to hand over their money to a private company.

If someone WANTS to do so, that's fine, but the government telling people they MUST hand over their money, at virtual gun point, is not the way to go.

Considering how adamantly opposed to the government sticking its nose into people's personal lives and the rantings against corporations, it sure is funny how you folks have managed to laud and support both the things you despise.