If it comes from Daily Mail, you can ignore it. Thank you.

I'm not a lawyer, but that logic is totally sound.

I think of it more as 'drawing more hipsters in, away from me'.

Wouldn't that make people far too accountable?

The Daily Mail reports: blah blah blah, don't acknowledge the existence of The Daily Mail.

I was saved by Kitten Block, and you can be too:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/kitten-block/

Fuck you.

Nor regarding the shrooms.

A proponent of the product being advertised would say that the affected person was being helped, because their product's so awesome. In fact, that's just what's happening in this supposedly less 'ethically questionable' example. Not to denigrate it (it is cool), but this appears to be (on the ethical level) another form of advertising.

You could get hit pretty hard for illegal filesharing or drinking during prohibition, too, but at the end of the day, when the law's bullshit, fuck it.

Myth?

A certain proportion of hackers are so practised because they were raised by a computer, and as such are quite attention-seeking.

One iPad coming up.

If records were kept for everybody except for one person, then that person's DNA is identifiable by merit of being the one that isn't on record.

You are correct (in fact, perhaps more correct than you think):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_paradox

And you've hit upon the reason TFA is useless.