Any password can be hacked in a single attempt by simply using the correct password first...

Does your proposed algorithm for bruteforcing this password fail entirely if there's less than 3 dictionary-words included? More than 3? Does it fail entirely if the spam-character is included 21 times?

Obviously, if you have a pretty damn good idea what you're looking for, you can optimize towards it.

How is Minecraft *any* good as an interface for designing something you'd want to make a 3D print of? Everything that can be designed in Minecraft can be build with Legos.

I don't see a lot of future games going down the Minecraft lane. The actual gameplay is rubbish (build a house before the first sunset, and you'll forever be safe from harm), and the game has nothing to offer except extreme customizability. It has an awesome niche appeal, because creative minds have a lot of opportunity to go nuts. But as for inspiring future games? Either you:
Keep the concept and refine the execution - improved graphics, more types of things to create and more methods of customizing behaviour (Second Life anyone?) - or:
Try to implement Minecraft'ish features into a game with a decent challenging gameplay, and you'll lose the creative minds who now have to worry about not dying AND the powergamers who realize that any game is easy when you can summon a brick wall.

One of them is an attempt at beating Minecraft at their own game, which can either succeed or fail - the other is doomed to fail as you attempt to combine ultimate sandbox with actual gameplay, thereby forsaking the benefits of both.

What an absolute joke of ar argument.

You're saying it's OK to break the law if you have investigated the legal circumstances, and decided that upholding the law was too much hazzle / not profitable?

Entering negotiations by itself is not an admission of guilt, but if other evidence suggests that they are in fact guilty, it's an admission of malicious intent.

When this game sells to everyone who doesn't care about reselling, everyone who doesn't plan to share it, everyone who doesn't get political about politics, and every ignorant grandparent who's seeing the title on a wishlist from some kid who might think it's less than ideal, but still wants to play the game, it'll still be a success with a majority of the 3DS user base.

Pfft. The sarcasm was so thick, I was barely able to read the actual comment.
Despite the sarcasm though, distrusting experts BECAUSE they're experts is a tiny bit less sensible than trusting them for the very same reason. Start bashing them once they've ACTUALLY said something you disagree with.
Remember - the experts are not charged with defining copyright law. They're charged with upholding it.
If you honestly think TPB is based on anything other than a complete lack of respect of established copyright law... well... obviously you're not half as smart as the slashdot crowd tries to take credit for.

Citation needed.

Let's leave this discussion until proposed or similar instance ACTUALLY blocks a site, where the average user does not in fact use the site as a facilitator of criminal actions.

Are you suggesting that these people are incapable of mistakes, and cannot ever possibly be outsmarted by feds?
I believe you're vastly overestimating these guys, and similarly underestimating authorities.

When discussing police business, what really matters is that we're comparing breaking the law with breaking the law.

Citation needed.

You honestly think that pretending you didn't see your neighbour getting mugged is more acceptable than failing to boycott Sony?
Keep in mind that your potential power in both cases is likely zero. Given that you're a slashdot poster, most street criminals would likely faceroll you. As such, your responsibility in both cases is close to zero.
But let's just pretend your 200 pounds of muscle with martial arts training, who doesn't afraid of anything...

Your corrective statement includes an "if" which has already been adressed and proven false.

I like to think that Google is not directly responsible for the deaths of any kittens.
I assume they probably have some internal policies about dos and don'ts, a few of which was spawned by a feeling of self-righteousness, and they probably obey these for the most part.
And I'm under the impression that they treat their employees fairly well.

Other than that, just another company, looking to profit.

As a religious person, I fully expect this wait to last forever. It's unfortunate for my kind that even by the end of forever, your kind will still claim that "it's doable, we're just not quite there yet".

And we all know that Penn & Teller are the epitome of unbiased, fair, objective journalism.

Oh, wait...