This is why key management should be part of the operating system, and every piece of software that doesn't use those APIs should be suspect.

It's simply too big a subject to expect everyone who is in danger of falling prey to something similar (everyone who uses a computer) to manage on their own. If you know where every individual piece of software you run stores every single key, you are a very, very rare person. You're also probably mistaken.

Even if we started down the path, it would take a long time, that's no question. But I can think of no other alternative that has even an ounce of realistic chance of success.

Haha what a scrub, my wife and I each have our own houses! I mean seriously, if you're a grown-ass adult that can't afford two houses in the hills I don't know what to tell you.

How did you miss the part where the tube is surgically connected to a port on the abdomen?

Yes, it is. At least, it's bulimia. I don't see anything respectable at all about surgically altering yourself so you can gorge and still lose weight, and I guess time will tell if it's marketable (although I doubt it'll be even as successful as lap band surgery), but yeah, it's definitely mechanical barfing.

I wouldn't call looking things up that TV makes you think of being distractable, it's being active instead of passive. It's a good thing, looking up other sides to a news story, doing a quick Wikipedia safari on something that comes up that you don't know about, it's all much more intellectually demanding, and enriching, than just sitting there vegging out in front of the tube.

And man, now I'm old. I'm calling the TV the "tube". I used to look at my grandparents/parents funny when they called the microwave the "radar range". Crap.

Your theory is a very good one. Not that I think it's likely to be correct, but it's good in that it's easily testable.

Which happened first? Banning leaded gasoline, or the drop in crime? People aren't going to ban leaded gasoline in anticipation of crime rates dropping and having a more secure, better standard of living tomorrow, the vast majority of arrests happen within hours or days of the crime, and every last one has a report. Dates of where leaded gasoline was used are also well-documented.

Now, you may be thinking to yourself, "Jeez, these guys are scientists, why wouldn't they think of something so simple as checking the dates?" And if you are, congratulations. Now you're starting to think. The tricky part is realizing, and really internalizing the lesson, that you never get to stop.

Yep, SEO the shit out of the sites, in the most transparent, sure-to-get-a-site-delisted ways possible. Internet Judo, use his strength against him. Since they're on top, it's not like you can make it any worse, and it also means you don't have any direct contact with the guy--it's Google/Bing delisting him, not you. Anonymize the WHOIS information, and deny any knowledge if the guy contacts you. "What, you put up a site saying bad complaining about me? Weird, man, but whatever floats your boat. Good luck with that I guess."

And of course if Google/Bing contact you, just say, "I've been contracted to make this the top result, if you try to delist this site you'll be hearing from my lawyers." They already know you can't do jack, and they'll enjoy tweaking "your" nose and you'll find the site delisted in short order.

Other alternatives

DDOS: Illegal, don't be an idiot. Also feeds the troll, you know better than that don't you?

Register trademark & use ICANN: You're rolling the dice here, feeling lucky?

Anything + lawyer: Probably best chance of success, once you sue successfully it just makes further suits easier if he's dumb enough to stick a fork in the toaster a second time. But keep in mind, these guys do not understand the Streisand effect, and what's more, many probably actively want it. Free publicity for them, and then you have to pay!

Completely ignore it: Probably the best option. People get bored. He's doing this to get a rise out of someone who rejected him. Chances are good he'll escalate when he doesn't get the reaction he wants. If he goes big enough, you'll be able to catch his hand in the bear trap of the court system, otherwise just keep ignoring it. Escalation means you're winning. If he's quietly running the same site 3 years later, well, then you're dealing with a patient, smart, asshole, which is pretty much your worst nightmare. Good luck.

Yeah, they probably would get the message pretty quick. But let's be real here, we're not going to send that message. To keep their two-party system going, they don't have to fool all the people, just 67% of them (at worst). Which, as it turns out, is pretty easy.

Not blaming others for your mistakes is not a nerd thing, it's an adult thing. Lack of social skills and owning your mistakes are not positively correlated, and that's being charitable. Quit romanticizing being a nerd. The conclusions you seem to be drawing from it are inaccurate at best.

Yes, being on a jury is what determines whether you're using the law's standards. If you're not on the jury, you're just a person forming their own opinion, and you can do that however you want.

The thing I took issue with was

That's the crazy assertion. It might have looked that way to this one uneducated (in this particular court case, I'm not trying to make a statement about the poster's general education) person, but it's silly in the extreme to think that your familiarity with a case that likely amounts to short blurbs should outweigh a full trial by jury.

I don't have a problem with coming to a different conclusion, but to think that your conclusion, based off what you read on Slashdot, is more correct than 12 people who sat and listened to the defendant alone talk for 11 days straight and that we should let the guy go free because of the court of public opinion, that's ... I don't even know what to call logic like that. And heck, it wasn't even the court of public opinion either, most people did think he did it as far as I could see, it's just this one guy that thinks he should have gone free because he wasn't personally convinced. It's so off the wall, the more I think about it, the more I think we've all been trolled.

Oh, and there's also the fact that he was found guilty of first-degree murder, so yes, it's certainly "instead of". The jury also had the option of finding for a lesser charge, involuntary manslaughter, but they felt that not only was the evidence was strong enough to convict, but to also go with the higher charge.

I think you may be confused by the fact that he was allowed to plead down to second-degree murder after he was found guilty. This was most likely done in order to nip any appeals in the bud, and also because the evidence, although convincing, was not something that would remain convincing when the entire trial was compressed into a two-sentence soundbite, which is all most people care to educate themselves with before deciding guilt in their own minds. I think the case for that being a correct assumption has been made pretty well in this thread.

Later, he was sued for killing his children's mother (unsure if they sued or someone sued on their behalf), and repeatedly stated that he killed their mother in order to protect them from her. He lost that too, and was ordered to pay them $60m. If you still have doubt, it's most likely due to being uninformed.

Incorrect, the criteria is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Very, very little can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. For instance, it's not beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was framed, and then coerced into confessing. It's possible. Heck, it's happened. But I don't think it's reasonable to think that's what happened in this case.

Since he did plead guilty, I imagine that at least he was under the impression that there was sufficient evidence to find him guilty, and the most likely reason for that is that he did in fact commit the crime. Unless you've got an argument that's more convincing than a confession that involves producing the hidden body, I fail to see why we should have let him go.

The thing is, the only reason the evidence was iffy at all was because they didn't have a body, whose importance itself is kind of an artifact of law--although it's very important in some cases, I don't think many people would credibly think that Nina just up and left the country and her kids with nothing more than the clothes on her back.

He had a "how to murder your wife and get away with it" book that he purchased right before she went missing, and absolutely no justification for why he was hosing out his car or why the passenger seat was missing. Maybe it looked to you like there was some reason to let him go because your personal standard of proof (instead of the legal one) wasn't met with the extremely filtered view you got of court proceedings (I'd be surprised if you got 5% of the facts that were presented in the courtroom), but the fact is Hans is a murderer, and he got caught. The system worked in this case. It seems an odd choice to criticize the standard of proof used in legal proceedings and then pick an example where you've already been proven wrong.

Seriously. Maybe this kid's dad is different, and he sees it every day, but I know that anything that made my dad cry would have sure as hell traumatized me.