Seeing as how the previous iteration of the business went under following that model, I don't think it's likely that they'll be attempting it. I think that if the customers know that they can go to the movies for $8/10 like they're used to, the theater will be hard pressed to hit that 3,000 member mark.

Or, you know, people selling counterfeit merchandise have to be relatively easy for customers to consistently find, while the other criminals you mention are actively avoiding detection, and have no reason to stay on the same domains/servers for very long, making them much harder to shut down.

This seems like little more than an ad for a product. It's a cool recreational vehicle, but is it really "New For Nerds"?

8 million feet = 1,515 miles, in case anyone was wondering.

Your analogy is flawed. It would be much more appropriate to say "Throw away your Ferrari and buy a Tesla Roadster, and see if you think it was worth it."

>How about the postal service let me opt out of getting junk mail delivered?

In a lot of places (Britain particularly) the postal service relies on the money paid by junk mailers. No junk mail, no funding for delivering real mail.

>This gives many ignorant people justification to feel like they are really one of those 1 in 40.

>I'm sure I could do it

Oh the irony...

Your 2% is misleading. What that means is that of 100 couples who have sex with a condom regularly for a year, 2 will have an unwanted pregnancy. It does not mean that if you have sex with a condom 50 times, you are statistically likely to get pregnant.

yes.

Because the reasonable form of banning something is regulating it, and saying that you want to regulate something gets you labeled as a psycho socialist.

Unless you're already browsing cookie-free, Google is already looking over your shoulder 100% of the time. This doesn't change anything. Google is simply putting all that information they already collect to good use.

It took 2 years to build a case against 100 of these people, and I'd be incredibly surprised if 100 people even amount to 1% of all phishers. I'd say that that the other 99% have pretty much gotten away with it.

http://xkcd.com/538/

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/pragues_franz_kafka_international

The reference, for those who aren't Onion fans.

Yeah, I would tend to call BS on that particular statistic. Let's say the average water bottle is .5L. In that one, single water bottle that is sitting on my desk, there are 5.01*10^25 atoms. That's one hell of a number.

Now, let's pretend God has a really good magnifying glass and a really small set of tweezers, and he's removing atoms from this water bottle at a rate of 1 per second. Conservative estimates put the universe at 13.5 billion years old, which converts to 4.25*10^17 seconds.

So, since the beginning of time, God has removed 4.25*10^17 atoms from my water bottle. A lot, right? Not quit. (4.25*10^17)/(5.01*10^25)=8.00*10^-9.

Even removing an atom every second since the beginning of time, only a few trillionths are missing from my bottle of water. That's just a bottle of water, now imagine the number of atoms in the ocean, or in the sun. Something does not seem right with the "More than number of atoms in the universe" claim.