I had an unprofessional relationship with my spouse for more than 2 years before we ever had sex. And I can definitely tell you I gave her preferential treatment more than a couple months before we ever had intercourse. In my experience sex wouldn't be the first sign of a relationship.

He didn't write an article specifically written as a review of her game. What he did was write an article about how there were thousands or more new indie games. Then in that article he said that her game, was the big standout and the only graphic in the article was for her game. That isn't exactly a review but it sure is a ringing endoresment. And while that can sound like nothing of consequence a mention like that on some of these gaming related news sites can make or break a game in a huge way. Just look at how Minecraft went from something no one had heard of to an incredible success in the course of a single weekend, arguably because of a silly web comic.

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

I see the words "objectivity", "mpartiality", and "fairness" all included as part of the second paragraph as common parts of established journalistic codes. I'm pretty sure when you have had a sexual relationship those are going to be very difficult things to maintain when speaking about that person or their work. I wouldn't actually expect anyone to say in their article "We shagged and they were awful in the sack, but the video game was pretty great." I would instead expect the journalist to either state that they had a more than professional relationship with that person, or most likely just abstain from writing about them or their game. He should have told his Editor that he had a non-professional relationship with her and had someone else write any articles regarding her or her work, or including plugs for her work.

It helps that the coals for firewalking are typically ashed over nicely. The ash actually serves as a pretty decent short term insulator. If you just blew the ash off the coals I imagine it would be a very different experience.

So TFS says that the accusations regarding Zoe Quinn were false. I hadn't heard this bit yet, is the article linked to actually confirmation of that? Sorry, I'd read the articles for myself but work filters are a PITA. The last I had heard was that the guy who writes for RPS and Kotaku had confirmed their sexual relationship.

I honestly don't care about her sex life or lack there of. The only thing of interest to me is a "journalist" possibly sleeping with a person with whom he should have a more professional relation ship with, and not disclosing that fact when making mention of her work, whether positive or negative.

Again bullshit.

Again, their is no need for a "right to privacy", we inherently posses all and any rights not explicitly forbidden in the law or granted to the various Governments to which we are subject. The Constitution is an explicit listing of powers or rights that the Federal Government and it's agents may posses. They are not granted any more authority than is explicitly listed in the Constitution and whatever other laws we've passed. You could argue that some of this might be covered under the questionable patriot law clause, but that is more and more tenous by the day.

Intent and method matters when you are talking about communications, otherwise there would be nothing illegal about wiretapping any phone conversation. You are essentially arguing that just because you had a conversation using a STU in a fortified bunker in an old mineshaft that there is nothing wrong as a private citizen tapping that line, cracking the encryption, and doing whatever they want with it. Or say a voyeur installing their own airport type scanner in a public walkway of some sort disguised as something else, I mean nobody is bothering to even encrypt the radiation they are emitting or reflecting. Just because they wouldn't expect anyone to be able to see or detect that, or even know it's possible, their can't possibly be anything wrong.

And speaking of radiation. I would wager that these towers are also in violation of any number of FCC Regulations on the use of radio frequencies. The frequencies that are used by cell phones are very lucrative and are leased on an exclusive basis. These towers are very likely using bandwidth that is already leased to some other entity. Remember they aren't just listening they have to be broadcasting or the cellphones would never actually establish a connection with them.

So far as the DMCA goes, it is a law, as far as I know it applies to everyone unless they are explicitly exempted. According to the DMCA it doesn't matter how weak the encryption you are using is. Deliberately dycrypting something which you have not been explicitly authorized for is a violaiton and hacking of some sort or another.

The mailbox is exactly like radio transmissions it is just visible from a longer range and using a naturally visible frequency. When I put something in the mailbox it is continuously available to anyone who has the gumption to open the box and open the envelope. When you put a letter in an envelope and seal it, it is then obvious to anyone that it is private and not intended for anyone to read but the receipient listed on the envelope, doubly so if it's one of those 'security' envelopes. But the actual physical protection on that letter is still actually incredibly weak, my two year old frequently opens my mail for me. The same should be logically true for encrypted radio transmissions. Just because it is trivial to break does not justify deliberately doing so. And by virtue of those transmissions being in specifically leased frequency ranges they have an expected receipient, which is whoever the wireless provider is that leased the band and signed the contract with the end user. If the mailman accidentally, or even deliberately delivers my mail to your mailbox you are not legally allowed to just open it and read my correspondence.

As a private citizen I do not need an explicit recitation of rights, the only things I need explicitly stated are things that I may not do. The Government and its many agencies and agents does require an explicit grant of rights in the law to perform their duties. That is pretty much the entire point of our Constitution.

It's bullshit and illegal simply under the 4th and probably under the DMCA. The article specifically mentions that they are using technical means to break the basic encryption of cell calls. When someone uses a cell phone to send a communication and it is encrypted they clearly intend it as a private communication. Deliberately intercepting that communication, breaking the encryption, and then doing who knows what with it is clearly a violation of the 4th. And by breaching the seal of that communication by breaking the encryption they have likely violated the DMCA. The fact that the communication happens via radio signal is of no consequence, when I mail a private letter I put it in my mail box for the carrier to pick up, with the red flag in the raised position. Anyone within a hundred yards can see that I have posting a communication, if they remove that letter, open it, read it, reseal the envelope and put it back they have broken the law.

On top of all of that, we don't need a "right of privacy" as the constitution is a set of laws explicitly listing what the government may do. It is not an explicit listing of citizens rights. Where in the constitution does it spell out that the government, or any entity may establish an automated system to intercept, record, and possibly alter private communications of thousands, possibly millions, of citizens without warrant or notification?

Ummm bullshit. Typically Police are actually not exempt from laws like speed limits. However since a police officer is unlikely to ticket himself or another cop it just doesn't come up. I've never actually seen a law that exempted law officers from being at fault in accidents caused by their breaking traffic laws, in fact I have seen exactly the opposite when I studied to be an officer myself. Even if the laws for electronics usage explicitly permits police officers to use them it does not exempt them from the laws about maintaining proper control of their vehicle and killing people out of negligence. I wouldn't give a damn whether or not the Deputy is ticketed for using an electronic device while operating a motor vehicle. I do however care that the Deputy negligently operated a motor vehicle in such a way that he committed vehicular manslaughter, that is a criminal charge that absolutely fits.

... And nobody gave a flying monkeys uncle. If a corporation decides to conduct business and expend capital buying assets, or bringing assets into any country that crap is then subject to the laws of that country. It isn't up to individual countries to make sure that their laws all coincide nicely for the pleasure of some corporation. I don't have any pity for companies that start here in the USA and then go to other countires and expect special treatment from either country.

Honestly letting a person control the vehicle because a wild animal shows up in the road way is stupid. I've seen my mother nearly drive off the road and hit trees any number of times to avoid a stupid squirrel, dog or cat. The correct answer is to slow down to avoid the collision if possible and reduce damage and injuries regardless. If there is room to avoid the animal while staying on the pavement then the automated car will no doubt be able to handle that manuever infinitely better than a human driver, as it will be able to respond and analyze the situation impossibly faster than a human can even react, let alone think.

So far as what areas should be authorized first. I would think that the interstates and free ways would make the most sense. They represent the simplest of environments for automated cars and the safest of conditions. That also makes the most monotonous part of long drives easier to handle, and hence safer. When they can handle unmapped roadways at some reasonable fraction of the speed limit you let them go there.

I'm still using a wood handled paring knife my Mother was using before I was born. It went through a rough patch when one of my brothers used it to cut a live power cord. But my Father ground the notch out of the blade and put a new edge on it, good as new.

I haven't played any of the Battlefield games so I can't say for sure. But if it's like Wolfenstein was I can understand not having any character customization choices in the single player story mode as the story was written with a particular character in mind. However when you start talking about multiplayer where you are just pitting generic player vs generic player then I agree that there isn't much reason to not allow all sorts of customization.

I don't object to games offering custimization options regardless of it's genre and method of story telling, or even lack of story. I would just rather see a developer put more time into actually making a game that is fun to play in a mechanics fashion than making it into a dress up simulator. But I recognize that a dress up simulator is all or part of what some people want in a game, that is their choice and I've got no cause to tell them what they can and can't have in a game I didn't write. I just think it's silly to expect developers to build games that always take a specific set of players preferences into consideration over another.

The solution is to use and enforce EO's like they are supposed to be. Orders to the various federal troops, which are still bound and restricted by the laws of the land. Interpreting them as law should definitely be stopped. Removing them entirely though would mean that the President would not be able to formally control his branch of the government.

Full character customization only makes sense to me in a sandbox style game or where you actually have branching stories and such that let you as the player create the story. Most games however are made to be very linear and are telling a story, and it's not your story, it's the story of that character. No one complains about not being able to customize the look of a character in a movie after all.

I agree that this kind of behaviour is wrong and should be discouraged by power of law. However I can not agree with a "zero tolerance" policy as that kind of thing always ends up being a disaster one way or another. So far as this case goes it does seem a little silly to abandon your home if it was only a single death threat, although the inclusion of a home adress puts it up a notch.

I'd really like to see more troll exposing shows on TV and such. I've seen some clips where reporters have gone after people who posted what they thought were anonymous insults and threats. I think it'd make a good Cops type show.