Apparently all Childs had to do was give the mayor the passwords. Perhaps it has to be done in writing and in person to limit the possibility of social engineering. (I don't know the specifics of the policy.)

However, mayors have busy schedules, so this probably wasn't very convenient. This doesn't entirely explain why they threw him in jail, though.

I'm trying to envision the conversation here between the new boss and Childs.

Police: We can make it all go away, Mr. Ander-uh, Childs. Give you a fresh start. Just work with us here.
Childs: How about I give you the finger *flip*, and you give me my phone call?

I'm guessing Childs was less than diplomatic about his refusal to hand the passwords over. It was probably fun at the time, but after 7 months in jail I'm guessing he regrets it. (I would)

I do agree that the treatment he has received does NOT justify the apparent "crime" but nevertheless this is a good lesson for the kids here:

Don't be an asshole. You might find out you're pissing off a bigger one.

What we need now is for someone to figure out a clever, original way to prove the entire patent system is broken and being abused. And then patent that method.

Yet another company bows to censorship in the name of money. (Yes, Opera is freeware, but Opera Software is a for-profit company)

Capitalism follows no ethical model; it simply isn't profitable.

The submitter was taking issue with the site's layout, not the content. There is nothing juvenile about pointing out when a site has too many ads.

This would work if webmasters would stick with a reasonable number of ads, and avoid the really intrusive full-screen hijackers or constant content interrupters.

But by and large, they don't, so I block all ads, and will continue to do so until people can learn to control their greed.

Yes, running a site costs money. If you're not willing to front that cost, don't run a site, period. Being a webmaster isn't something you do to become rich, and the few that manage to do that are the exception, not the rule.

This has been a gray area for a long time now. Since taxes are tied to physical locations, the Internet has always been problematic in that it is (more or less) all encompassing.

I do agree that this looks like more of the "rich taking from the poor" again. Most online purchases are small, as in, in the realm of a few hundred dollars or less. In the future I could see taxes being collected on large purchases, say, for those totaling $1000 or more, but getting tied up in taxing micro-transactions is often more trouble than its worth.

I think the primary reason this hasn't been a bigger issue is because e-commerce in general has been a huge cash cow for lots of businesses.

Throwing money at the problem won't make it go away. It'll just make the middlemen richer. The problem is more of distribution than it is of volume.

And this would be a perfect example of why teachers need to be paid more.

The judge didn't agree it was libelous; there is a difference between defamation and satire.

Citations, please.

In any case, I think it's time to quit waving your copy of 1984 and calm down. A case such as this is hardly a threat to "the rights of everyone". Some unwise fellow made a rude comment about a public figure, and might get called out for it. This is neither surprising, nor a big deal. I would be much more concerned if he'd actually had anything constructive to say about the political situation. Tossing insults doesn't constitute a useful contribution to the climate.

Metamoderation bites again. Obviously the person that modded me "Troll" took offense.

Anyway, how is suggesting immaturity as a basis for holding such a distorted viewpoint an insult? It's a completely valid assertion given the whole "freedom of speech" fallacies that are common these days.

Or would you like to claim that people that like to yell "FIRE!" in a movie theater and then claim "1st amendment lets me say that" as a defense are mature individuals? Maybe "your mom" jokes are funny and appropriate when used as a substitute for having an actual argument of substance?

Yes, because that works so wonderfully. The economy is.....oh, wait. Deregulation is widely responsible for the current situation.

But no, let's have a completely open and unregulated system. The greedy can be trusted to not break it. Really. I mean, look at the banks.

The problem I have with the dominant libertarian viewpoint around here is that too many are assuming everyone thinks exactly like them. This just in: People do not all think alike. Some don't even think at all.

But yeah, a completely open system is a great idea. Let's all just do whatever we want.

Mod this guy up, original thought here!!!

Rules of the sense of humor:

1. Very subjective.
2. Know your audience.
3. Use responsibly.

I think it's funny when people think "freedom of speech" means "I can say whatever I want to anyone, anytime, anywhere, and they can't stop me." You're very mistaken if you believe this. (And most probably, also very immature)

Now you're straying from the original topic. It's all right though, clearly arguing with you is pointless.

It's called an API, and I know well of it. Those things exist for Windows because of the reason I stated above. If Linux/Macintosh had the userbase, rest assured the APIs would spring up for them as well.