In law words have very specific meanings, and whether or not particular ordinary layman definitions line up with those meanings is irrelevant in a legal context.

If the legal definition of insanity were equivalent to the layman's definition you propose, it would be impossible to convict anyone who committed such a crime. Anyone who did would automatically be not guilty by reason of insanity.

Do you have a source for that? My understanding is that Death Valley gets clouds, they just don't get a lot of rain because the clouds have already dumped most of their moisture on the Sierra Nevada.

Even if the claim is true, it just means someone needs to come up with an algorithm for ensuring that cloud-bits set to 0 end up over death valley at the appropriate times.

Based on the links in the article, there's an easy way to make sure it doesn't apply to most software. The critical point is 'self-replicating'. Most software is not self-replicating.

Of course, that's assuming you don't die first. ;)

Someday, you'll be responding to someone with a UID that's greater than times higher than yours ...

Every time Blizzard's response to an account being hacked is "get an authenticator", the only thing they are admitting that the user hasn't sufficiently secured data (the account password) that blizzard has no control over.

Sending a DMCA take down doesn't require having access to the video.

In the cases where it's a crime of passion with little or no planning, the police won't need a microstamp on the primer to tell who did it anyway.

Repeat forever
do
            turn left
            if wall ahead
            then turn right
            else move forward
            if wall ahead
            then turn right
            else move forward

We have two paragraphs.

One paragraph says "Web-based e-mail users can continue to access their e-mail at the Verizon Web site until Feb. 6. After that date, Fastiggi said users will need to log on to www.MyFairPoint.net. Customers then click on Web mail and type in their existing user name@myfairpoint.net and existing password."

That says, if your webmail was at Verizon, it's going to be at MyFairPoint.net

Now we have the next paragraph

"AOL, Yahoo! and MSN subscribers will continue to have access to content but will no longer be able to access their e-mail through the third party Web site. Instead, Yahoo! and other third party e-mail will be accessed directly at the MyFairPoint.net portal."

Why would the 'third-party website' be a back reference to the preceding paragraph, rather than to "AOL, Yahoo! and MSN" in the same sentence, when they are indeed third parties?

It may be that they're talking about 'we're moving whatever integrated AOL, Yahoo! and MSN stuff from the Verizon portal to our new one', but they certainly don't make it clear.

The employer can place whatever requirements for employment they like.

Sorry, but if the employment requirements break the law, the fact that those requirements are laid out in a contract doesn't matter at all.

In California, which is where Diskeeper is based, state law says the following:

(a) For an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color,
national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability,
medical condition, marital status, sex, age, or sexual orientation of
any person, to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to
select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to
bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training
program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person
in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

Forcing you to go to CoS classes as part of your terms of employment certainly seems at first glance to run afoul of California's FEHA at the very least, if not Federal law as well.

"shall be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress,
        and shall actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner." [emphasis added]

Reading that literally means that no matter how bad the harassment is, you still have to feel distressed in order to have them prosecuted, and the more distressed you "act," the more likely you are to succeed!

A couple of points here ->
    To some extent, distress is an effect of harassment. In that a specific kind of behavior may or may not be harassment depending on the circumstances. E.G., if I'm chasing my wife around the house, and she's giggling and laughing (this actually happens - we get silly), that is quite different that if I were chasing her around the house and she was screaming for me to stop (this has never happened). So if there's actually harassment, you would expect to see distress.

The second point is, the law here talks about "would cause a reasonable person". Under this law, if I'm walking down the street, and someone happens to be walking a block in front of me, I am not harassing that person even if they feel completely and horrendously violated by the fact that I'm walking a block behind them ... because no reasonable person would feel such just because a stranger happened to be walking a block behind them down the street in a fairly well populated area.

And I don't think people harming themselves would meet a 'reasonable person' standard, either. Although, it may be hard to show motive on the side of the self-harming person.