But this isn't about a right to privacy. If this was about a right to privacy, then whoever uncovered the information in the first place would be the target of legal action, not everybody talking about it. This is the age of the internet and vast, multinational communication. Trying to stop information that's already out there is just a lot of flailing about that's going to hurt a few people and have no real effect.

Whether we should care or not doesn't enter into it, because the laws he wants to use to silence everyone are the same ones politicians or other actually important public figures will use when we find out about things they don't want in the public.

I was mistaken then, my mistake. But although he has been charged, Manning still has yet to be convicted, and his incarceration certainly seems excessively harsh in a country where people are presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

Here's something to call into question Poulsen's integrity: Lamo has continued to make claims about what Manning told him and how Manning first contacted him. Some of these claims seem to be contradictory. Not only has Poulsen not released the remainder of the logs, he has so far refused to use them to fact-check Lamo's more recent accusations.

Greenwald's agenda is that Bradley Manning has been held in solitary confinement for seven months without yet being charged with a crime. The chat logs (which the federal government has copies of) may contain evidence that helps to exonerate Manning or to prove his guilt. Outside of Lamo, Poulsen, Manning, and the government, nobody knows.

However, Lamo has continued to make (sometimes conflicting) statements about what Manning has told him, and Poulsen refuses to so much as confirm or deny whether the logs support any of these statements.

Are these the same kids that just won't get off your lawn?

Or selling something.

Insurance, probably, based on the grandparent's post.

Not very low budgets. I mean, they've got to afford the surface-to-air missiles first. But after the missiles all they had left was enough to buy an iPhone, a two-year contract, and a $2 app.

And hopefully some lunch, because they're just gonna walk outside and wait until a plane shows up overhead in range, and they're gonna get hungry sitting there.

Maybe they speak English and read this from the article The programme, sold for just 1.79 pounds in the online Apple store, has now been labelled an 'aid to terrorists' by security experts and the US Department of Homeland Security

You need to finish reading sentences. The actual line reads, "The programme, sold for just 1.79 pounds in the online Apple store, has now been labelled an 'aid to terrorists' by security experts and the US Department of Homeland Security is also examining how to protect airliners."

That means security experts have called it an aid to terrorists, and that the DHS is looking into protecting airlines (which they're kind of always doing, since it's their job). It does not mean that DHS has called it an aid to terrorists.

Wrong again, rtb61. A mine in a poorer country that dumps toxic waste into a river is bad news. A modern mine, with all it's emission controls and neutralization processes is not. You really have to understand the difference between an open coal fire and highly emissions controlled one.

Just because a mine is modern and in a first world country doesn't mean it's clean and safe. I don't have any examples from precious metals on hand, but the BP gulf disaster, the continuing poor safety record of American underground coal mining, and mountaintop removal coal mining are all excellent examples.

Exactly. And if the tremors really were strong indicators of a following quake, everyone would only have to put their lives on hold for about a week or so. Maybe less if the quake comes soon!

"Spiritual" is the ultimate in content-free words when it comes to breakdowns like this. Lots of people like to say they're atheist or agnostic but still "spiritual," but I'd be surprised if more than one in five could clearly describe what they mean by that.

Do they mean they believe there's things in the universe we still don't understand? That's practically a given. Do they mean they think that certain things (life in general, self-aware life, etc) is "special" and should be accorded some extra respect? That's fine as an ethical position, but without attributing that specialness to something, it's another waste of a statement to call it spiritual.

This is Slashdot, so I think I'm required to not actually read the article, but a valid and informative followup question for this survey would have been for people who claim "spirituality" to try and explain that stance in an actual substantive way. If you say you're Evangelical or Catholic or Jewish or Humanist, those are descriptions with meaning and descriptive power. Saying you're spiritual doesn't mean a damn thing unless you explain it.

Three errors: First, I've always seen the conversion given as either 33 feet or 10 m (which is actually 32.8), never 33.7. Second, the actual pressure varies slightly based on temperature and salinity. Third, you forgot to add the 1 atmosphere from the surface. So even if your 33.7 is accurate, it'd be 149.4 and fails to account for local variability.

Fair use has nothing to do with trademarks, it's a doctrine of copyright law. GW may have a trademark on Warhammer, but not a copyright. If this fan site is republishing copyrighted materials (rulebooks, background documents, etc), then there may be an issue. But unless you're intentionally trying to confuse people into purchasing a competing product, there's nothing wrong with using a trademark regardless of whether you're a private citizen or a commercial entity.

Does Apple have the legal right to do this? Certainly, they do.

The point of stories like this is not to have Apple brought up on charges, but to educate the consumer. If I were a consumer considering a new smartphone (which I am), I'd be grateful for stories like this that document how buying an iPhone or iPad will lock me into a horribly restricted app environment.

Is it "censorship" in a strict legal sense? No, but do you have a better description that's more concise than "not permitting things that violate a license agreement onto things that are restricted in terms of what they can load?"

Yes, actually. If you think he's a danger to society, throw him in jail. Don't let him out with some kind of ridiculous restrictions on what technology he can use and where he can live.

In South Florida, where I used to live, nearly every municipality had passed ordinances restricting registered sex offenders from living within certain distances of parks, schools, daycares, etc. To the point where there was basically nowhere for these people to live. They either had to abandon their families and leave the area (For where? Many other areas have similar restrictions.) or live under a bridge.

Seriously. There's large numbers of sex offenders living under bridges in the Miami area because there's nowhere else for them to live. Their parole officers know they're there, some of them have family that brings by food and supplies, etc.

These are people that the government has deemed to dangerous to live near places children congregate, but not dangerous enough that we need to keep them in prison. So they're homeless. And from the bridge, many of them simply give up and disappear. Off the radar. Gone. Poof. Living somewhere we don't know.

It's ridiculous. Either they're a danger to society or not. Make up your mind.