"If you define "crime" properly, pretty much _everything_ anybody does on the Internet is criminal."

Well said, and correct, Anonymous poster. "Criminal" has no meaning, or any meaning they wish.

In Russia, criticizing the Orthodox Church will see them slam you in prison, and calling out Putin as a pedo will get you and half a restaurant radioactively poisoned with polonium, which only comes from government nuclear reactors.

In Israel, trying to leave your ghetto may get you killed, tortured, or dumped in prison, or all three.

In Saudi Arabia, pretty much anything is "criminal" (except, of course, anything royals choose to do, including creating and running Al Qaida).

Everything and nothing is a crime. Bedspreads are golden sprinkler cookie clowns. See? So much fun when words mean nothing at all.

That's what I always thought but here in New Zealand, avoiding tax is also illegal. Any mechanism designed solely to reduce one's legal tax liability is considered to be unlawful avoidance of tax and punishable as such.

Don't you love the way that governments put the collection of taxes above all else -- giving the IRS and their equivalent more power than any other arm of the state.

Fox News never showed the 60,000+ Iraqis we incinerated, shot, and crushed to death. Nor the burnt and mangled children and adults who survived our attacks. Or the prison camps, mostly holding people who we felt like might be a problem - and who are probably still in the camps. If you wanted to cover such things, you could go to hell, as far as the military was concerned. People died finding truth while Fox's old draft avoiding men and MILFy women pseudonewspeople in tight skirts sat in air-conditioned studios and made. Shit. Up.

And in another decade, that system is overwhelmed, and in two more decades, useless. Population growth problems expand geometrically, not linearly. Too many people in too little space trying to do things as their great-great-great-grandparents did on the open prairies and mountainsides. No matter what is done, in one or two generations it is overcome again. You have to shoot where the bird is gonna be, not where it is - solutions that solve your generation's problem will be a disaster to a future generations who are much more numerous, not to mention their proclivities to consume more each year.

Can't overpopulate and not expect consequences. The complications arrive on a hockey-stick curve, as geometric growth is *not* linear. The complexity of the structure to support that population builds slowly, then accelerates rapidly - and finally cannot be sustained. And as taxes don't expand geometrically, the lines cross and infrastructure failure commences. And that already happened; we can't - or won't- raise enough money to fix the aggregate and growing backlog of repair of structures our grandparents started. And perhaps shouldn't - open roads and suburbs made sense when there were a hundred million people. A half-billion people will grind the flow to a halt - and their very presence makes it nearly impossible to expand existing roads or train lines. We could: 1) keep pretending 1950 will last forever, and fail. 2) increase taxes and become ferocious about emminent domain and build the train lines we need whereever they need to be. 3) learn to tunnel cheaply and extensively and build out underground 4) fly 5) control population growth and the hell that comes with it when it achieves orbital velocity, as it is now - accept a slow rollback period while supporting a gigantic population of aging people for a few decades, then a stable, smaller population could be sustained at the level of expenditure we care to support (expenditure not being just money - we expend wildlife and ecologies to expand our numbers).

America declared overpopulation a solved problem - because it can't do math. Nothing can grow forever in a closed system.

Careful. He'll "shuuussshhhh" you, (adults are speaking). Or is that just female reporters?

And gets you a pile of dead people and mutated viruses back on the march. Viruses don't care about market forces.

Astounding - every post labelling Christie as an idiot has been modded down to zero and below.

He IS a total fucking idiot.

And Republicans are now out of mod points.

Never disappoints, this moron. He'll go to the wall for the stoopid. Envy, greed, arrogance, vengeance, ignorance, and a willingness to pander for fools.
Happy measles epidemics, everyone.

Someone will always be smarter than you, no matter how many layers of security you pile on. Don't let your car be opened remotely. I guess we'll all have to learn the hard way not to give up control of our own property for a handful of glittery dust.

I started out admiring disruptive tech. As the years rolled on, I noted that computation and networking were no longer under our control; we've no choice in how we are connected, nor to which computers we use, for instance in cases such as these. The motivation for change is to make more money, first, and next to improve surveillance and control. Convenience is just a by-broduct.
I see no reason to not-use a key to open my door. At least the thief has to be physically present to break into a mechanical locked door. Networked computers will never be secure, not when backdoors are mandated by manufacturers and cops of all sorts. And those backdoors will be in the hands of crooks in months if not hours. Hell, the crooks are finding the backdoors the cops-of-all-sorts then use themselves.
Waiting on my Elio. eliomotors.com Back to the future. K.I.S.S.
And hey, it's possible to build a mechanically locked door no AAA locksmith can open. It's just that we WANT to be able to break into our own cars, if necessary. The key words being "we" and "our own".