The teenager shot many of his victims in the head with his father's legally registered pistol.

This shows the gun registration laws work! If only we made it illegal to shoot people in the first place, all our problems would be solved. Oh wait...

The whole "illegal enemy combatant" thing is immoral regardless of whether the "attacks" are physical attacks or just attempts made to disrupt digital communications.

They do have a point though - communications infrastructure is very important both for the economic wellbeing of the country, and to allow other branches of the military to coordinate and defend the country.

There really shouldn't be any reason to not consider traditional armed responses to digital attacks. People can cause damage. A teenage hacker may not have the same violent intent as a suicide bomber or a rogue nation plotting a traditional war, but that doesn't stop them from doing something malicious with serious repercussions.

It sounds good in theory, but like the parent, I also look at our country's history of using good judgment in situations like this, and worry.

Wow, I was originally going to criticize all the early commentators in this thread for not reading what was actually written in the patent application. But after reading it, I agree with all the jokes that were made here. The patent really just describes a user interface for specifying meeting lengths. I can't imagine that anyone at the USPTO actually read this. How embarassing.

From the article: Customers want to know that they are using the genuine high-quality Microsoft product they paid for

People are going to be shocked when they discover that the version of Windows 7 they acquired through a Torrent site (at $0 cost) isn't genuine.

You're absolutely right most of the time, but there is the odd lawyer out there with morals. One that may actually recommend something that is in your own best interest, instead of theirs. If you can manage to find one of those, you've found a resource for life!

So it sounds like we agree that there are some things that don't fall under free speech - threats and conspiracies to commit crimes. I completely agree with that, and I think that this bill goes way too far (trying to "protect peoples feelings", as I said in reply to an earlier post). ...but that's how I see the world. Some people, such as an earlier poster, appear to think that all speech should be valid - even threats. Other people, such as the author of this bill, seem to think that things like name calling should be a crime.

I think this bill goes too far by trying to "protect peoples feelings". In my opinion, that's an infringement on free speech. But I also don't think people should be able to say whatever they want without consequences. Like you point out, if you say you're going to commit a crime, that could be interpreted as evidence that you're going to commit that crime. ...but that's just my opinion.

As written, I think this bill infringes on "free speech". But I don't think people should be allowed to say anything they want without consequences. At some point, hate speech can be interpreted as a real threat, and people have the right to defend themselves against real threats.

There's always a fine line where free speech "goes to far". I think this bill is trying to clarify that line by imposing penalties. The bill restricts itself to situations:

"with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person"

The common argument is that free speech should always be free, no matter what. This bill goes against that by trying to establish some limits on free speech.

...but should someone be allowed to say they want to kill all members of [group X]? If so, do members of [group X] have the right to take that threat seriously and act accordingly by pre-emptively defending themselves against the threat?

Yeah for sure, it's certainly not going to be equivalent to an xbox 360, or even a wii. ...but apple has proven that there's money to be made in very casual games that you may pick up for 20 minutes a day during a subway ride or while waiting at the dentist. People have shown that they're interested in being entertained in that casual sort of way.

It's definitely not as glamorous as a PS3, but they're a completely different market.

I can see some potential here. The iPhone as a gaming platform has been proven in the market already. There are a number of small developers selling games for the iPhone. Probably not because the iPhone is a great platform, but because people are willing to pay small amounts to amuse themselves while they're on the subway or waiting somewhere, and they happen to have their iPhone on them. It's like a Nintendo DS that's smaller and you always have with you - it's a convenience thing. Game developers realized this, and the apple store made it easy to distribute products. A small bit of attention to make the device more game-friendly could make it even more attractive for developers to target this platform.

I think this line is especially fitting: "The Commodore 8-bit crowd is the computer world's analogy to old-time Volkswagen bug fanciers in the car world..." Just because a technology or a product is outdated, it doesn't mean that people won't fancy it for one reason or another. A Commodore certainly isn't the most powerful computer out there anymore, but people probably still like it for the same reason they like the old-time Volkswagen beetles - it reminds them of their youth, a time when things were better than they are now, or perhaps they just haven't bothered to move on and see new things the world can offer.

This is really a great interview. It's a bit long, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading the whole thing. I loved hearing about his escapades with the sheets of $2 bills.