Perhaps by placing a lamp above the road...

The amount of money they offer for a reward only has to be high enough to make it worthwhile for someone who has information to come forward. The amount of money they lost in the attack is really irrelevant. It's not like they'll get that money back if there's a conviction.

According to the author, apparently "free-to-play" is a new business model. Funny, I've been playing "free-to-play" games for well over twenty years now; and back in the old shareware days it was fairly common to have a feature-limited free version that you had to upgrade to get the whole game.

Yes, some of the mechanics of ways to make money off of a free-to-play game have changed along with technology, but in concept things really haven't changed that much.

If you want the government to protect people from being fired for donating to a political campaign, then they should protect everyone, regardless of their job title or responsibilites. If you don't like the ramifications of that, then you should re-think whether the government should be offering this protection to anyone in the first place. But in this case, the benefits of the law probably outweigh the disadvantages.

That's not what the law says. And that's not what the law should say. If anyone is protected, then everyone should be.

I agree with that. They should get no more, nor no less, protection than any other person.

Of course a CEO is in a "special position". So what? He's still a person, and it is wrong to deny him the rights and protections given to everyone else.

Your argument is based on dehumanizing a class of people.

I'm not buying this argument. Just because some group may "need it less" doesn't mean that you should arbitrarily take those protections away from them. That's just an excuse to take away those rights, not a reason.

Yes, I am. Rights should apply to everyone, not just the people that you believe are worthy.

If you think that people shouldn't have the right to donate to a political cause without fear of reprisal from their employer, fine. But to give that right to some people and not others is wrong.

That's right! Human rights for all, except the humans I don't like!

Really, this story is just "Some idiot injured someone, and is now lying to try to dodge legal responsibilities." This happens every day; it's just "news" to slashdot because he used the magic word "hack."

Your sig is ironic since your opinion is quite bigoted. There is a great deal of pseudoscience belief on both sides of the isle. The left has irrational beliefs on nuclear power, GMO foods, etc. There was an article in the Washington Post about Democrats believing in horoscope and astrology more than Republicans/Independents: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Soylent News is probably a more realistic alternative to Slashdot than technocrat.net. One of the major problems with technocrat.net is that Bruce has already killed it a couple times in the past when he lost interest -- so why would people move there now?

Also, although Soylent News is using old Slashcode, it's still much more functional than the technocrat software.

Given that Bruce restarted Technocrat.net in response to the Great Slashdot Beta Uprising, this question is certainly not offtopic.

Good news! That already describes all of our astronauts.