I would like to argue that people being rational can murder. You could argue that if somebody with the capability to kill knew that somebody had plans to/was causing harm (though not illegal) and also knew that the effort needed to stop them was rather significant and/or require too much time, committing murder would be a rational choice to stop harm. But this is going to extremes isn't it?

Otherwise, you do make a pretty good point. Gun control isn't about stopping those with enough commitment/desire to do evil, it's about stopping the impulsive. The other question we can ask is how far do we want to go towards stopping them vs inconveniencing law-abiding citizens vs what else can we do to solve the issue. It could be argued that what seems to be little effort has been made towards solving the issue with impulsive people without inconveniencing impulsive people through mental healthcare services, while there seems to be a rather big backing towards inconveniencing law-abiding citizens for the sake of what seems to be a few impulsive people. Not to mention that improving mental healthcare would also help on a wide range of issues such as depression, anxiety, stress, various disorders.

Sadly, I do not possess facts about how much is the budget for mental health care, and the whole issue of stopping impulsive people vs inconveniencing law-abiding citizens is entirely subjective and completely pointless to argue (although most can be reasonable and accept background and medical checks to avoid certain cases of violence with guns).

Just curious, but when did Google said they would be uploading the photos to their servers. Or rather, when did they say it was going to be that way because YES? Surely you'd be able to store it in local memory and at the end of the day check them/delete them/upload them to where you want, no? Just like any other camera?

Not to say there won't be those that will take and upload, but I'm asking about the possibility of using it, you know, as a non-connected camera?

That, and how different is it from somebody pulling their camera, taking the photo, and uploading it without asking you? That you saw them? That you know they did?

As far as I know, the problem with it is the lack of metal. Thus, introducing metal into the weapon so that it becomes detectable should make the weapon legal. IANAL.

Manufacturing your own guns is not illegal in the US, as long as you don't sell it nor produce certain forbidden pieces/materials.

To be honest, we already are at surveillance society. It just is in the form of twitter/facebook updates. In the form of a blog update talking about this or that. Apparently people have the sensibility of not disclosing identities, and while it is easier to just post a picture or a recording... I'm sure that (if you have hope in humanity) people will frown upon doing that. Just like we frown upon bringing a camera inside the bathroom (unless you want to take a photo there, and everyone present agrees) outside of an opaque case.

That is not to dismiss your concerns. I wouldn't want to live in a society where I'd have to hide -- regardless of cameras. I'd like to live in a society where even if there is somebody walking around with a Google glass and I'm recorded coming out of X, and even if he did upload it somewhere, nobody would care I did. That not everyone follows the same moral code and that what they think is questionable may not be for others and it's up to the individual to decide their actions and up to others to judge him.

Who knows. Maybe it would have. I honestly don't know where the newsworthiness comes in this case: the fact that it's a Boston TV API programming contest, or that a girl won. I'd bet the former, but in today's context the latter may have helped a bit.

Ah! So then it's all about whether or not the buyer can live with the knowledge that they helped a cause they disagree with, and completely unrelated to what they're paying for. As long as they are making a conscious decision.

Thanks for answering!

So in theory they could write: We're going to sell it/share it with [company], and be on the clear? Or am I thinking too little and the other company would also have to state what they do with such personal information?

Wait. Enlighten me. You mean I can't write the next: I'll store all personal information you send me. I may sell it, analyze it, share it, simply store it, change it, format-shift it, clean my *** with it, laugh at it, preserve it as my most dear possession, etc? You mean I can't do that?

Because it seems to me that is quite clear on the intent of the company: I may use it for anything. Or you mean companies would have to add to their TOS that they may use it for: [insert long list of things], and update it every single time they come up with a new idea? And IIRC if costumers don't like the new TOS then the company would be forced to delete anything they have on the costumer?

If I'm right... I think that's very bad for the companies. And not a real win for costumers, since most don't bother to read TOS unless there is a headline...

So those who want to own the books are torn between supporting his cause (and not his work, because the money goes to him and he does whatever he wants with it which does not necessarily include supporting his art) or not owning them? At least this is what I gather from your point of view... (Gifts do not count since those had to be bought by somebody, and thus would amount to buying them. Printing them on your own doesn't either, because it's a) not the book; b) considered ethically questionable/illegal).

Did I understand your position correctly?

I am, for one, planning on buying the books (I bought Ender's Game while knowing he was the way he was) because I want to read them and own them. The author can hold his views that I'll hold mine. His works? I've liked what I've experienced so far.

As long as the demo is representative of gameplay. And this means that tutorials ARE NOT representative of your gameplay (unless your game is a tutorial, but then you're doing something wrong).

Please note I have not obtained by legal means or otherwise the game, and thus I am not referring to their demo.

Let us all remember that since we are on the Internet, some kind of guide is bound to appear and be searchable through google. Such guide will show you how to bypass the filter (bypassing localhost filters anyone?) and with enough word of mouth teenagers will be all over them. I mean, in my high school, facebook was blocked (or at least they tried to). My classmates found a way around it, and a rather simple one (I believe they used google cache and exploited the lack of blanket filter on facebook.com/*). Who says the same thing won't happen with porn?

Regardless, I see no problem with the ban. It's public wi-fi, and you can get a vpn/proxy easy enough :|

See, you ruined the whole argument by mentioning college. Otherwise you have a great point (I'm not sure about lockdowns becoming common, although that is certainly a possibility) that there are a lot more cases (dog bites killing people) that generate more damage if we consider them as a group than... shark attacks that while individually are relatively destructive (more than dog bites) as a group are less than the other. Which is also the argument of those against legislation against some firearms, those that want legalization of certain drugs (arguing that alcohol, considered a drug, causes the death of many more people than some recreational drugs currently considered illegal) and some other cases I forget.

Me? I'd like to see both dog bites and shark attacks gone. Not just the shark attacks.

Considering you can carry around the necessary equipment for setting up said LAN party, and you could play inside a tent, I believe it is not breaching said definition. The simple shelter (ie the building as it says in the quote) could be made out of wood to cover your head, and then you just put your things inside it that you can use.

Now, I wouldn't bring my laptop/console if I went camping, but by that definition bringing it or not does not make any difference in that it is camping.

Sure, the average american may not lose internet for more 3 days a year on average. But I see two obvious problems with your reasoning: first one is that if you target the average american that has an Internet connection that works for all year but 3 days, then you won't be targetting those that don't have Internet (but may want a console) and those that have one, yet it's spotty/unusable to play online/drops a lot, like say, satellite connections or in rural areas (and I happen to know one such case in the US [I don't reside there], and I know of another case where the service is generally bad during the day [outside of US]). The second problem is that console manufactures and the game makers to those consoles aren't targetting only US either, and I'm not sure you want to take into account the Internet access or up-time on the whole world, as it would not look as "only 3 days in a year average" anymore, but probably more.