At slashdot, we know of one way only. Nuke it from orbit. The only way to be sure.

Extremely myopic.

Government pays for the police, that not only will arrest people going to an Apple Store with guns and taking whatever they want, but also prevent other people from running their own police. This made it possible for Apple (or many successful companies) to come into existence in the first place, otherwise the energies that are now directed towards making nice goods and services would get consumed by everyone fighting among each other.

Sandbox is no reason to prevent a user click on a number in the sandboxed application from asking the user if he wants to call that number. At all.

Since the sandboxed application is capable of using a framework provided, or operating system provided tool to present information to the user, it is easy for the framework / operating system to figure that directly that the user clicked on the number. Rather than the application telling the framework that the user clicked on the number. The latter would have been a violation of the sandbox, not the former.

Nice example. The way you suggest to make the law "fair" is to make it enormously complicated (list every animal). There is a simple way, that really removes the loophole - "if an animal trainer's animal injures a viewer, the trainer must compensate the injured viewer < insert 3-10 classes of injury that every constitution has defined in other sections, and corresponding penalty.>"

Since you kind of assumed a circus scenario, I didn't cross the limits, but it is in general useless to make laws specific so circuses. One would rather say "if any entertainment performance hurts the viewer ...". A separate law for entertainment makes sense because the intent of the viewer in entertainment setting is completely different from, say, an employment setting.

The politicians (at least the bureaucrats who do the actual drafting of laws) know perfectly well how to make simple and real fair laws, and how to overcomplicate to scratch someone's back. They choose to do the latter not out of incompetence as the naive would assume.

You're proposing to go about it completely the wrong way. Loopholes are removed by simplifying the law, not complicating it. At least that is the only sustainable way to do it.

Problem with simplifying is that it steps on someone's toes who paid a lot to get a particular complication into the law.

Yes, but then the BES keys have been handed over to the government by the company running the BES server. The attack vector doesn't include Blackberry (erstwhile RIM) in this case. Run your own BES, don't hand over keys (if you can) to the government and there is no attack vector. That is what is being discussed.

Click on the phone number in the email / text (not sure of bbm). Confirm that you want to call the number. Call.

Stop doing that. You have already sustained enough brain damage that you have stopped posting coherently.

You'd be surprised how many parents love McDonald's food. And "not loving" is not remotely comparable to "having a yuck factor for" as far as eating or introducing their kids to eating something.

Which is completely irrelevant - as the UN cannot be hoping to "introduce" bug eating in cultures where it is already prevalent.Logic 101 disaster.

All statements here are obviously applicable to only cultures where knowingly eating bugs is NOT accepted yet.

Your statement "McDonald's added sugar, fat and salt to dress up poor quality food in a way that kids (and some adults) love. Why wouldn't that work with bugs?" wasn't clear what in all these nouns is being compared to bugs. NONE of the nouns in the statement are comparable to bugs in the strength of the yuck factor they evoke, so even if you compared bugs with any of the other nouns here, it is all equally colossally wrong.

But your comparison of McDonald's with bugs was clear. And colossally wrong too. Mentioning for the fifth time - McDonald's doesn't evoke the yuck factor with a strength remotely comparable to bugs. You yourself admit that "some parents" love McDonald's food. None of them love bugs. Also proven by the number of people eating food there in bug-incompatible cultures as compared to the number of people eating and feeding kids bugs. And for the second time - cultural acceptability, taste, and nutrition are all incomparable between bugs and McDonald's.

In case you get lost again - bug compatible compatible cultures are not being discussed. At all.

Actually your choice of McDonald's for comparison already reeks of all this. And of your ignorance of the fact that bug yuck factor applies to much more of the world than the Americas.

It would, of course, be futile to tell you I've never set foot in the Americas, or that all your comparisons of bugs with McDonald's in the thread were in present or even past tense. So go ahead and change the nature of the discussion to one of an unknown future as it is the easiest recourse for you.

Many? Ok, compare the number of people eating and feeding their kids at McDonald's ; with the number of people eating bugs and feeding their kids bugs. You'll know how many people have the yuck factor for bugs versus McDonald's.

Then why are they being compared to bugs, which have the yuck factor?

Yes because, as I said earlier, McDonald's doesn't have yuck factor, bugs do. So parents introduce kids to McDonald's, not to bugs.

In comparing the incomparables, McDonald's and bugs? One much less nutritious, more tasty, more culturally accepted than the other? In utterly failing to understand the yuck factor?

Sugar, fat and salt have "yuck" factor? That is being discussed here if you read the thread.

Nobody is saying there is any reason kids can't be introduced. But someone needs to. Who will introduce the non-orphan kids? The "yucked out" parents?

Rather than fighting the "yuck" factor of grown-ups, McDonald's attracted everyone with the cheap, "tasty" food. That is not going to work with bugs.

I did bullshitting with Age-of-Empires during my engineering degree course too. I can't even hold a job.