"educational use" is one of the fair use reasons, but applying US fair use to a Latvian action would be silly. Do they even have fair use in Latvia?

He didn't get no edumacation.

Lost me at WBC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WBC Still no clue which is being referred to on this point.

"As a lawyer, I find your post annoying and incorrect to the point that Frosty Piss (770223) would likely win a lawsuit against you. I *highly* recommend you remove your post or edit it before Frosty takes action."

There's no threat in there. There's nothing in there actionable for any reason. Even "I find your comments to be so obscene as to be illegal" wouldn't be actionable. Now I'm curious enough, I may have to read the letter in this case. I've seen hundreds, and they are all similarly vague and without meaning. You might as well ask a CIO what he thinks about software as a service in the cloud.

That's not how threatening letters work. Threatening letters are there to scare, and I didn't read this specific one, but the sweatshop lawyers writing them generally have a better grasp of legal than some Internet A/C. It has no weight, and not a reason for action against the lawyer.

There's no harm to clicking the button as described. If it is taken down after the first 100 clicks, then yes, it's slander of title, but if it's not automatic, then there's no harm.

Well, I may have been thinking about "regulations" in general. more than 10 times the actual law is the secret private law. "Must comply with NECA regulations" doesn't sound like an unreasonable law at first, until you realize that NECA recognizes its monopoly stance and restricts access to the "law", charges for it, and changes it regularly. The same with IRS regulations. They have force of law, but do not pass the same legal process.

If they just passed a law that all rules or otherwise with force of law must be read aloud in Congress before they take effect, then that would limit the number of bad laws, and laws in general.

You are incorrectly guessing my "interest". Why? Why make incorrect assumptions about my "interests", when you could just ask, rather that guessing wrong (lying) and making up straw men to prove someone else wrong? I've never said anything that indicates I think the tax code (or laws in general) shouldn't be simple. Since you seem to have proof otherwise, I'd like you to present it. Otherwise, I'll dismiss you as an internet arguer who makes up shit to prove strangers wrong who have no care what you think or why.

I can't post the video because I wasn't recording. Your "I don't believe you because you guessed my personal bias so well and made it look petty, so I'm going to disregard everything you say" argument is actually amusing. Proof I didn't do it is that I used the proof that I did do it (you forget, I have proof, as I was there, but I can't share that proof easily).

But yes, rarely does a thread go by where I don't indicate I'd like Google Glass (specifically for traffic recording, but it has other uses as well), without getting one violent threat against me, and your post was very heavy on the "comply with social norms or I'll mock you" scale. You sound like an elementary school bully.

Why are people so much more against google glass than the same features in other things? I was friends with my high school videographer, and he had a videocamera. He went everywhere with it for months. Into people's houses and such. Even into stores and such. Almost nobody complained.

But on Slashdot, "OMFG, something new, fear the tech, avoid the tech, hate the tech" Woo hoo, bring on the 1500s!

You don't hang around enough rude salesmen. They are always talking, too loudly, and in inappropriate places.

Nothing on the Internet is a thought. It's all speech. 100% of the Internet is an expression of a thought, not a thought itself. If the person at the computer didn't do something physical to express the thought (speech), then there'd be no Internet.

I tried that, it didn't work as you describe. Since your premise is wrong, do you think that will make you re-visit your conclusion? I thought not. There's an anti-technology religion on Slashdot. A strange Luddite anti-tech belief that technology is offensive, and that the people who use it cause that offense, and the conservative view that we should try to fit in, even if that means giving up something useful. I guess the conservativism runs deeper on slashdot than "geek" or "nerd". Early adopters are shunned and threatened even on Slashdot.

You missed the joke. Last I've read, IRS regulations are added at a rate greater than a human can read. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, even when the law is unknowable. So go read the the laws and let us know which one causes the problem. By the time you finish reading it, you'll be dead, and have violated many of them before you managed to read them (or interpreted them differently than some random judge)

I never played the "I'm older and wiser" card. I played the "you're dumb" card.

Like the place I worked where every time a "the network was down" complaint came in, we bet on the actual problem. About half the time, "the network was down" meant the printer was out of toner. And the printer has a phone number on it for the Office Manager who manages those devices, with directions on changing the toner. "The network is down"'s second most common cause was a lost/changed password. The closest error to the reported error is if someone managed to accidentally unplug something, like a video cable or Ethernet cable.