TFA article says nothing of the sort, actually. It's TF submitter. Slashdot, of course, simply copy-pastes anything Hugh says.

You're falling into the trap of confusing ethics and the law. Whatever you -- or I, since I expect we'd agree -- think of the ethics of the situation, so far I haven't seen anything to suggest their actions in not respecting keys used other than under the conditions they were sold with is actually illegal. The law with respect to digital purchases, DRM, and remote access/activation schemes may be some anachronistic dinosaur, but if it's the law right now then complaining about the action on a forum like Slashdot isn't going to change that.

Please clarify how that is in line with the statement it was posted in reply to. Other than you hate both organized labor and the IRS, I don't see a connection between the two.

And neither do unions. Unions work for their members. How do you see unions being somehow magically able to "regulate the lives of random people"? Union members pay dues and vote. Arguably unions - which few remain of any relevance, anyways - are a more direct form of democracy than what our country has devolved into (even more quickly so since the passing of Citizens United).

Does anyone know why they wouldn't sidestep the infeasibility of particularly long cable runs by having the elevator climb the walls of the shaft directly, rather than being raised and lowered on a cable? I imagine that a cable and counterweight arrangement is more energy efficient for shorter runs; but if that isn't an option wouldn't a cog railway style mechanism, with 'track' on one or more walls of the elevator shaft, result in a system where the weight that has to be moved doesn't change at all with the height of the building? There would be some additional weight per unit height from the track structure; but that would be static and connected to the building's frame rather than being forced to support its own weight.

Too energy intensive? Wears too quickly? Safety breaks infeasible leading to risk of sickening plummet to doom?

You have at least as much faith in your conservative heroes as I have in any democrat currently holding office in DC - and for that matter you have vastly more faith in them than I have in President Lawnchair.

Where does the Second Amendment dictate that people should be able to fire off more than 10 rounds per minute? I've brought up the full text of the second amendment here before and it makes no mention of that - amongst many other things. If the Second Amendment protects the "right" to fire off arbitrary amounts of ammunition in fleetingly short amounts of time, doesn't it also protect the "right" to own hellfire missiles or Sherman Tanks?

And why is it that on other matters you are fine to leave the states and jurisdictions to pass their own laws, but on this particular situation you want the federal government to step in and tell the smaller governments how to do their jobs?

I believe you have made that statement many times before, which goes well with your general disdain for organized labor. What you have not answered though is why this particular type of freedom of association should be banned when others are not. If someone choses of their own free will to be part of a union how is that different from choosing of their own free will to be a member of a specific church? Why defend so steadfast one and attack so steadfast the other?

You have given us long and extensive lists of government employees you would like to see lose their jobs, and it goes well beyond only those who hold an elected office or are appointment by people who do.

So would you enjoy it enough to do it for free, such as to not be a hypocrite asking for the end of employment for other government employees while being one yourself?

No, I would not say that. I don't hold anything against government employees. I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the "government small enough to drown in a bathtub" types who have themselves been government employees for decades. Hell the Kevlar Kandidate has held office longer than President Lawnchair had prior to be elected POTUS, in spite of his attempting to brand himself as some kind of clever "outsider".

My point is that the whole "morally blameworthy" is excessively squishy. Not only could it incorporate punishment of fully victimless crimes (when it crimes are defined on what people see as "blameworthy") but it does nothing to prevent the problem of unequal enforcement. It appears that your original thesis here is that if the high capacity magazine ban where equally enforced (and existed where the interview you mention took place) then your Mr. Gregory would be expecting to serve jail time. To swing the pendulum back the other way, if your party were to outlaw sodomy, would you really enforce it equally - charging republican politicians, clergymen, etc, as much as charging liberals - or would that bit of unequal enforcement not matter any more?

Maybe, but for better or worse, the situation today is that Ubisoft is effectively empowered to "confiscate" keys acquired through illegitimate channels in violation of whatever terms of sale or licensing agreements those keys came with.

Now, you might argue that the law should be updated to address the rights of customers buying digital products in a more even-handed way. If you did, I'd be the first to agree. But even then, it's hard to see why those rights would or should protect someone with the digital equivalent of stolen property. If you wanted to legitimise reselling keys across borders as a matter of policy then you'd probably also need an explicit change so that DRM schemes attempting to prevent cross-border trade were prohibited and anyone operating them on a commercial basis was required to honour otherwise valid keys for any sort of activation or customer support purposes.

Close to 2 feet here and still coming down.

I think people forget just how quickly a snowstorm can get serious if people don't stay off the road. If the plows can't keep up, you are driving first through a light dusting, then an inch, then a couple of inches. Sooner or later cars start to skid. Or, you will have a chunk of interstate that uphill and ONE car isn't able to make it up the hill, stops, cars behind it stop, etc.

Maybe it's not "historic" but it's a big serious snowstorm.

In that case, perhaps it's more closely analogous to paying someone abroad to buy something cheap and ship it to you, but then complaining when your delivery arrives that you got charged the import taxes your oh-so-honest supplier didn't pay.

Sometimes things that look too good to be true really are, but usually there's a catch. Seeing a deal that good and not checking thoroughly for the catch is just asking for trouble.

So then can we get back to the text that was in the source you gave? What does "morally enforceable" mean to you, and how it is not incompatible with equal enforcement of the law?

That job works in opposition to your political ambition of putting all government employees out of work. Even after President Lawnchair's ambition of giving everyone two years free at community college fizzles out and leads to nothing (and we all know it will) you would still be a government employee working for the community college.

Although it seems a lot of your heroes have been collecting checks from the government for some time, so maybe that doesn't bother you.

Someone came here to change the tune to that of their tired song, and it wasn't me.

Clearly this was orchestrated by his illuminati in their interest of global domination. They'll be at your door soon for your mandatory abortion.