> Between now and 2030, 111 million metric tons of trash -- straws, bags, water bottles -- will have nowhere to go

Unless the laws of conservation of mass are to be repealed I guarantee that plastic will go somewhere. Therefore, by definition, it will have somewhere to go.

Hollywood is pathologically incapable of making a movie that conveys a conservative message. I doubt we will ever see a faithful interpretation of any golden age Heinlein novel.

I wondered the same damn thing. They should have removed the entire "Rose & Finn's Excellent Adventure" sequence and added five to ten minutes of Rey fighting her way off the dreadnought. The movie would have been tighter and shorter and benefited from a new scene that advanced the plot.

It seems like BoA is trying to solve a problem that is already solved.

> Or they could have printed the codes on the actual disk, and include terms that redistribution of the code without the disk revokes all rights to said content.

You seem to be thinking that the law is consistent. Software falls into a somewhat unique area where "terms of use" are the norm (even if the precedent determining whether they are binding is weak).

Most things you physically purchase at retail do not and can not have terms attached. A chair maker cannot sell rocking chairs with a disclaimer that "your right to use this chair is revoked if you remove the rockers from the legs".

Disney is trying to have their "digital code" sales treated like they are software sales. Redbox is saying they should be treated like DVD sales. The precedent and law is different for software vs movies.

It was MP3.com (not CDBaby) that lost that lawsuit.

Anyway, that precedent doesn't apply at all. The current Redbox case is completely different.

MP3.com was making this argument: Since you have the CD you already have the right to listen to a ripped copy. The ripped copy that MP3.com already has on its servers is identical to the copy you would you make yourself. Therefore you have the right to listen to MP3.com's copy instead of having to make your own personal copy.

The court didn't buy that theory. Just because *you* have the right to make a copy to listen to doesn't mean mp3.com could share their copy with you. And even if the copies are digitally identical they are still separate copies that came from separate first sales.

Redbox isn't trying to do anything like this. All they are doing is saying "hey, we bought this package that contained two widgets (a disk and a piece of paper) and we are going to sell or rent those two widgets in separate transactions.

Sorry, but you have the facts wrong on ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg. That case never made it to the Supreme Court. The summary you are linking to was written after the district court ruled but before the final appeal. The lower court was overturned.

The precedent in that case doesn't directly seem to apply to the matter at hand however.

We don't know that the data ended up with the government.

Here is what is claimed:

Reports published in the United States are that Israeli government hackers broke into Kaspersky and saw the NSA data. While the Israelis were there they witnessed Russian government hackers also break into Kaspersky and access the NSA data. Kaspersky claims the only people who hacked them were the Israelis and they were never hacked by the Russians.

So if the Israelis are wrong the Russian government doesn't have the data. If the Israelis are right the Russian government only has the data because they hacked in from Kaspersky.

I don't understand where any evidence comes from that Kaspersky colluded with the Russian government. Maybe I'm just missing that.

KSN and all similar technologies, including the Microsoft malware submission tool, should be made illegal.

Rationale:

* All software is protected by copyright.
* Only the copyright holder has the legal authority to authorized copying the software.
* Transferring malware from the infected user to researchers therefore violates the rights of the copyright holder.

To what extent the above is sarcasm is left as an exercise for the reader.

Does anyone have a list of devices the FBI can't decrypt? I'd like to make sure my next phone is one on the list, but I'm not sure which Android devices pass that test.

Could easily be innocent.

Assume malware is discovered that is searching for "top secret". Kaspersky detectes that malware for looking for things searching for "top secret".

Start with what we know...

NSA contractor takes home secret NSA malware tools and installs them on his own computer which is running Kaspersky AV. Kaspersky AV detects malware running on a protected system and uploads the malware to Kaspersky for further analysis. Israeli SIGINT National Unit hacks into Kaspersky, find secret NSA malware there, notifies the NSA that Kaspersky is in possession of NSA secrets.

From there it seems like all speculation...

Anti-virus software detects various forms of malware.

The surveillance software used by the NSA and other government agencies is effectively malware. To serve the purpose intended by the NSA this malware needs to go undetected and unreported by anti-virus software. Kaspersky wouldn't play along with this whitelisting, then they found themselves the target of blacklisting.

Social Security numbers were intended for one purpose only, to identify the Social Security retirement account of individual citizens.

The fundamental security model of Equifax and the other credit agencies has always been broken. In my opinion the very best thing that could happen would be if a complete database of the names, addresses, birthdates, and social security numbers of every single US citizen was published and updated quarterly. The clowns at these credit agencies need to stop building an identification model on government retirement accounts.

In short, if I was in possession of the Equifax leaked data, I would paste it all over the internet just to purposely screw Equifax's model.

You want to measure diversity at google? Count the political bumper stickers on the cars that park there. You'll have no problem finding Hillary and Sanders stickers, but Trump stickers are rarer than hen's teeth.

They built this absolutely toxic environment for conservatives under the cover of "diversity". Why should anyone believe they are going to do anything except continue to make conservatives feel like pariahs?

I'm still not seeing Google take any action towards the real problem here. What are they going to do about the hostile environment they have made for conservative employees?