You don't become a billionaire (or whatever he is) by tipping your hand to your competitors. You don't make enemies along the way either, who'd love to air your dirty laundry or destroy your reputation, or harm you business in a variety of other ways. With the volume of people that Trump and his empire have stomped on over a period of decades you don't think he's learned to be paranoid? If he hadn't there'd be tons of stories about him to present that the press would be creaming their shorts over just trying to decide which to release first.

You make a pretty significant assumption that he uses the same network thats configured for use by any schmoe that is at the resort. You also assume that the whole network is not layered and secured appropriately for the level of business being conducted.

This article is itself a rather glaring misdirection, giving limited information in the context of it being all inclusive of the resort's security posture. It's like saying that because every reputable hotel in the world has freely accessible wifi that all hotel chains are easily hackable to their core. This is a hack job of a "report" done with blatantly biased slant and omission of detail.

This is the equivalent of saying that because there are 1000's of US Government websites that face the public domain on port 80 that the federal government as a whole is ripe for intrusion.

Measure ourselves by whose idea of what "utopia" means?

No, we wont ever live in a utopia because a utopia is a fantasy. You're not going to find a single topic on which all people globally agree and you never will. That being the case, one group will always be telling others how things should be, and the others will resist the demanded change. This is not wrong, its not associated purely with wealth or religion or anything else. It's not even associated with "better", because "better" is usually subjective.

I wish I had all my GI Joe action figures still. They'd be worth a lot. But alas, we blew them all to hell on a regular basis with the Blackcats, Ladyfingers and bottle rockets we bought at the nearest convenience store with our allowance.

By today's standards I'd be assumed to have grown up to be a crack-addled homicidal maniac.

So on the one hand you are normalizing violence beginning at a young age. It's just something that everyone should expect and accept. On the other hand you're teaching kids that sexuality is shameful , and hide it from them until they are older and need to start figuring it out without any context or guidance.

How is it logical to give a pass to violence with kids by saying it's "outside the normal experience" while also saying it's perfectly acceptable in society to glorify it, and telling kids at the same time that sexuality which is nearly universally something that will be part of their "normal experience" is something that they should feel ashamed of?

People seem to think it makes perfect sense to glorify the thing that we do not want people to engage in, while demonizing the thing we know they will engage in as an entirely natural and healthy part of human existence.

No. I don't.

Kill someone in a movie and the hero is applauded. Show a boob and it's assumed that a boob is a dirty thing that should be hidden, and that you should feel shame at enjoying the sight of.

One teaches that killing the "bad guy" is good. The other teaches that the human body and the entirely natural and necessary function of its parts is bad.

That's precisely the point people are trying to make. How is that different than a computer game? In the movie the "bad guy's" backstory isn't fleshed out, and you feel no sympathy for the fact that he has a wife and child back home in Kiev or wherever. You don't care about his demise because you have no association with him at all. He's just part of the vague and largely undefined "bad". In a computer game the "bad guy" is the guy trying to kill you, and you him. He's a CGI character often only a few pixels high that you're lobbing artillery rounds at from 300 yards. He's a nameless, faceless target. While in a computer game you might want him dead because it up's your game score, it's not unlike the gratuitous deaths of dozens or hundreds of "bad guys" in movies to up their ratings and box office sales because the viewer feels a connection to the "good guy" who's overcome his adversaries.

But you don't see any Hollywood elitist deuchebags campaigning against violence in film, do you? You instead see hypocritical shitbrains that will lecture you on how the Second Amendment doesn't mean what you think it means, that no one (except them) have any need for firearms of any kind, and then tell you that the movies they themselves massacre dozens of bad guys with said firearms in are entirely disassociated with any kind of real world violence and it's purely entertainment.

The hypocrisy is the point.

Well what is a warranty? It's a promise by the manufacturer to repair or replace equipment if it fails. If you modify the equipment and it fails because of your modification, they are not liable for the failure and not held responsible for the repairs. Right? You make modifications that cause a failure then it's no longer their problem.

I will concede though that often manufacturers will claim that any modification releases them from all responsibility, regardless whether that modification has any impact whatsoever on whatever failures might have or may eventually occur. That's outside the bounds in my mind, and the law you pointed to would seem to support the notion.

Obviously there are circumstances that could lean the "right" decision to one side of the fence or the other.

While I will admit to not having read the legal content of the law, I did read a couple of summaries. The law you cite is primarily meant to require those companies who issue warranty agreements to clearly and unambiguously define the terms, and protect consumers from shady or deceptive warranty jargon.
One line that was up on Wiki and the meaning repeated elsewhere states:

In other words if you disassemble the product, place new/different/altered components on it, and it can be determined that those new/different/altered components caused the product to fail, then the manufacturer is not liable to repair it under warranty.

Hey Joe Dipshit, try jailbreaking your iPhone and get Apple to fix it for free.

It takes an almost unfathomable level of stupidity to try to correlate a notion of respect for the rights of all people to live without interference, with that of elitism and brutality to take property and rights by brute force. Anyone that tells you that Somalia is an example of Libertarianism is selling you a lie, and you're an idiot if you buy it.

Nice to see that Rachel Maddow has at least one viewer remaining.

Libertarians just want to be left the fuck alone. They believe that if you are harmed you have every right to seek redress in the courts, but that government doesnt have the right to pass laws that mean to make it impossible to ever be guilty of causing harm. You know, that notion that you're innocent until proven guilty?

I'm not supporting this asinine notion that farmers cannot fix their own equipment. I'm wholly against it. I was simply responding to someone suggesting that John Deere's motivation is protecting themselves from people breaking JD equipment and then forcing JD to fix it for free. What JD is doing is trying to monopolize maintenance on all their equipment, and do it when they get around to it and at inflated costs.

Mommy's little angel is such a good little child. Look how he only does exactly what he's told by the nice bureaucrats.