But let me give you a hint. Trains? Didn't you watch old cartoons as a kid? When we want to derail them, we don't need to be on them, and if we are, we have wasted some kamikaze brothers who could have better employed elsewhere.

The problem with trains being soft targets is that they take specific paths at predetermined times. Because it's too expensive to guard the millions of miles of railway track from terrorists, I propose, for security's sake, we randomize the train departure times and destinations and implement random delays and schedule changes en route.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Boston and New England Amtrak have had these security measures for years and, as one can infer from the lack of terrorist incidents, they have clearly presented a most difficult target. Note that when the 9/11 attackers left Boston, they chose to fly rather than take the train.

some person's private information is NOT the resource of the site that stores it. a person's private information belongs to that person alone. there can be no other argument to that.

Facebook doesn't operate on wishes and thin air. Their server farms are paid for with the understanding that they will use and exploit the information you give them to make money. It's not "your private information" after that point...you sold it to pay Facebook for the service they provide to you.

President Merkin Muffley: General Turgidson, I find this very difficult to understand. I was under the impression that I was the only one in authority to order the use of nuclear weapons.

General "Buck" Turgidson: That's right, sir, you are the only person authorized to do so. And although I, uh, hate to judge before all the facts are in, it's beginning to look like, uh, General Ripper exceeded his authority.

Even if this app smelled like roses and shat apple pies, it shouldn't be allowed in the app store.

It's not about 'evil intent', it's about a program that behaves badly...it doesn't appear in the list of installed apps, it doesn't use the normal install/uninstall procedures, etc.

I can think of several legitimate, useful reasons for an app that duplicates text messages, even if such a program could be used maliciously. OTOH, a piece of code that circumvents the OS to hide itself? That's not an application. "Applications" are expected to mostly conform to certain norms on how they interact with the user and the OS.

There is no heavy-handedness on Google for kicking this one to the curb.

Coincidental timing after China's latest strangling of rare earths, yes?

It just means that China is now doing significant in-country R&D and authorship that they have a vested interest in protecting.

Pre-1900, the US was the same way. We couldn't give two shits about the European IP we were constantly ripping, and it pissed off plenty of European countries. Once we really started developing stuff in-country, our IP laws suddenly grew teeth.

History repeating itself itself.

who travels with porn?

Customs officers that collect images from their backscatter X-ray machines

I mean, a cool looking handmade computer case is one thing, but fashion?

Stepping back for a moment, I'm failing to see the difference between the two.

You're attaching value to the pedigree of the object instead of its function. Caring about how the computer case was made instead of the end result isn't really any different from gushing over the designer label on your handbag.

Deselecting any of the items on the list blocks access to the application. An application, which, I might add, doesn't need any of that info to operate correctly.

Given that the sole purpose of those apps is to collect such information, they actually do need that info to operate correctly.

You didn't think they exist to entertain you, did you? Really?

Yeah, but when will the carriers support one-time phone numbers?

soon

How about instead of legislating the details of the presentation layer, the law simply mandated that commercials (actually, all broadcast television) be sent with appropriate metadata that identifies the content.

After that, let the free market sort things out. If somebody wants to sell a TV that makes commercials even louder, let them. If someone only wants to shop for a TV that flips to the Weather Channel during commercials, that's fine too.

Laws that restrict options -> bad
Laws that enforce honesty -> good

Companies arbitrarily decide to charge more for certain products, especially in a country with lower standard of livings.

It's not arbitrary. Look at the UN statistics for income distribution:

The earnings ratio between the top 10% and the bottom 10%
Argentina: 40.9 United States: 15.9

Between the top 20% and the bottom 20%
Argentina: 17.8 United States: 8.4

While there may be a smaller percentage of Argentinians who could afford an XBOX360, even if it were sold at cost, those Argentinians who can afford one are able to pay more.

This just in: suppliers in an industry with little competition will charge whatever prices the market can bear. Companies set prices in an attempt to maximize profits. Film at 11.

"A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it."

--Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. I, 1835

Some people say a man is made outta mud
A poor man's made outta muscle and blood
Muscle and blood and skin and bones
A mind that's a-weak and a back that's strong

You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store

--Tennessee Ford