That's a stupid response. Do you honestly think the origin of the goatse name is appropriate for 6 year olds? What the fuck does freedom of speech have to do with this? Or, did you seriously fucking think I really mean for him (Weev) to be punished solely on the name of the company? Can't you understand sarcasm? The fact is that Goatse Security is a really stupid name and I hope the company never gets any customers. But, no, he shouldn't do jail time for it.

This is a terrible analogy, and tnk1 has covered most of it. Let me further clarify that most locations for AT&T that I've been to do not maintain their dumpsters outside their curtilage. This would negate the reference to Greenwood v CA. Additionally, I know AT&T regularly uses a shredding company, so any really important stuff (especially for government contracts) goes through that. In any case, I think the better analogy is if I place my wallet on a counter and walk away from it. I say that it's still my property and you do not have the authority to go to it, open it, and take the money. You, apparently, think it's perfectly okay to take the money out of my wallet. Or, if you think taking the passwords was not "stealing" then let's say I have a password on a piece of paper in my wallet, it's okay to open up the wallet, copy it, and put it back. Let's take this one step further, though, which is closer to what happened. Let's say you're skilled enough to pick my pocket (e.g., skilled enough to spoof addresses). You pick my pocket, copy off the passwords, and then drop the wallet or somehow give it back (reverse pick pocket?). That's okay to you?

This is almost a non sequitur. I don't care to explain the origin of goatse to a 6yo and I have an obvious lack of parenting skills? Honestly, I would have thought the opposite! Do you really agree with the idiotic response by VortexCortex? You must like goatse, then?

Whoa, easy on the vitriol there, bub. Don't let bad design cloud your judgment of the actual case. It matters not how badly the AT&T folks implemented security (or not) on their system. The fact is Weev "stole" it (copied without permission) and then stupidly publicized it. What's more, he "shared it with various interested parties."

As far as I'm concerned, anyone calling their group Goatse Security needs to be punished anyway. I'm not interested in trying to explain to my 6yo what the fuck that means.

I think you're agreeing to something the GP didn't say. By virtue of the subject, he's referring to the number of times you have to use the SHIFT key to type up that line, slowing your programming down. Understanding the line is a different question.

If it ain't broke, then why does it need software maintenance? If it needs software maintenance, then by definition something is broke.

The Cambodian government will be the one doing the looting...

I understand that the hack wasn't really a hack, but that doesn't change the theory that this is an issue with the board rather than 1 or more students. Regarding the number of records changed, it certainly doesn't have to be more than 1 student doing the hacking. It's obvious to change several, or a lot, of records to hide the one you really care about.

If there was tampering, why is it the assumption of the education board doing the tampering? Maybe other students found this obviously easy "hack" but improved upon the method to actually modify the data.

That's a terrible idea for two reasons. (1) It kills the little guy. Now, only the big patent trolls or large corporations will be able to afford the fee. (2) Who thinks giving the government an interest-free loan for a several years is a good idea? If it's not interest-free, then who pays for the management of all this money?

That makes no sense. Application fees occur at the time application, typically many years before rejection or approval is known. Instead, perhaps apply a large Post-processing Rejection Fee and leave the application fees somewhat untouched.

On the other hand, they could look at the provisional application process. Maybe provide a cursory review, require certain fields be filled out so that these unpatentable patents get short-circuited at the beginning. For something that gets initially "rejected" through this new process, require a significant re-application fee.

I'm curious how many aliens are dying on the planets surrounding the colliding stars?

I didn't make that claim, but in response to your comment I would say there are two approaches: (1) we need more control over automobiles, too, or (2) those controls don't work, so remove them from both automobiles and guns. I think we all agree we need to find a happy medium. But, as long as people like Capt James McCarthy keep equating guns with cars, then let's make sure it's a full comparison and not selective. Gun rights activists always want to talk about how more dangerous cars are in terms of life lost and injuries, like that justifies fewer controls on guns. It's a non sequitur argument and amazingly lots of other gun rights activists turn off their brains and buy into it.

You do not need a license to carry a gun in Florida, but there are restrictions on how to carry (i.e., to carry a ready weapon you need a concealed weapons permit). Also, that's not an example I gave. I was talking about licensing the equipment, not the person. You don't need ANY registration or background check. I can easily buy from a complete stranger. There are gun shows ALL THE TIME where this is very actively encouraged.

Regarding licenses, note that I didn't even mention licenses of people. I was talking about equipment registration. Anyway, that analogy works, too. You don't need a shooting license (equivalent to a drivers license) to various reasons, but it's not all-inclusive. In short, it's a lot easier to own and operate a hand gun than to own and operate a car. But, quite honestly all that was beside my point which was simple, and honestly your analogy is kind of a strawman and I'm simply answering it in kind: as a gun rights activist, don't make the analogy to car death rates unless you're willing to accept the continuance of the analogy to registration. You can see by the responses here that most gun rights activists can't stomach that.

Good analogy. So, let's put the same restrictions on guns like we do on automobiles here in the U.S. You know, registration is required, licenses are required, insurance is required. In some states, an inspection is required. How does all that work for you?

A good way to improve the golf game.