Ask him your questions here, and we'll post the full interview with Shkreli's answers in the near future.
You mean like who I'm allowed to have sex with?
Where are you getting this from? Or are you so restrictive and controlling that you think that people should only be allowed to have sex if they are married?
14 states had anti-sodomy laws on the books until SCOTUS put an end to that shit in Lawrence v Texas 13 years ago. 13 years ago, that's it. That's not too long ago, and you can be sure that most of those states wouldn't have changed the law unless forced to do so by the courts.
And while it may now be legal to have sex with whoever you want, in many states you can be fired or evicted because your bigoted boss or landlord is upset that you're having said sex. What good is that freedom if you can lose your job and your home for exercising it?
[SPOILERS FOR BSG]
I haven't seen Caprica, but BSG is not a good example of how to portray queer characters.
To recap, that's two dead lesbians, a few poorly portrayed examples of bisexual women, and the only queer men confined to a webisode that barely anyone has seen. Contrast this with how BSG subverts tropes and portrays strong women. From the moment Chief casually addresses Boomer as "Sir" in the miniseries, you know something is different. Women can be the President of the Colonies, Admiral of the fleet, or the most badass Viper jock around. That's what makes it so disappointing that BSG couldn't find the time to display a single healthy queer character or relationship in the televised series.
60 million die every year, which comes out to 160k every day. I found a few sources, but the WHO roughly agrees with that number.
Crap, hit submit instead of preview. What I meant to say was:
You left out the initial part of that statement in a way that makes it very misleading. Yes, Aaron Swartz downloaded a lot of documents, but it had nothing to do with classified information. He may have committed a civil tort by downloading all those documents (which, btw, JSTOR agreed not to pursue), but it's ludicrous that his actions were threatened with decades in jail for criminal charges while Clinton's felonious actions don't even warrant an indictment.
You left out the in
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
If DoJ prosecutors were reasonable, Aaron Swartz would still be alive today. Fuck this double standard.
Science, tech, math, and computing are all greatly influenced by US government policies. (Okay, maybe math not as much.) If the manner of electing the most influential US politician is not stuff that matters, then what is?
Also, if you're implicitly playing the "how slashdot used to be" card, I love to break it to you: slashdot has always cared about and commented on US politics.
I'm not sure about the legality of white-rooming a reverse engineer of intellectual property, but Blizzard definitely owns the intellectual property rights of WoW, and they own your client as well. Check their ToS, it specfically says that you do not own the client software, and are paying for a license of it, to be used against their servers and ONLY their servers. So by running it against Nostalrius servers, you are violating the ToS.
I haven't read through the original ToS, and I agree it's totally possible that the ToS states that the client is only to be used with official Blizz servers. However, I feel that's something consumers should be shielded from by consumer protection laws. When I originally bought WoW, I paid money for the game itself and additionally paid for a monthly subscription to the server. I feel that makes it very clear that I owned a copy of the client. To say that the ToS changes those clear expectations is unfair, especially when I was only presented with the ToS *after* paying for the game.
Consumer protection laws exist because there's an imbalance of power between an individual consumer making a purchase and a well-financed corporation writing a ToS and enforcing it through expensive litigation. If Blizzard were to allow me to keep paying for a subscription to the game I purchased, they would have an argument, but they abandoned the client that I explicitly paid for.
It has no control over what other people connect their clients to.
Interestingly, and perhaps tellingly, the 1.12 WoW client refers to an editable, plaintext file (realmlist.wtf) to decide what server to connect to. Blizzard gave users the ability to choose which server to connect to, and now they are mad that users exercised that ability to connect to reverse-engineered servers.
Calling Nostalrius a pirate server is not accurate. Nostalrius is a reverse engineered server that works with the official Blizzard WoW 1.12 client. I've played on Nost for the past year, and the overwhelming majority of players I've played with paid for retail vanilla WoW subscriptions back in the day. Sure, I can't find my original discs and had to download a copy of the 1.12 client, but I still contend that I have both a legal and moral license to still use that client.
If Blizzard were to offer a vanilla subscription, I would gladly sign up. (Well, maybe before they C&D'd Nost.) However, since they don't offer such a subscription, running a private server should be allowed as an exemption to the DMCA. The EFF previously petitioned the Library of Congress to add an exemption to the DMCA to allow users to reverse engineer server-side controls once games have been abandoned. The Library of Congress granted the exemption for simple matters like server-side authentication methods, but it was limited to allowing local, single-player gaming to continue. It does not apply for MMORPGs that require server-side interaction. However, this ignores the possibility of using a paid-for client with a reverse-engineered server, something I feel should be legal.
To pull in two old slashdot-isms, this is an American-centric site following news for nerds and stuff that matters. If you're in the US, SCOTUS fucking matters, more than perhaps anything but the presidency.
They are called computers simply because computation is the only significant job that has so far been given to them.