That way at least they'll get a little bit of enjoyment from what is about to be a major drag.

In that case, my mistake. English is not my first language, and I still have trouble understanding nuance.

I highly suspect that you'll need an ID to log onto the web at all. Money has killed the internet as we knew it.

Piojo, while that logic isn't as harmful for a sex toy, playing with your lungs might be a tad more dangerous. You're a sex addict, not a doctor.

Yeah, but 1984 Dune had Sting.

I meant it in a vague sense, as in there may be others out there who warrant prosecution, but either due to lack of evidence of wrongdoing, or because they are currently getting away with their crimes, they have not been prosecuted. Also, someone has mentioned Trevor Milton, the CEO of Nikola Motors, who is facing prosecution.

All you have to do is read the charges and evidence against Holmes. It's clear that she's not the norm, and while there are others that warrant prosecution, this is one that is a foregone conclusion and is easy to prosecute. This isn't about sexism.

So young people are going to be more ignorant of the underpinnings of the technology than their seniors? These tools aren't exactly hard to use and something only young people are going to figure out. This is retarded.

This might be true if it wasn't for the fact that wealth increases every year in this country and that wealth is built by people who do not get to keep it. There is no lack of wealth. There is an inequality, and when those young people find out that they've been robbed, they will take it all back with violence if necessary. You cannot tell someone to live in poverty while in the wealthiest nation on earth and expect them to just lie down and take it.

Whatever he may have done, it's not like he murdered someone. What is it with the US and charging people as adults over shit like this? Does he deserve some jail time? Sure, but this is overboard.

The reason patents, copyright, and trademark laws exist are to enable you to profit from your labor. Yes, they are abused, and may have gone too far, but they are not incompatible with capitalism, and in fact can only exist under it, since in socialism you would not have access to these legal tools. Everything would just be shared. I'm tired of the idea that government means socialism. This isn't true, and not even Adam Smith thought like this. If you say these things are socialism, then property must be a form of socialism as well. Private property does not exist without government, at least not anything past a feudalist model.

That's not a strawman. You said that patents are not capitalist because it takes your labor away by threat of force, yet if I decided to grow crops on some random piece of land, the result would be the same, even though I worked the land and grew the crops. Without government intervention there is no property and no patents, therefore if one is socialism, then they both are.

By that logic, property is also socialism because you need the government to enforce property rights.

This is not socialism either. It's social democracy, and it isn't incompatible with capitalism. Socialism entails one very specific thing, and that has so far not worked.

The cops didn't access the computer, though, some unnamed actor did. If someone illegally breaks into your home, takes photos of you making bombs, then sends the police those photos, it isn't against the law for them to investigate, even if the photos were obtained illegally.