To be fair, the people who are willing to spend full days during which most people would ordinarily be working watching a TV-show being recorded are probably not going to be representative of the best and the brightest. As always, I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions.

You obviously would prefer that, but the technology becomes really useful when you don't have immediate access to a particular specialist who can perform that procedure. You probably wouldn't use it to remove an appendix :)

Not at all, the rest of the post is simply behind the Murdoch paywall.

Depending on the system, definitions can be found outside of the actual legal text. In some systems there is extensive documentation outside of the actual legal text, often based on the prepatory work that was conducted before passing the law. In other systems definitions and specifics are left to the courts, while in other systems the legal texts are extremely detailed.

All of the above systems have their pro's and their con's, but to my knowledge there are very few modern legal systems where you would expect everything you need to know to be located in the actual legal text of the law in questions.

Who is the CEO of Kaspersky to claim authority on these issues? Why does he feel entitled to to be in a position to even make suggestions, affecting basically the entire human population?

What do you do when you have friends over and you want to play a round of video games? Or do all your friends own laptops and carry them everywhere?

There are games for Wii published by third-party major labels. It's just that third parties do an absolutely fecal job of promoting them to players.

One solution is to apply the very same punitive penalty, but award the punitive part of it to a fund/charity. In essence, whenever a major company causes somebody harm, that person is eligible to receive whatever amount is considered reasonable depending on the damages. In addition to that, the company is also fined an amount that is relative to its size and financial status, simply as a form of punishment. The latter amount never comes in contact with the victim.

What this does is ensure that company's are probably punished for causing harm, but removes the incentive to sue for enormous amounts for trivial issues (or not-so-trivial issues that don't justify $X million). This system is relatively common, and it always surprised me that people find it reasonable that the amount of damages awarded should be relative to the offenders ability to pay - Not primarily the crime itself.

Asia is not a country, you silly people! You're thinking of Africa.

Regards,
Sarah P.