By that same argument, very few people are going to drive their car/motorcycle with the anticipation that they will have an accident. And yet they wear a seatbelt/helmet. Very few construction workers go to work with the anticipation that bricks/girders/rods/pipes fall out of the sky. And yet they wear protective clothing. Very few people buy detergents anticipating that someone will drink or eat them. And yet they put them in a safe place.

If something can go wrong, it will go wrong. There is no sense in rationalizing away unintentional discharges (whether they result in fatalities or not). That is offending and lacking morality.

Why is it that Americans always get so tremendously upset when it comes to (restrictions on) firearms? Yes, I know it is in your constitution. But I also know that that constitution was written more than 200 years ago. And yes, 200 years ago a lot of things were wildly different than they are now. I would bet that if your founding fathers would be alive today, they would heavily regret having put that in your constitution.

Please enlighten me but since when is the original purpose of a gun to not kill people, en masse or otherwise?

The Artemis Fowl books are great and one of my all-time favorites. The books have both a number of fantasy (elves, dwarves, goblins etc.) as well as scifi(ish) elements but most of all they are grossly entertaining, hugely funny and, while aimed at kids, very fun to read for adults as well. Every one of the books in the series had me laughing out loud. I can't wait to read them to my kids!

Actually I'm quite surprised about the opinion slashdotters seem to be taking. It seems as if (almost) everyone is thinking that hacking must be allowed at all costs and if the hack succeeds the results and how to do it must be made available to everyone. While at some level - to point out and discover security holes etc... - I agree with and even find hacking ethical, but hacking either just for the fun - and then publishing it - of it or to benefit in any other way is just plain wrong. Granted, the distinction isn't always easy but not in this case.

I assume that there are at least some slashdotters who make software for a living and even try to sell it. How would you feel if someone took the result of your hard work and hacked it such that everyone could use it without you ever seeing any dime of it? I would feel frustrated and wouldn't believe the guy if he said 'I did it just for fun, I do not promote piracy in any way but what the heck, I'll just distribute it so that anyone can see what a great hacker I am and I'm naive enough to think that people will just look at it and never ever use it.'.

Did the posters here ever stop to think how much money, and more importantly, jobs are to be lost if everyone pirates games? And I'm not thinking about the big companies here but the small ones - like the guy who wrote Angry Birds? Sony makes the console and provides the infrastructure. Sure, they take a percentage of every game sold but the majority goes to the companies and individuals that actually make the games and try to make a living out of it. In this sense, Sony is not only protecting their own platform but also standing up for every other company and individual making stuff for the PS3.

How would most people here think if the same guy hacked your bank account and published the details for everyone to see but at the same time tell them to not use it 'because I do not promote stealing'? Wouldn't you do everything in your power to stop him for publishing the details?

Do not get me wrong, I love playing games, find in general that they are way overpriced and I do think Sony is making too much of a fuss about it - it was bound to happen some time - but Hotz willfully and willingly opened the floodgates by publishing the details and now he has to pay the price. It is naive to think that this has no consequences.

Feel free to donate anything you want, I can't (and won't) stop you from doing so but please think a little bit further before you do.