Err, what makes you think that Megan's parents couldn't sue Lori Drew? I assure you, they could certainly sue, perhaps over wrongful death or intentional infliction of emotional distress. The question is whether or not they would win, which I suspect would be unlikely on either of those counts. Modification to contract law to allow 3rd party action over TOS violations is a horrible, horrible idea. It would be immediately abused and overused in ways that we probably can't even imagine.
Your adamant refusal to acknowledge any guilt on the part of Lori Drew is positively pathological.
Some might say that your need to blame a second party for the unfortunate actions of a first party is positively pathological.
It was a sad situation but Drew did not break any laws, and the over-the-top efforts to try and punish her by any means was worse than sad, it was a travesty. Society will ostracise Drew for the rest of her days, there was no need to fabricate a legal issue.
Is anyone else tempted to go here? I'd give them PLENTY of flack when they stopped me without cause, and once they tossed me in jail I'd be filing a multi-million dollar civil rights violation suit that same day.
Hey smart guy, here's a possibility that it seems you haven't considered: perhaps ultra-mega-hyper-violent videogames actually provide an outlet for humanity's built-in violent tendencies. I submit that humans are violent by nature, and that society has provided a powerful "taming" influence, which greatly limits the number of outlets available to vent those violent impulses. I won't speak for everyone of course, but I feel more relaxed after I play my ultra-mega-hyper-violent games. Is it likely that many people are affected differently? Absolutely. Is it even likely that some few are 'desensitized' and grab up real-world weapons in order to act out their fantasies? Unfortunately, yes. But I believe, in the absence of hard facts to the contrary, that the vast majority of society, including our youth, are able to keep fantasy and reality separated.
Of course violent videogames are "one of the causes" (if we must put it that way) of mass killings.
Of course, yes, of course... wait, no, you're wrong. Completely and totally. While I will grant you the possibility, you have the same problem as the media in that you are so willing and eager to bestow your opinion as a freaking fact. And just FYI, when I see a post start out that way, I'm roughly (well, precisely) 100% likely to disregard the rest of your post.
You are unable to even give an indication that removing patents would keep the creation of new inventions flowing.
Wait, are you actually suggesting that if patents disappeared tomorrow that no more new inventions would be created? The reason that no one needs to "give an indication" is that it is simple common sense! Humans are going to invent. It's in our nature. We won't stagnate because of some missing legalese. In fact, in our current position, we're still inventing *in spite* of stupid limiting legalese.
Sounds like the GOP is treading dangerously close to the crime of "blackening the memory of one who is dead". One of our recently killed diplomats in Libya was an Eve Online player. Are they suggesting he was lazy or unfit for his post?
Mmm, just a technical observation -- most BT clients now have configurable (and even randomly configurable) ports, and the help will almost always advise you not to use the "usual" BT ports. Although if you did block them, I guess you could make a decent case that you weren't "negligent" in leaving those ports open...
It could be even better: in addition to the dead tree book with no pictures, they could be charged an extra fee for online access to see the pictures which could not be included *in* the dead tree book!
A cynical person, such as myself, might get the idea that they quite deliberately did not encrypt the information so that students *could* easily reproduce the cards and plant them, thereby keeping attendance up even if the student is not in class or on campus.
The right, on the other hand, endorses reduction of government power and programs. Even if they never follow through.
If by "endorses" you meant "pays lip service about", then I would agree with that statement. The right has no more intention of reducing government than the left; they just want to shift from social funding to military/defense funding. I couldn't possibly guess why this might be...