jancona

More likely he'll wake up to find that Twitter has given away his handle.

I'll change my mind if the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs' lawyers donate the proceeds to charity.

Presumably the press release was issued after the write was pointed out to them. They warned Treasury in advance about the downgrade.

My reading of the Treasury release is that this all has to do with"baselines". Compared to current spending the deal didn't make cuts at all--spending will continue to increase over the next 10 years. The "cuts" are compared to a projection of what would have been spent without the deal, called a baseline. There are various ways of calculating baseline, i.e. how you account for inflation.It seems that S&P's error was related to misunderstanding which baseline the 2.1T applied to.

The US did not come within one day of defaulting. It came within a day of hitting the debt ceiling, which is a very different thing. Despite the way it was portrayed, the government could have limped along for days our weeks without defaulting.

(I'm not saying that would have been a good thing--just that the idea of August 2nd as the day default would have occurred is incorrect.)

So it should only be illegal if a hacker wouldn't think it's lame? Got it.

How is this not "unauthorized access" "in any meaningful sense"?

They blocked his IP, they blocked his MAC, and he hid a machine in a wiring closet to get on MIT's network. What would he have to do to make it "meaningful"?

Do you have any basis for claiming that "an open door could likely be construed as implied consent"?

I would not advise that you try that in many parts of the US. You'll be risking getting shot, and the homeowner would not have committed a crime.

Why do you think a "properly implemented" OpenID site should allow the user to use any authentication provider? The relying party site is trusting the OpenID provider to authenticate its users. Wouldn't sites with real security requirements want to vet providers before trusting them?

And you are failing to understand the legal questions at issue...

The Fifth Amendment, as currently interpreted, doesn't provide the protection you describe. It protects against giving self-incriminating testimony and essentially the question is whether the password is "testimony." Keep in mind that the government is not asking him to disclose it, just to type it into the computer. Here's a good discussion: http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1197670606.shtml (There seems to be a CSS problem with that page, but the text is fine.)

It's not true that "you may not own the copyright to changes you make ... because the court may rule it a derivative work." You may not be able to distribute those changes without violating someone else's copyright, but that doesn't affect the fact that you own the copyright to your own work.

Consider what would happen in your FanFic case if Sony tried to incorporate the kid's changes into EverQuest. The kid could sue them for infringement.