DON'T! Really, for just this once, it's okay not to RTFA! It's the stupidest thing I've seen linked from/. in a long time. I can only assume ScuttleMonkey hates us and posted this to make us suffer.
I work with a repository of teaching materials (among other things). I just took a look through it and found that the difference between units is generally taught in second grade. OSIC code Y2003.CMA.S02.GPK-02.BE.L02.I03, for anyone who cares about that.
I agree, except I would put QA as a separate team between dev and IT. IT should not be allowed to deploy anything that QA has not approved. If they do, IT is at fault for whatever happens. By the time a deployment gets to IT, QA has verified that it works correctly. If it doesn't, and they pass it, then QA is at fault. If it should work but it's deployed wrong, then IT is at fault, because QA was able to follow the dev's instructions. If it doesn't pass QA, it's the dev's fault. This minimizes finger-pointing, and sets a clear path to production.
Actually, this is intended as a replacement for other "less-lethal" weapons. Rubber bullets, tazers, and even billy clubs can all be considered alternatives, but they all have drawbacks. Rubber bullets are the most similar in practice: they're used to cause pain with minimum damage with an intent on crowd control. However, they leave major bruises and can result in death or other serious injury. Tazers are more effective and safer against individuals, but they aren't very effective on crowds. Billy clubs cause serious injuries, too, and force hand-to-hand combat. I'm sure there are other alternatives as well, but they all have drawbacks, otherwise no one would have bothered creating this new weapon.
The concept of an "IT" job is way too vague to be useful. IT has long since split into various disciplines (eg. hardware guy, code monkey, dba), and now those are subdividing even more. While there isn't that much difference between being an oracle dba vs. a mysql dba vs. a mssql dba, there is a big difference between being a java/c#/c++ coder vs. being a site builder, and a huge difference between being a site builder vs. a dba. The differences in these fields are reflected in what CS (or related) degree (or job skills) one might want to pursue. The real question(s) ought to be "Is Still Worth It?"
I would like to know if the studies of Diebold's machines have ever been compared to similar studies of other methods. I'm sure we all remember the issues of hanging chads and how recounts could be manipulated, which is one of the reasons some people don't support paper trails. Without this comparison, I feel like complaints about Diebold and other manufacturers can be construed as alarmist and nitpicking at best, political posturing and propagandising at worst. Do you have any numbers or direct comparisons about the flaws of Diebold machines compared to other methods?
I never said specific relativity. I include general in this, though it's irrelevant in some cases. The thought experiment postulated on the page I referenced is entirely valid without any need to factor in acceleration. And before you stupidly point out that the ships must undergo acceleration to return and compare notes, I'll point out that all special relativity then becomes vacuous and moot, because no results could ever be compared without such acceleration. It is not unreasonable to expect general relativity to give a symetrical result in such experiments (and is usually assumed), and therefore all parts of the experiments that occur in inertial frames must also be symetrical. This is not like the so-called "simultaneity paradox" where you can just get away with saying, "It works both ways," because in this case, the results can be compared. If the examples given are so foolish, why don't you show how the math works out in this situation, rather than just saying, "You caaan't do thaaaat." Wake up and open your eyes and your mind. It's supposed to be a science, not a religion. Relativity - both theories - are not yet completely correct.
Obviously. You clearly haven't been paying any attention. I am referring to two ships which start at rest and move in mirroring ways. Each accelerates the same as the other, but in opposite directions. I've already given you two examples; I'm not going to explain again.
I'm starting to think you're nothing but a troll, or perhaps just an idiot who made a stupid comment and refuses to back down. Either way, this has clearly gotten pointless. If you really don't understand, take this to a smarter "teacher" than you, and have them explain it.
I agree. Only one observer will see the ball move. BUT RELATIVITY DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THIS IN ANY EQUATION! That is why it is fully possible to model the planet moving and the ship sitting still. Also, this does not address the cases in which both observers are moving equally.
Let me clarify - give the formulae in which the force behind the acceleration is taken into account. Acceleration, just like velocity, is symmetrical. From the perspective of the ship, the planet accelerates away from it.
I most certainly did not insinuate that there was a conspiracy. What you inferred is your fault. However, if there were a need for such a conspiracy, you would clearly be a part of it.
I'll tell you what, if you think that acceleration can account for the differences in the thought experiments given, why don't you show me the formulae in which said acceleration is accounted for?
Once again, you completely misunderstand. I, along with the author of the article, am using a simpler cosmological model so that we can give a number that means something to others, instead of stupidly reducing everything to meaningless jargon. Actually, I was simply trying to correct the previous poster's misconception that light has to "catch up" to us at a speed of "c minus our speed." I never denied that cosmological expansion would effect the real value of the distance, but I chose to use a model that would make more sense to my target audience.
You've completely missed the point of the thought experiment. It assumes Newtonian physics, along with the premise that light travels at the same speed regardless of inertial frames. Thus it demonstrates the need for length and time dilation. The follow-up experiment then assumes l/t dilation, but still fails to resolve the contradiction; ie. that each ship experiences less time than the other. If you'd like to see a clearer example of relativity's failure to resolve certain paradoxes (particularly those in which l/t dilation is symmetrical), see the link in my other post. (Oh, and by the way, special relativity ALWAYS applies to ALL inertial frames. Newtonian physics is simply a special case. From the muons' perspective, it is the Earth that moves to them.) To try to explain it again, consider the twins experiment - it can also be modelled with the twin on the ship staying still, and the planet flying away and returning. Thus it would be the twin on the planet that experiences less time. Acceleration is the apparent difference between the two, but that is NOT currently accounted for in relativity.
I never said there was a conspiracy. It is simply that nobody with enough significance in the physics community is making a big deal out of this. And no, it won't shake the Earth if they do. First, it wouldn't surprise anyone who really knows the field, and second, no one has an answer yet. Absolutely, anyone who could answer it would certainly be in line for a Nobel.
I'm afraid I've been unable to find a visual example of the thought experiment I mentioned. I know I've seen it on the web before, but there are so many search results that I couldn't find that specific one. There is a similar one where "Bob" flies a ship to another planet and back and "Ann" stays on Earth and watches, but it doesn't show the reasoning behind relativity - ie. the fact that light has the same constant speed regardless of inertial frame. It just shows the application of time dilation. However, I did find this: http://members.aol.com/carmam1534/Hollings1.html - another thought experiment which outlines the same type of asymetrical flaw in relativity.
The statements (a) "The galaxy was 13 billion light years away when the light was emitted" and (b) "The galaxy is now 13 billion light years away" are both not only wrong, but meaningless.
If you're going to trivialize all values of distance to the point that they are meaningless, then you're a fool. It's certainly possible to say that variations in theoretical values (or entire cosmological models) could cause these values to be different, but the gist remains the same: the light left the other galaxy and travelled to the earth at the speed of light RELATIVE TO THE EARTH, and the relative speeds of the earth and the other galaxy are irrelevent. Yes, this is dependent on a particular cosmological model, but to refuse to accept any such model because there are competitors renders all of your statements meaningless. You might only care about red shift, but it means exactly jack to most people, thus we render it to distance (and often time) based on a model that seems most likely to fit.
Nope, not familiar with that one so much. What's the purpose of the blinking light?
And you claim to be a teacher of relativity? Ok, I'll assume for the moment that somehow that's true and yet you've never seen this basic thought experiment. I didn't intend to explain it, because it really needs a visual presentation, but here's the short version: both the planet and the ship count the number of blinks they see during the ships journey. The planet sees the last blink at the same time the ship gets there; the ship sees it earlier. Thus, it presents a contradiction in Newtonian physics, which can be resolved through length and time dilation.
Among physicists, to my knowledge, there is no known thought experiment or demonstration that cannot be reconciled with special relativity.
Actually, if you want to get specific, there's a significant flaw in relativity in every thought experiment - from an outside perspective, there is no difference between the planet sitting in place with the ship moving, and the ship sitting in place with the planet moving. There is no explanation why it must be the ship that experiences less time - it's all a matter of perspective. The same can be said of the twins experiment or any other. That is what I modeled in the example I gave before - a perfectly symetrical system. Length and time dilation do not resolve this one, because they can't each experience less time than the other. If you honestly believed that there were no thought experiments that couldn't be resolved by relativity, then I suggest you consider a nice career in the food service industry.
These people must not be physicists, or at least this ground-shaking refutation of special relativity has not gotten the publicity your bald assertion would seem to warrant.
Of course this doesn't get publicity - what physicists want to be the one that publicly states, "Hey, we don't know!" But in my experience, all of them (except you, if I'm to believe your claims of teaching relativity) are aware of it. It will become more widely exposed when and if someone comes up with an answer for it. However, if you'd done just a little bit of research on google, you'd have no problem finding plenty of examples of physicists who quite publicly address the flaws in relativity.
The "13 billion ly" is an unfortunately inaccurate, and probably meaningless number.
I agree, but I didn't feel like taking on this assumption. I was simply stating that if something were indeed seen from 13 billion ly away, it would mean they were 13 billion ly away 13 billion years ago, when the light began travelling, as opposed to being 13 billion ly away right now. On the other hand, if the other galaxy is calculated to be 13 billion ly away now, it was much closer when the light we are now seeing had left it. I addressed the former possibility because it related to the parent post.
I'm intrigued by your offer and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Here's the short version: It is well known that relativity is flawed. There's a common demonstration used to introduce people to relativity: a ship, a planet, and a light exist in space. The light blinks in a regular pattern. The ship starts next to the planet and flies to the light and back at a relativistic speed. In the process, we see that the ship has experienced less time than the planet. I'm not explaining this here; I assume you are familiar. If not, there are demonstrations available on the web.
So, once that is shown, take it one step farther. Four ships in a line; two have blinking lights on them. The two without lights start next to each other, the other two are the same distance from them (on opposite sides) that the light was from the planet in the previous example. Each of the outer ships flies inward, while the other two fly outward in opposite directions; for simplicity, make the speed of each be half the speed of the ship in the previous example. When the outer and inner ships meet, they turn around and return to their original positions. So now you can see that by removing either of the outer ships, you have a model equivalent to the first example. Thus, each of the middle ships experiences less time than the other! Nothing in relativity can account for this contradiction (yet).
Relativity is wrong. We don't know the exact nature of what is wrong. Most of us, myself included, do not discount it altogether, but some do. Thus I say again, relativity is much less certain than many people believe.
Sorry, but no. Remember that the fundamental given that underlies all relativity is that light moves at the same speed regardless of the motion of the observer. In other words, regardless of our relative movement, the speed of light must be c, not 0.52c. Therefore, this galaxy would have had to have been 13 billion light years away from us at the time the light left it and began travelling towards us. Of course, that's assuming relativity is correct, which is much less certain than many people believe.
In this case, it's necessary to go after the users because without the US users, there is no crime.
I agree, but my point is that you can't effectively prevent the activity by going after the users. Therefore, to try to effectively enforce the law, you have to target the providers.
The previous arrest had included charges of racketeering. It's quite possible this one does as well.
As to the Wire Act, and the enforceability of such: This is really no different than betting over the phone or by mail. This is just a newer version of an old debate - when an activity takes place over a distance, and it is illegal in one location and not the other, can it be enforced on the person in the latter? Obviously, the government of Louisiana feels it can, provided that person comes within their territory, or can be extradited. Other governments have behaved similarly, for other laws, although most just prefer censorship.
The issue is not whether gambling should be illegal. Sure, it's a stupid law, and it would be a simple answer for this one situation if gambling was legal, but it wouldn't answer the larger question. On the one hand, no government at any level wants its laws to be so easily avoided, and it's ineffective to go after the individuals who use the service rather than the providers (just ask the RIAA - well, in a few years anyway). On the other hand, there is certainly a case to be made that those who offer services should not expect to be held in violation of a law that didn't exist in the locality from which they offered said services.
So I guess what I'm saying is, "I dunno." Is it fair to say, "If you do something that breaks the law here, and that has an effect here, you can never come here"? Or is it fair to say, "You can't touch us, you can only block access to our site from everyone in your country"? (This has in fact been suggested by other posts here! Is this something you want to encourage?) I for one am going to consider it some more rather than locking myself into some knee-jerk reaction.
P.S. One last thought - it's possible the warrant was issued due to activities during a previous trip to the US. That would change the whole situation.
Thank you! I was hoping someone would have some useful information, rather than the tripe in the original story which only refers to their own press release as a reference.
Slashdot Mirror
Rather bipartisan appears to mean to him "do it my way" or "because I say so" and "I'm the decider".
That's what everyone means when they say it. Bipartisan == I decide, you stop arguing.
DON'T! Really, for just this once, it's okay not to RTFA! It's the stupidest thing I've seen linked from /. in a long time. I can only assume ScuttleMonkey hates us and posted this to make us suffer.
I work with a repository of teaching materials (among other things). I just took a look through it and found that the difference between units is generally taught in second grade. OSIC code Y2003.CMA.S02.GPK-02.BE.L02.I03, for anyone who cares about that.
I agree, except I would put QA as a separate team between dev and IT. IT should not be allowed to deploy anything that QA has not approved. If they do, IT is at fault for whatever happens. By the time a deployment gets to IT, QA has verified that it works correctly. If it doesn't, and they pass it, then QA is at fault. If it should work but it's deployed wrong, then IT is at fault, because QA was able to follow the dev's instructions. If it doesn't pass QA, it's the dev's fault. This minimizes finger-pointing, and sets a clear path to production.
I tried Eve. I've never spent so long doing so little to accomplish so much. Obviously your idea of "good" and mine are vastly different.
Actually, this is intended as a replacement for other "less-lethal" weapons. Rubber bullets, tazers, and even billy clubs can all be considered alternatives, but they all have drawbacks. Rubber bullets are the most similar in practice: they're used to cause pain with minimum damage with an intent on crowd control. However, they leave major bruises and can result in death or other serious injury. Tazers are more effective and safer against individuals, but they aren't very effective on crowds. Billy clubs cause serious injuries, too, and force hand-to-hand combat. I'm sure there are other alternatives as well, but they all have drawbacks, otherwise no one would have bothered creating this new weapon.
The concept of an "IT" job is way too vague to be useful. IT has long since split into various disciplines (eg. hardware guy, code monkey, dba), and now those are subdividing even more. While there isn't that much difference between being an oracle dba vs. a mysql dba vs. a mssql dba, there is a big difference between being a java/c#/c++ coder vs. being a site builder, and a huge difference between being a site builder vs. a dba. The differences in these fields are reflected in what CS (or related) degree (or job skills) one might want to pursue. The real question(s) ought to be "Is Still Worth It?"
I would like to know if the studies of Diebold's machines have ever been compared to similar studies of other methods. I'm sure we all remember the issues of hanging chads and how recounts could be manipulated, which is one of the reasons some people don't support paper trails. Without this comparison, I feel like complaints about Diebold and other manufacturers can be construed as alarmist and nitpicking at best, political posturing and propagandising at worst. Do you have any numbers or direct comparisons about the flaws of Diebold machines compared to other methods?
JoCo has done something like this. Check out http://www.jonathancoulton.com/songs
When this technology was tested using a typical /. post, the output was "In Soviet Russia, hovercraft's eels are full of you."
Wow, a whole story's worth of posts that could fit in the subject line. I hereby offer the Weird Al version (see subject).
So a bunch of whiny pansies are bitching about Blizzard giving in to a bunch of whiny pansies? Will that make them change it back?
I never said specific relativity. I include general in this, though it's irrelevant in some cases. The thought experiment postulated on the page I referenced is entirely valid without any need to factor in acceleration. And before you stupidly point out that the ships must undergo acceleration to return and compare notes, I'll point out that all special relativity then becomes vacuous and moot, because no results could ever be compared without such acceleration. It is not unreasonable to expect general relativity to give a symetrical result in such experiments (and is usually assumed), and therefore all parts of the experiments that occur in inertial frames must also be symetrical. This is not like the so-called "simultaneity paradox" where you can just get away with saying, "It works both ways," because in this case, the results can be compared. If the examples given are so foolish, why don't you show how the math works out in this situation, rather than just saying, "You caaan't do thaaaat." Wake up and open your eyes and your mind. It's supposed to be a science, not a religion. Relativity - both theories - are not yet completely correct.
I don't understand this.
Obviously. You clearly haven't been paying any attention. I am referring to two ships which start at rest and move in mirroring ways. Each accelerates the same as the other, but in opposite directions. I've already given you two examples; I'm not going to explain again.
I'm starting to think you're nothing but a troll, or perhaps just an idiot who made a stupid comment and refuses to back down. Either way, this has clearly gotten pointless. If you really don't understand, take this to a smarter "teacher" than you, and have them explain it.
I agree. Only one observer will see the ball move. BUT RELATIVITY DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THIS IN ANY EQUATION! That is why it is fully possible to model the planet moving and the ship sitting still. Also, this does not address the cases in which both observers are moving equally.
Let me clarify - give the formulae in which the force behind the acceleration is taken into account. Acceleration, just like velocity, is symmetrical. From the perspective of the ship, the planet accelerates away from it.
I most certainly did not insinuate that there was a conspiracy. What you inferred is your fault. However, if there were a need for such a conspiracy, you would clearly be a part of it. I'll tell you what, if you think that acceleration can account for the differences in the thought experiments given, why don't you show me the formulae in which said acceleration is accounted for?
Once again, you completely misunderstand. I, along with the author of the article, am using a simpler cosmological model so that we can give a number that means something to others, instead of stupidly reducing everything to meaningless jargon. Actually, I was simply trying to correct the previous poster's misconception that light has to "catch up" to us at a speed of "c minus our speed." I never denied that cosmological expansion would effect the real value of the distance, but I chose to use a model that would make more sense to my target audience.
You've completely missed the point of the thought experiment. It assumes Newtonian physics, along with the premise that light travels at the same speed regardless of inertial frames. Thus it demonstrates the need for length and time dilation. The follow-up experiment then assumes l/t dilation, but still fails to resolve the contradiction; ie. that each ship experiences less time than the other. If you'd like to see a clearer example of relativity's failure to resolve certain paradoxes (particularly those in which l/t dilation is symmetrical), see the link in my other post. (Oh, and by the way, special relativity ALWAYS applies to ALL inertial frames. Newtonian physics is simply a special case. From the muons' perspective, it is the Earth that moves to them.) To try to explain it again, consider the twins experiment - it can also be modelled with the twin on the ship staying still, and the planet flying away and returning. Thus it would be the twin on the planet that experiences less time. Acceleration is the apparent difference between the two, but that is NOT currently accounted for in relativity.
I never said there was a conspiracy. It is simply that nobody with enough significance in the physics community is making a big deal out of this. And no, it won't shake the Earth if they do. First, it wouldn't surprise anyone who really knows the field, and second, no one has an answer yet. Absolutely, anyone who could answer it would certainly be in line for a Nobel.
I'm afraid I've been unable to find a visual example of the thought experiment I mentioned. I know I've seen it on the web before, but there are so many search results that I couldn't find that specific one. There is a similar one where "Bob" flies a ship to another planet and back and "Ann" stays on Earth and watches, but it doesn't show the reasoning behind relativity - ie. the fact that light has the same constant speed regardless of inertial frame. It just shows the application of time dilation. However, I did find this: http://members.aol.com/carmam1534/Hollings1.html - another thought experiment which outlines the same type of asymetrical flaw in relativity.
The statements (a) "The galaxy was 13 billion light years away when the light was emitted" and (b) "The galaxy is now 13 billion light years away" are both not only wrong, but meaningless.
If you're going to trivialize all values of distance to the point that they are meaningless, then you're a fool. It's certainly possible to say that variations in theoretical values (or entire cosmological models) could cause these values to be different, but the gist remains the same: the light left the other galaxy and travelled to the earth at the speed of light RELATIVE TO THE EARTH, and the relative speeds of the earth and the other galaxy are irrelevent. Yes, this is dependent on a particular cosmological model, but to refuse to accept any such model because there are competitors renders all of your statements meaningless. You might only care about red shift, but it means exactly jack to most people, thus we render it to distance (and often time) based on a model that seems most likely to fit.
Nope, not familiar with that one so much. What's the purpose of the blinking light?
And you claim to be a teacher of relativity? Ok, I'll assume for the moment that somehow that's true and yet you've never seen this basic thought experiment. I didn't intend to explain it, because it really needs a visual presentation, but here's the short version: both the planet and the ship count the number of blinks they see during the ships journey. The planet sees the last blink at the same time the ship gets there; the ship sees it earlier. Thus, it presents a contradiction in Newtonian physics, which can be resolved through length and time dilation.
Among physicists, to my knowledge, there is no known thought experiment or demonstration that cannot be reconciled with special relativity.
Actually, if you want to get specific, there's a significant flaw in relativity in every thought experiment - from an outside perspective, there is no difference between the planet sitting in place with the ship moving, and the ship sitting in place with the planet moving. There is no explanation why it must be the ship that experiences less time - it's all a matter of perspective. The same can be said of the twins experiment or any other. That is what I modeled in the example I gave before - a perfectly symetrical system. Length and time dilation do not resolve this one, because they can't each experience less time than the other. If you honestly believed that there were no thought experiments that couldn't be resolved by relativity, then I suggest you consider a nice career in the food service industry.
These people must not be physicists, or at least this ground-shaking refutation of special relativity has not gotten the publicity your bald assertion would seem to warrant.
Of course this doesn't get publicity - what physicists want to be the one that publicly states, "Hey, we don't know!" But in my experience, all of them (except you, if I'm to believe your claims of teaching relativity) are aware of it. It will become more widely exposed when and if someone comes up with an answer for it. However, if you'd done just a little bit of research on google, you'd have no problem finding plenty of examples of physicists who quite publicly address the flaws in relativity.
The "13 billion ly" is an unfortunately inaccurate, and probably meaningless number.
I agree, but I didn't feel like taking on this assumption. I was simply stating that if something were indeed seen from 13 billion ly away, it would mean they were 13 billion ly away 13 billion years ago, when the light began travelling, as opposed to being 13 billion ly away right now. On the other hand, if the other galaxy is calculated to be 13 billion ly away now, it was much closer when the light we are now seeing had left it. I addressed the former possibility because it related to the parent post.
I'm intrigued by your offer and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Here's the short version: It is well known that relativity is flawed. There's a common demonstration used to introduce people to relativity: a ship, a planet, and a light exist in space. The light blinks in a regular pattern. The ship starts next to the planet and flies to the light and back at a relativistic speed. In the process, we see that the ship has experienced less time than the planet. I'm not explaining this here; I assume you are familiar. If not, there are demonstrations available on the web.
So, once that is shown, take it one step farther. Four ships in a line; two have blinking lights on them. The two without lights start next to each other, the other two are the same distance from them (on opposite sides) that the light was from the planet in the previous example. Each of the outer ships flies inward, while the other two fly outward in opposite directions; for simplicity, make the speed of each be half the speed of the ship in the previous example. When the outer and inner ships meet, they turn around and return to their original positions. So now you can see that by removing either of the outer ships, you have a model equivalent to the first example. Thus, each of the middle ships experiences less time than the other! Nothing in relativity can account for this contradiction (yet).
Relativity is wrong. We don't know the exact nature of what is wrong. Most of us, myself included, do not discount it altogether, but some do. Thus I say again, relativity is much less certain than many people believe.
Sorry, but no. Remember that the fundamental given that underlies all relativity is that light moves at the same speed regardless of the motion of the observer. In other words, regardless of our relative movement, the speed of light must be c, not 0.52c. Therefore, this galaxy would have had to have been 13 billion light years away from us at the time the light left it and began travelling towards us. Of course, that's assuming relativity is correct, which is much less certain than many people believe.
In this case, it's necessary to go after the users because without the US users, there is no crime.
I agree, but my point is that you can't effectively prevent the activity by going after the users. Therefore, to try to effectively enforce the law, you have to target the providers.
The previous arrest had included charges of racketeering. It's quite possible this one does as well.
As to the Wire Act, and the enforceability of such: This is really no different than betting over the phone or by mail. This is just a newer version of an old debate - when an activity takes place over a distance, and it is illegal in one location and not the other, can it be enforced on the person in the latter? Obviously, the government of Louisiana feels it can, provided that person comes within their territory, or can be extradited. Other governments have behaved similarly, for other laws, although most just prefer censorship.
The issue is not whether gambling should be illegal. Sure, it's a stupid law, and it would be a simple answer for this one situation if gambling was legal, but it wouldn't answer the larger question. On the one hand, no government at any level wants its laws to be so easily avoided, and it's ineffective to go after the individuals who use the service rather than the providers (just ask the RIAA - well, in a few years anyway). On the other hand, there is certainly a case to be made that those who offer services should not expect to be held in violation of a law that didn't exist in the locality from which they offered said services.
So I guess what I'm saying is, "I dunno." Is it fair to say, "If you do something that breaks the law here, and that has an effect here, you can never come here"? Or is it fair to say, "You can't touch us, you can only block access to our site from everyone in your country"? (This has in fact been suggested by other posts here! Is this something you want to encourage?) I for one am going to consider it some more rather than locking myself into some knee-jerk reaction.
P.S. One last thought - it's possible the warrant was issued due to activities during a previous trip to the US. That would change the whole situation.
Thank you! I was hoping someone would have some useful information, rather than the tripe in the original story which only refers to their own press release as a reference.