Eric S notapenguin's blog: "Politics and events, some not current"

I've seen "2006"-year-olds, "-6"-year-olds, and just now a 16-year-old here... the ToS may transfer the liability to the user but if the software isn't making any effort to enforce it (easy enough, I'd think. if (age<18) or (age>180) {block} to use an old-fashioned pseudocode - should work until there are a substantial number of 181-year-old people...) then I can't see the liability argument holding up in court - maybe I'm wrong- and the rest of it, well... E.

Apparently it changes in 2007-see http://www.infoplease.com/spot/daylight1.html

If - as I suspect - one of the reasons for the change in the ToS (and one legal issue tied into this whole affair- of course) is liability - then - would someone please explain to me the rash of people with ages in the 2000s? How do they convince the computer they're that old, and isn't that a transparent ability to get around that clause in the terms of service- or am I missing something very obvious?...

in the terms of service, that is, as of August 23. I say again that if credit card verification or similar is required, that's a condition I can't fulfil for reasons having nothing to do with my age (37 for one thing, and whether you believe me or not is really of no matter, is it, for the other?) - and so- if it is - as it may have to be, given the increase in extremely graphic (gads, I sound like a prude.) imagery and the ease of access to it here- well then, "you know where to find me again" (Parsifal, Act II, the eponymous opera... or many other people in many other places, of course.) In the meantime, no, I have no intention of leaving so very quickly!

Seem to recognize the bulletin "we mourn a good friend today..." from somewhere - PJ O'Rourke possibly. Whatever its origin, whatever the author's politics, some of the soundbites that make up its too-clever, thrice-chewed content are too-ready summaries of cases that too many people think they know about and really don't... like the Woman Sues McDonalds for Spilled Coffee. The facts of that case (not at all the first of its kind to be brought against the restaurant- a fact the jurors took into account, by the way, along with several others) are covered in quite a few sources (see this Wikipedia page for something more detailed...)

There for a start...