Hopefully this won't be another case of the Obama administration in effect "taking a dive" to move the law in a direction desired by its more radical members.

I could see a lot of people, on different ends of the spectrum, tending to agree that warrantless wiretaps should be unconstitutional. It's hardly a position exclusive to (large portions, but not the entirety of) the left.

There's an on-the-record public interview with Scalia from which the parent took their claim. You could, y'know, fact-check what people say before mocking them.

In some countries this would constitute as entrapment.

Name one.

In every system I'm aware of, it's entrapment only if law enforcement (not some random private party) encourages you to violate a law you wouldn't have broken otherwise (which providing a forum for folks to discuss their violations of the law is not).

So, funny thing --

I'm trying to sell my house right now. Except with the shutdown in place, anyone who needs a federal loan can't get it approved.

Pretty essential from where I'm standing.

If she gets the patents thrown out, that's good for everyone, rest of us included.

There's nothing inheritantly bad with getting a phone through the carrier.

...or at least, there won't be, after carriers stop selling phones locked even to customers paying full price.

I'm suspecting we're in violent agreement here.

Who cares?

People supporting nontechnical friends/family who bought a phone directly through their carrier?

More to the world than just us geeks. :)

All of the carriers will give you a no-contract plan or sell you an unsubsidized, unlocked phone.

Unsubsidized, and without a contract, yes.

Unlocked... have a source for that?

It could be just unfortunate she met her killer there and died. Not unusual for a wife to use her husbands laptop. Many couples trust each other with passwords. She might even have asked him to do the search for her.

If you read the fine article -- the cache contained metadata showing the search to be done from his workplace, not their home.

They're probably not the sort you would own up to either.

Depends on the direction of causality, of course.

Also, what percentage of Screen Actors Guild members make a living at acting?

A much larger percentage than that of actors as a whole. It used to be possible to buy your way into SAG -- but these days, you only get in my being credited on enough SAG-eligible pictures. Except that the big-budget movies won't bring you on unless you're already in the guild, so you need to fight for every bit piece in a low-budget SAG picture (allowing non-member talent) you can get.

But really... a lot of it varies depending on where you are. There are cities where it's possible to make a living wage (not a good living wage, but to keep the lights on) doing theater, and there are places where industrials and commercials are the only real money to be had... and if you're unlucky enough to be in a "right-to-work" state, it's possible that SAG membership might hurt as much as it helps.

Any Utilikilt other than the "new original" has huge pockets which hang down and to the front. I keep my (2nd-gen) Nexus 7 (the 1st-gen was a little wider, and fit in the pockets but not as easily), cell phone, and external battery in a single side/front pocket.

Eh? Investing makes sense when you want a return more than you care about the means by which it's derived. Crowdsourcing makes sense when you want a product to exist more than you care about a return -- it's useful for projects which simply won't generate a return, where the end result of the project (the product, media, &c being generated) is the goal in and of itself. They're different things, and one can reasonably choose either of them depending on their goals.

I don't know where you get the idea that anyone conflates the two.

Which licenses, precisely, are you describing as "gratuitous"? Consideration is, after all, not a hard thing to find.

In the case of software using copylefted dependencies, the ability to use 3rd-party similarly licensed code is consideration for release the license. In the case of software under more permissive licenses, there's an argument to be made that public assistance in the development of same (bug reports, community support assistance, etc) acts as consideration for the license. If a single peppercorn is sufficient to establish compensation under common law, surely a well-researched bug report is worth more.

You ask for an example of a case when a "gratuitous" license (a term implying that absolutely no consideration is given, which I deny is the case in the situations given here) was not allowed to be withdrawn. Frankly, I'm not familiar with a single instance in which an OSI-approved license has been withdrawn in a US jurisdiction with respect to previously released codebases -- and were this a feasible thing, we'd have seen Oracle, SCO and others doing no end of it (particularly in the time period in which Microsoft was willing to spend money on convincing the world that using open source software in business was high-risk, and certainly had the funds to buy companies which owned copyright to the codebases of major OSS infrastructure, either directly or by proxy).

I'd be curious to hear about a case of revocation of an OSI-approved license being held valid in a US court, should such exist -- and suspect that, if one did make it to appeals, we'd be seeing the OSI and their friends weighing in as amici; it'd certainly be an interesting read.

Under which country's law?

In most places, I'd expect promissory estoppel to apply.