What are you talking about? Of course it can be stolen. If I put a gun to your head, and say "Sign over the rights to your IP in perpetuity or else!" and you comply, I have stolen your IP. Obviously not what we're talking about, but technicalities used to matter around here goddammit, and IP can be stolen.

In other news, some files merely describing the color and arrangement of dots on your screen are illegal too... and in every country.

Not that banning those helps achieve the result they want either. But this isn't really wholly unprecedented.

So nothing in the past few decades. Got it.

Its really pretty striking that these are allowed at all. Its not even clear why a judge would issue a warrant for something this unreliable.

Really? It's pretty clear to me. It's just another technical loophole to allow cops to do anything they want to catch [druggies|terrorists|pedophiles]. Or do you really think the Supreme Court says dogs are ok- if the police say they passed a police-administered certification with no real ability to challenge the methods or conduct independent tests, or even know the dogs actual field record (all you can do is ask the dogs handler if his dog is certified, and they can just say they can't talk about field records, and of course they don't have to prove the dog to an independent expert with sound methods)- because they're too dumb to know dogs fail more often than not? Read the decision for Florida v. Harris; it's a complete farce, how they ignored real evidence in favor of 'well the cops say the dog is good'.

I mean seriously, here's how the argument went:
a) Independent testing shows the dog clearly responds to the handlers wishes, both in test courses and the field. In these tests the handler did not know where the drugs were.
b) Police say in their testing with their methods the dog is very accurate. The handlers know where the drugs are in each test. And the field results don't matter, because the dog is so right if drugs arent there now they obviously just moved them.

Supreme Court says (b) is now the law of the land, and sound legal grounds to justify probable cause under the 4th amendment.

As I understood it, people died because they didn't have an adequate supply of naloxone on hand. The need for it would be obvious to anyone who knows even a little about opioids, but assuming you have that on hand (and administer it quickly enough) the risk of fatality is extremely small.

Fire, swimming pools, hot tubs, lava, shotguns, Gallagher, cannons, M80s, trebuchets, toddlers, flame throwers, tanks, grandmothers, that fat gamer dude, gorillas, tornadoes, ninjas, wood chippers... well, you get the idea. In fact, when it comes to destroying a computer kittehs are not anywhere near the top ten.

You, sir, have obviously never owned a cat.

You tell them, "look, here's the improved level of service and quality we can provide you for a reasonable price."

That statement needs to be true before it's effective. Pirated content provides a better experience. You don't always need to be online and the selection is almost always better. And quality? These days I just download the 1080p streams they post on the web. Personally I hate being at some companies whim and fancy about what seasons they can or cannot carry, can or cannot offer in HD, and when they may just up and discontinue the service.

Although the technical barrier to entry is somewhat higher than simply streaming your shows, no legitimate offering can compete with my 70-show library served up by a couple NAS devices. Sure it's 8TB (and another 3TB for 320 movies, 200 of which are in HD), but it's a complete replacement for TV on any device on my network. Local copies are better than streams for almost every situation (unless you and everyone in your family never want to watch it again).

Also there's a reason for pirating that you forgot to mention: I pay for cable TV. As far as I'm concerned, since it's my right to record anything that airs and edit out commercials and format shift, I have every right to simply download it instead.

By 'action is being taken' I presume you mean something along the lines of "Please don't do this again, or else... or else we'll send you an even more harshly worded letter!"

What exactly are those repercussions, that don't arise only as a consequence of legal status? Here's a hint, they're about the same as those of people taking high doses of other opiates prescribed by physicians; and those under heroin maintenance programs in Europe: virtually nil.

Pick another drug to make that comment about, because medically speaking, opiates (which includes heroin) are among the safest drugs out there when used legally.
And before you bring up 'liver problems', remember that is a consequence of the Tylenol put into opioid preparations as a deterrent to recreational use.

And as a sanity check, I have to assume you believe the taxpayer should not be responsible for the repercussions of legal alcohol and tobacco use? Because if that's not the case, well, you know what that would make you. Oh and by the way, the burden on taxpayers will be less if it's legal regardless of the drug. The drug war sure as shit isn't free, and the non-drugwar costs are already there- and there's no good reason to believe untold masses of people are going to rush out and become heroin addicts just because it's legal.

What really infuriates me about self-checkout, in addition to those things, is that for some reason the scanners aren't nearly as good as the regular checkout. At a register they just swipe the item through, whereas at self checkout I often find myself rotating it around a bunch of times, or having to make the bar code perfectly flat; sometimes it takes 20+ second just to scan an item.
There is absolutely no good reason for this. It's why almost nobody uses self-checkout if they have more than 10 items.

Just like all the major banks say they don't want the business of the drug cartels. But they all knowingly participate in it, and indeed even depend on the billions of dollars of cash. They get caught once in a while, but all that happens is a relatively small fine and a promise to not do it again.

The precious metals and gems matter to these people too. And the design. See something like worldlux.com. They sell a $26895 roller ball pen there. I've never written with it but I don't suspect it's that much better than regular roller balls. How much better is the $12000 ST Dupont lighter than a Zippo? Multi-thousand dollar platinum ashtrays aren't any better than their non-platinum counterparts either.

$8,000 fine for a TV station huh? So, less than they spend on the anchor's hair each month?

It's not like these are going to be firing missiles or calling in air strikes ala Afghan/Pakistan.

Yet. They're not armed Yet. Do you honestly believe police will never try to get this power once drones are well accepted?

'and not a convict'

Sorry I missed the part of the second amendment where it says 'the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, unless you were convicted of minor non-violent or victimless crime several decades ago'. Unless you're actually convicted of a violent crime (or the state can prove, through the courts, that their access to firearms presents a direct threat to the safety of others), there's no legitimate interest in denying that right.
Deny an armed robber gun rights? Sure. But someone in on tax fraud? Or pot? Or criminal copyright? Please.