In my time in IT, that's what I've seen. There was an update to the 3com 905 drivers back in the day that BSOD's systems, since then there have been more rigorous driver testing. After that there was the recent Windows 7 update that had a problem on some systems. We didn't see any issues on any of our some 400 Windows 7 systems, but I did verify it was real. MS rolled it back with another automated patch.

Oh and I suppose XP SP3 though that wasn't automatic, and the only systems it "broke" were ones with Malware infections so I hardly count that.

So... ya... Personally, I'll take an issue ever decade or so in trade for having a system that it up to date. However, if you'd rather not patch your stuff go ahead, just don't do it on my network, I'll block you.

Sweden has some pretty hardcore taxes for the rich. Don't get me wrong, he's still a very monied guy (he made plenty before the sale as well) but it isn't like he got to keep all the cash. Sweden doubtless took their cut.

WHOOOOOSH!!!

That was GP's whole point: anybody stupid enough (or forgetful enough) to try to carry something like this onto a plane just isn't much of a threat.

TFA in a nutshell:

"We're going to discover all these neat behavioral things via neurobiology, and change the world!"

It doesn't say they've actually discovered any of these things yet. Just that they plan to.

It reads very much like this.

This is a common syndrome in erstwhile free societies: the police are always complaining that they can't catch criminals, that they need more leeway and exemptions from the law themselves in order to do so.

And when people believe them, the inevitable result is less freedom and more Big Brother.

Anybody who thinks Snowden did not ultimately do us all a huge favor isn't seeing straight.

Please elaborate. What are these "bogus" ecological claims?

There are exceptions, but in most states they are few and specific.

Ditto.

"Seem to be absolved from" is not the same as legal. That's a straw-man argument. I wrote "they're not allowed". The dog is not allowed on the bed. That doesn't mean the dog doesn't get up there sometimes. Only that it isn't supposed to.

Having said that, again yes there are exceptions. But those exceptions are very specific and we know what they are.

Though they sometimes might not get prosecuted for breaking the rules, they sure as hell should. That's a genuine societal problem, not how things are "supposed to" be.

"They" put it in huge reservoirs. I used to live there, and I know them well. Also the Central Valley, where a close relative owned a farm / ranch. I am intimately familiar with these things.

And don't ben an ass. "All"? Of course not. Being deliberately literal when I was not doesn't make for compelling arguments. It's pretty obvious that I was oversimplifying.

Still, the basic point remains. Stand at the mouth of the San Joaquin "river" most of the year and see how much water comes out. I have pictures of my grandfather with strings of large salmon caught in that river, back before it was being mostly used up. Now, it's not very common to see more than a trickle most of the year. And ask residents of L.A. about their "river". You've probably seen it in movie "chase scenes"... a vast concrete canal with seldom more than puddles at the bottom of it.

And don't forget groundwater: they've been gradually depleting the aquifers for generations, and they were aware of it.

Yes, I certainly can, and the answer is no.

Guess what? Oregon and Washington make use of that water. Shipping it down to California seriously diminishes quality of life for those who live there, not to mention the environmental destruction that would ensue.

Let California go broke. Hell, it is anyway. People can buy their food from elsewhere.

IANAL, but my understanding is that you are not generally required to go out of your way to assist the police. You are not a policeman, you aren't being paid to be one.

Even phone companies insist on payment for allowing wiretaps, or government requests for information. And even those are only mandatory because there are specific laws that say so (such as CALEA).

Unfortunately, though, we now have far too many laws, including contradictory laws. Even if somebody had their own legal library, every year some things change. A hypothetical typical, reasonable citizen could not possibly know them all, much less be reasonably expected to. They wouldn't have time to do anything else.

So here's my question: since our common law system is supposed to be based on the reasonable man principle, and it is provably not reasonable to expect the average citizen to know most laws, much less all, how could ignorance of the law NOT be a valid excuse?

Have you been living under a rock the last 5 years?

Yes, prosecutors have tried to use the TOS thing as an excuse to prosecute. But that is being actively fought by EFF, EPIC, and a whole alphabet soup of other organizations acting as amici to the courts, and with actual legal defense as well.

It is pretty clear that Congress never meant the law to apply to situations like Aaron Swartz, for example. Government prosecutors have been fighting actually getting that one to court though because they know they'll lose, and they want to retain the ability to threaten people with it.

No.

Police are not allowed to break the law in order to enforce the law.

I'm not saying they never do it, but if they do, they're just as much criminals as anyone else. There is no law or principle that gives police a pass for breaking laws.

Lying, by itself, is not a crime. So why should they not be able to lie?

Generally speaking, they may not commit a crime in their pursuit to solve or prevent crimes. Police don't have diplomatic immunity. Again generally speaking, the same laws that apply to you also apply to them too.

What they are NOT allowed to do is commit crimes. They might be able to lie, but not commit fraud or "entrap", which basically means to talk or fool someone into doing something illegal they would not normally do.

In one state I know of, the police were trying to have it both ways. They claimed they were "always on duty", even though of course they were only being paid for 8-hour shifts. They wanted to be able to do whatever they wanted when not on shift, yet still carry their guns and make arrests, and act like police, any time of the day or night, whenever they wanted.

The State said no, if they were "always on duty" they'd have to be job-insured 24 hours a day, and get "on-call" pay in addition to their regular wages. Since the State wasn't about to do that, it declared officially that police were only "really" police when they were on their paid shift. Any other time, they can only make citizen's arrests, just like everybody else. Also, as a result, the few exemptions the police got for firearms carry are only in effect when they're on paid duty. All firearms laws in the state apply to off-duty police in exactly the same way they do to everyone else. The police really howled about that one.

Prior to the State "cleaning house", the police were also busting prostitutes by paying them and having sex with them, then arresting them and taking the money back. The state said "no way". No more hands-on for the police. They howled about that one too.