I hears something similar about the science community in the 1920s and 1930s. Germany had a lot of brilliant scientists at that time, and supposedly a lot of people in science were learning German, since it was the center of the community at the time.

People will stop learning English and start learning Chinese if they become the most powerful and influential country, its how things work. I'll bet that two thousand years ago everybody was learning Latin.

oh shit, now they are going to ban pencils. Thanks, Jane Q. for ruining pencils for us, this is why we cant have nice things....

how do you know that something is encrypted? I send send any number of things over the Internet that might appear to be encrypted objects. You going to bust everyone who sends data over the net in a format you aren't familiar with?

Ebay and CL aren't guilty of racketeering, because they didn't create their services to sell contraband and evade legal authorities. They both work to keep illegal activities from dominating their business. Clearly, the difference here is intent. SilkRoad was created from the start to be a black market site.

The various federal agencies that are engaging in parallel construction are conspiring to break the law, so yes, they are probably guilty. I wish you the best of luck in getting them arrested and tried.

The bankers involved in default credit swaps are probably guilty of fraud, not racketeering, as they seem to have been deceiving investors about the risk they were taking in purchasing risky loans. I haven't heard any evidence that there was conspiracy to systematically defraud the country, but rather, a bunch of independent players that all arrived at the conclusion that lying about risk was profitable.

Sort of moot, as either set of charges should be enough to start handing out several hundred year sentences to those involved.

He didn't sell any actual drugs, he just ran the site for people who did.

IANAL, but that sounds like racketeering to me. If he was tried in the 1970s, I bet the feds would have slapped him with racketeering charges which were designed to allow them to bust mob bosses, who 'just gave orders' to others to commit crimes. Just because you aren't handling physical contraband, doesn't mean that you are innocent. He was conspiring to allow others to break laws en mass. He knew what he was doing from the start, this isn't an innocent mistake.

Link is to slide show site littered with click bait adds. While the topic is a useful discussion to have with new graduates, link is to garbage site....

Lol, are you drunk? Most people are not going to pick up their guns an revolt against the government unless one thing happens: The government comes into THEIR town, and tries to take THEIR house/car/money/loved ones. Nobody is going to grab an AK-47 and march on Washington because the feds are reading their e-mail to grandma.

And the feds probably know it too, or else they wouldn't be doing it....

James Comey is

BWgSZ9ZYLw5I kmoBvJiRvnO7uQU9x6NoYlKBOaO vmb3df8lNwkgeFc30rNPB9kh09Fr61CxW24IkH3YWKRe8H YdTd8YHzpRBMQJcwyxn+O3cUPQ4sP2dN4GEA/9v17IipHz12Bon8o7dc0o8UaOj3tl Pr19cq3meoufARx7PLJ0SKclb3LG7SxW+GTISS1cRGpDRr d0NvdC8lHHkfyDx5YGnIp DUgQa9lMCpQbHSln40 LCosKrQamj4Ni27wIbikaSWV+IiDsn jyfc7eLKlq QSOgCFzMsBglGzC2+j9HifrKU/z9Fzc8HZ3UiaQahMiOj EnohZdYQqCdPAmeZlEkK/qaZBtwA13A BLrbolhR0C/NSgvA hPZzh7oj33/LHPY8tC TP7zXULYP/RsccmOc aS88VzbzOAaRwEf9KCu1YtKICdVyGlYhn5IN4q vM80+vNtkc0QiRUdKW

And I'll tell him that again to his FACE!

Meh, who cares if CS was 'first', whatever that is worth. The more important fact is that when it came out, it was a crappy looking game compared to everything else that was out at the time, and loaded with cheaters from almost day 1. I honestly didn't know that anyone bothered to play it anymore. If it wasn't 'getting respect', it is probably for a good reason...

also, remember that high pay != skill. There are plenty of musicians that aren't particularly skilled at playing music that make a lot of money because they are good at entertaining.

You are so fucking stupid, it simply hurts. You give a bad name to dumb people. The logical hole in your argument is so huge, I could drive a dump truck though it. Now, most people could understand the logical problem with your claim, so I have honestly wonder if you are just shilling because you are an entertainment lawyer or some other paid big entertainment whore.

Claiming that because there was growth, that the laws aren't stifling creative output, is pointless. Growth might be boosted or stifled by the laws, but you cannot know because YOU HAVE NO BASELINE to compare it to. Shit, you haven't even tried to look at the industry growth vs. population growth. While those stats don't prove (or disprove) your claim about laws, you could see that a industry's 'growth' vs. population growth is might actually be a decline.

Please delete all your accounts, format your computer, and sell it to a homeless Frenchman as a broken etch-a-sketch. You are to dim to be allowed to have an opinion anymore. Please report to the nearest construction site and volunteer as landfill, for which you are actually qualified.

The libertarians (among others) are very, very scared of having an honest discussion about those issues, which is why they continually attempt to deny that climate change exists or has an anthropogenic cause. .

That is a interesting generalization, why would a libertarian in particular have a problem with the topic? Is there something in the secret libertarian manual that says that they cannot be honest about global climate change?

I think we should just call the 'Heretics', because then we could just burn them. Because that is what you do with heretics, right?

Of course, that would be a bad idea in practice, as it would just release more greenhouse gasses...

No, it isn't, it is an indicator of absolutely nothing. Without the laws there might be 100 times much entertainment available now. Your statement is pure speculation, and is simply an unfounded opinion.

As much music as what? You have nothing to compare it to. You cannot say what the industry would have done if there was no copyright, so the volume of content we have today proves nothing. For we know, we might have twice the content if we had no law getting in the way of creating content. So, sorry, your claim is still worthless.