Yeah, that is what it means. The summary said so. You don't have to read between the lines, just read the actual lines. And personally, I say its about time. 99% of home users can't be trusted to apply patches themselves and just end up becoming bots that ruin the Internet for the rest of us.
Probably should have taken a little longer with that math. 1% of 7 billion would be 70,000,000 users. So that's $98,000 for ad funded stream and $168,000 for subscription. Not sure what conclusion to draw from that. Not a lot of money from 70,000,000 users listening to your song, but they only listened to it once. If a song is any good, I usually listen to it dozens of times. I'd be interested in seeing what the major radio companies pay to play a song once for 70,000,000 people.
This is an excellent point and I'd like to extend it a little further. The law doesn't even say what the summary or linked article says it does. If it did, sending a paperback through the mail would have already been against the low. First, notice that the part about sending false messages isn't by itself, but a sub section of the part about "for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another". So just sending a work of fiction doesn't count. If I send you a story about how your wife is cheating on you with me when she actually isn't, then I could be fined. Or if I send you hundreds ebooks to annoy you and fill up your inbox, then I could be fined.
So it's actually even worse. He didn't even take on the responsibility of what should be released himself. He stole a bunch of highly sensitive data and then gave away control of it. Maybe the people he gave it to are trustworthy, but if just one of them isn't lots of people could die. And for your other comment. If someone who works for the System is out to get you, then you might just be screwed. It sucks, but that's the way it is. But that's why the System isn't one person. There's a whole chain of people making sure no one abuses the System and most of the time it works. Sometimes it doesn't and that sucks, but tell me how you can make it better. Tell me how you'd make it so everyone gets justice. I don't think all of us taking justice into our own hands is the answer. Mostly because I don't trust the rest of you. And I don't trust Snowden. And I don't trust news organizations.
Not that scary since the "violation of the 4th" isn't that "blatant". First, you got it a little wrong. It was the Magistrate and the District Court who denied the defendant's motion because the violation of the 4th was minor. IANAL, but based on the fact that there's a Latin phrase for us to use in those cases, it must not be that out of the ordinary. Laws aren't as black and white as most citizens seem to think they are, and in some cases the severity of the offense or some other condition might outweigh a minor constitutional violation, especially if the officer wasn't knowingly and deliberately violating the Constitution. I would bet that if, instead of a small amount of drugs, a body or kidnapped child in the trunk had been found, the Supreme Court would have upheld the District Court's decision. In this case, the dissent was actually because an extra 7 or 8 minutes for a total length of 29 minutes wasn't an unreasonable amount of time for a traffic stop even though the officer had already finished his traffic violation related activities and therefore wasn't a violation of the 4th amendment at all. They basically said that the majority opinion makes the law different if the officer pulling you over is more efficient than another officer with less experience or less advanced tools. From a dissenting opinion, "I “cannot accept that the search and seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment are so variable and can be made to turn upon such trivialities.” Whren, 517 U. S., at 815." I would really recommend reading Justice Thomas's opinion. It was very interesting and, if you aren't dead set on believing the entire legal system is out to get you, I think you'll at least agree that he might have a valid argument even if you ultimately still disagree with it.
I've got to disagree with you there chief. Dementia and Alzheimer's might seem terrible from the outside, but I bet it isn't that bad on the inside. Cancer on the other hand is pretty terrible. Diabetes isn't a cake walk either. And all four of those conditions can kill you decades before a neurodegenerative disease is likely to strike. I'd much rather die at 90 from Alzheimer's than at 40 from a heart attack. But don't get me wrong, I'm all for spending money on neurodegenerative diseases. I'd just like to live long enough to benefit.
So what they really meant was impracticable.
Your comment just demonstrates you don't actually understand how economies of scale work. The reason things get cheaper the more you make and sell is because of all the costs that go into producing an item that aren't directly involved in the manufacturing process as well as costly aspects of the manufacturing process that 3D printing eliminates. First we have design. 3D printing doesn't affect this at all, however it is one of the costs that is reduced per item in an economy of scale. Which means 3D printing does scale and invalidates your argument right off the bat. Second we have the manufacturing process. This usually involves specialized equipment, like molds for plastic components or custom robotics for assembly. Producing that equipment is a cost that must be recouped with the sale of the item. The more items you produce and sell, the more the cost can be distributed. 3D printing eliminates this cost. Instead we just have one general piece of manufacturing equipment which can be distributed among the entire manufacturing community. Third, there's the cost of human labor which is significantly reduced by 3D printing. Finally, there's the costs of defects. If there's a 10% chance of an item being defective, producing 10 means one will be defective on average and the cost of that one item can be distributed in the sale price of the other 9. But if you only produce one and that one is defective you must produce a second one that now costs twice as much in order to recoup the cost of the defective one instead of 10/9ths the price. So, 3D printing does scale, but not as much as ordinary manufacturing, but that's OK because it is cheaper than ordinary manufacturing even at scale.
While it might seem extreme to compare drones and nuclear weapons (and let's face it, it probably is), within a limited scope they are actually the same. Of course, so is every other weapon ever invented. There are lots of differences between nuclear weapons and drones. The number of people they kill in a single strike, difficulty and cost of construction, availability of raw materials, risk to civilians. But here's where they are the same. They give a huge advantage to a side who has them against a side that doesn't. The problem is that it's unlikely to remain one-sided for long. The question we have to ask ourselves is if having a temporary advantage now followed by a world where our enemies have drones is worth it. The same could have been said for firearms, automatic firearms, submarines and fighter jets. Ultimately, should we develop international laws to govern how these new weapons can be used? Absolutely, if the current laws don't already provide the necessary restrictions. But, unless we suddenly live in a world where the need for a military is no longer necessary, I don't see haw we can not develop any weapon which gives us an advantage over our enemies and reduces the risk to our own soldiers.