The only difference being that there is no fundamental human right to own a lockpick, while there is a fundamental human right to self-governance and freedom of expression, both of which are ignored and debased by the actions of secret society and black government.
This is a weird ruling. It highlights how it is usually absurd to have a category of people who are journalists, and a category of people who are not, and a set of things which are okay if done by journalists but otherwise are not legal.
When the judge is parsing who is and is not a journalist, it's pretty much a lost cause. Same thing for whether something journalistic materials, or are but only in a very weak sense.
This is precisely why I think that journalist shield laws are counterproductive. Because now you have journalists arguing about their credentials and what are or not protected materials and all that business instead of focusing on the actual matter at hand - the people's right to know what is being done by their government and why.
Our society has become massively automated compared to the middle ages. And we have 25 times the world population now. Yet we still have plenty of jobs;
No we don't. It's be decades since any western country had full employment, or even a policy to achieve same, thanks to the sadistic neoliberal idea of NAIRU. In most of the western world, there are an order of magnitude more job seekers than there are jobs.
And that's not even taking into consideration the swathes of the population involved in unproductive, pointless, bullshit jobs that serve no real purpose (eg: most layers of management).
Within a generation, two at the outside, the vast, vast majority of jobs involving manual labour will be performed by robots, except for those targeting the high-end luxury market. I expect a fairly large chunk of today's "intellectual" jobs will also disappear towards the end of that timeframe (eg: basic engineering, software development, lower levels of management, etc) as AI capabilities improve.
You are exactly right because at a big enough scale, the builder simply can't absorb the losses. So whatever you extract for a promise from the builder, it doesn't matter, because their is no more money.
Even when "bonded", the amount of the bond can be insufficent. Then what?
That's why essentially every big government job has overruns and the people causing the overruns "pay for it", but not really. The contractor's only line of business is government work. Paying a fine or the cost of the overrun means that the next contract has that much more built in to pay the risk premium.
In the end, this type of scheme is just that a scheme, to shift risk from the party that stands to ultimately profit to a bit-player. It can only go on for so long.
But a traffic stop isn't enough for most purposes - they need a pretext for a search. A whiff of marijuana perhaps? A concealed bump on the log maybe? Who knows, you know?
And yet there are apparently bugs still being found, otherwise there's be nothing to download for a 3 year old server [...]
Of course there would.
Just because a bug was fixed in a firmware update 3 years ago doesn't mean that update was applied 3 years ago.
For the life of me I do not understand this 'commercial strategy'.
Charging the customer what they are prepared to pay for a product, rather than what it costs to make, is a pretty core tenet of free market capitalism.
We have millions of dollars invested in HP hardware.
We typically only have 3yr support contracts on servers, first and foremost to handle hardware failures.
After that time, servers are cycled out into low important, or non-production tasks. Failures in these roles usually result in wholesale machine replacement.
Maintaining support contracts for all those 3-6 year old machines is not viable, nor are we expecting _new_ problems to be addressed since they are out of contract.
Not being able to download _old_ patches, firmware, etc, to apply when the servers are cycled out of production, however, is bullshit.
Rest assured most customers get at least 3 year of support. Not because of anything to do with firmware updates, but to deal with hardware failures.
Yes they do.
Where is the incentive to "deliver broken products" when they're going to have to fix them anyway since the vast majority of customers will be in support contracts for at least 3 years ? And would have been even if this change never occurred ?
Most customers will pay for 3 years of support - just like they have the last upteen years - because of the other stuff it buys.
And they get a perverse incentive to deliberately deliver broken products from the outset.
No they don't.
All customers will have support contracts for a hardware purchase for 12 months.
The vast majority will then have them for another 2 years.
A sizeable chunk for probably another year or two after that.
Nearly all bugs are going to be found in the first couple of years, probably in the first 6 months, when pretty much everyone will have support contracts. Ie: they'll need to be fixed.
Did they pass SOPA when I wasn't looking?
(I doubt the DEA is going to use secret sources of evidence or parallel construction to ensnare Joe Sixpack trying to score some recreational drugs. The fish will have to be worth the effort and the risk for the DEA to use this tactic themselves, but a casual word to the local sheriff might be used more often than you think.)
The problem is that while it's doubtable, we can't actually know. Every time a cop has ever testified that he just had a "gut" feeling about a certain car, we should instantly be skeptical that it was not a gut feeling, but rather, corruption.
And the presumption is now that everytime a cop says he or she did something randomly they are lying.
Given that his happens, the word of ANY law enforcement official, in any jurisdiction, in any part of the country, must not be trusted. Anything they say on the stand should be treated as hearsay, just like any other person, and the presumption should be that's false.
We don't need any new laws, we need the people who broke the system to go to jail, for a long time, and mass amnesty for anyone convicted with any evidence provided by the DEA.
This has almost no relevance to the discussion. Jacobsen holds that the evidence must be obtained not just plausibly but in actual fact by a person unconnected with the government or a government official. The intent is that private citizens who find evidence are not subjected to the 4th amendment or due process. When that evidence is found by a private individual, he or she can turn it over to the police and it is now "clean" and creates probable cause.
You can't apply Jacobsen to the NSA or DEA because they are clearly "a government official" and acting as an agent therefore.