Reward the artist by going to see a show and buying some merch. Nothing else really gets back to them in any significant amounts.
I read an interview with Mick Jagger on the BBC website a few years ago and the BBC interviewer asked him about MP3 and digital downloads, figuring that Mick would likely be a stuffy old guy who would rail about how MP3s were killing music and so. Was the interviewer ever mistaken! Mick stated that for the majority of his career the Stones had actually not made all that much money from recordings. He said that there were exceptions in the late 80s into the 90s when labels actually were paying the artists a lot of money, but from his perspective MP3s hadn't changed anything and the Stones made their real money off touring. He said he had no problem with digital downloads. In fact, the Stones long ago got on iTunes and they offer special downloads of selected old concerts on a website they run. Sadly, it's somewhat younger artists like U2 who just do not get it at all and continue to bitch about how things are not what they once were.
I mean, what about the ships clever enough to *not* take the Panama Canal - and follow the longer path? IOT, how many ships did we miss and How close NK is to having a working nuke?
I'll speculate here. A Hong Kong based company won a 25 year contract (still in force as far as I know) to mange container operations in the canal, so I'm guessing that the boat and its North Korean masters probably assumed basically China (let's be realistic here - Hong Kong does what China wants) was running the show there and a North Korean boat would be given a nod and a wink in terms of its cargo inspection. It could also be that the boat captain took this on himself to shorten the journey making the assumption that I previously mentioned and this was something he did on his own, so he tried to kill himself when it became clear that his cargo was going to be found. Remember that although Cuba seems to have violated the UN agreement that nothing at all will be done to them in punishment.
I remember telling a friend on 9-11 that we would do way more damage to OURSELVES with our response to 9-11 than 9-11 or any other terrorist attack would ever do directly. That's the whole point of terrorism, really.
That's not the "point of terrorism" at all. All you have to do around here is spout some sort of line about how "what the government has done is far worse than terrorism" and you get modded up by the morons who agree with you. The point of terrorism is most assuredly not to make you do bad things for yourself. The point of terrorism is to gain a political objective you cannot get through the ballot box or through legal and normal means of working within the system by killing so many people that you make the price of maintaining the status quo higher than those who maintain the status quo are willing to pay. The 9/11 attacks were in part to get US infidel troops out of holy Saudi Arabia, in part to punish the US for it's support for "evil" Israel, and in part to unite the Arab world under a caliph who would just happen to be Osama Bin Laden. I can assure you that Osama and his buddies did not sit around the campfire some months before September 2001 and say "You know, if we pull this off it will make air travel within the US extremely inconvenient, which is, of course, our ultimate goal". The IRA killed people to try to force the non-Catholics to leave Northern Ireland so it could be joined with the Irish Republic. The PLO and similar groups wanted to kill so many Jews that they could either get an independent state for Palestinians or drive all the Jews out of Israel. The Chechen terrorists want to make so many non-Muslim Russians die that those who survive will give them complete independence. The Tamil Tigers tried to kill their way into an independent nation. Those are the point of terrorism, to take by force what cannot be gained without it.
Probably every constitution in the world should be amended to guarantee people the right to private, secure communication. This is probably more important than the right to bear arms when defending people's rights against rogue governments.
Who gets to define "rogue governments"? When George W. Bush was president, the lunatic left was insistent that he "stole" the 2000 election for sure, he probably stole the 2004 Ohio election (yet oddly the Republican candidates were unable to steal the state in 2008 and 2012) and thus the general election, he had no respect for individual rights, wasn't going to leave office willingly, and on and on. Fast forward to today and some of the same people who blew off such talk are now saying that Barack Obama wasn't even born in the USA, is not a citizen, and is thus ineligible to be president, has trampled on everybody's rights, is trying to take your guns away from you, and on and on.
When Chinese hackers stole a load of information about the F-35 it wasn't because they pulled off some righteous hack that required skill, perseverance and a high degree of technical knowledge, but precisely because protection of such sensitive data is sloppier than the good practice guidelines claim it should be.
I worked for the US military many years ago as a civilian programmer and I'd agree with this based on what I saw. I don't want to embarrass the particular branch of the service by naming them, but I used to say that their motto ought to be "Using yesterday's technology today" based on how many antiquated computer systems we had to work on and support. We actually had a system that still used punch cards and when I was in college the course books were already beginning to mock punch cards as being ancient technology. I can say that the government really doesn't want to be incompetent and have bad security, but the powers that be have too much blind faith in civilian contractors and Snowden burned them very badly as a result. The lesson that should be learned from this is exactly what Congress has been saying for years - "We need fewer non-government employees with access to these sensitive programs and their data" - but you'll be able to knock me over with a feather if there's a decrease in contractors as much as 10% as a result of this.
He must be something much more dangerous to somebody. I don't understand how everything he revealed can be so trivialized, and yet he be this sought after.
Since we do not fully know what he took and what he revealed and how much the frenemy states of China and Russia know right now or will eventually learn if they have to brute force decrypt it, it's hard for us in the public to judge what he took and shared. When he complained about the actions of the US government against its own citizens, that was one thing. But when he told Hong Kong and thus China that actions were being taken against them, I promise you that he violated the terms of his employment and in this case US law. None of us currently have the knowledge necessary to judge his actions. It could be that it's no more serious than China and Russia now know for sure we are watching them and how and can block it. Worse may be that he may actually have done something to endanger the life of people in the field or made sure that the really bad guys nobody likes (ie. Al Queda) can now avoid detection.
In my opinion, the US government has yet to drive the point home to anybody that you may be executed if you commit treason. There has been an absolutely endless parade of people like Robert Hanson who escape the death penalty by successfully holding out the carrot of "I'll tell you all that I did if you don't kill me". The fact that nobody has been executed for treason in my lifetime means that nobody really fears getting caught. Snowden knows that no matter what, he won't die. In fact, I suspect that he may have a 50% chance of living as a free man for the rest of his in some foreign country. So I think some of this is based on the point that the US government needs to drive home the point that people who tell our secrets to other countries are going to answer for this, at least with something like Supermax. But don't worry, tin foil hat brigade. Despite the general paranoid fears, he's not going to be at the wrong end of a gun "eating a lead sandwich" or find a cruise missle knocking at his door in Bolivia (assuming he goes there).
Snowden is unfortunately very typical of his generation in that everything is so much bigger because it happens to them. This what happens when an entire generation is told that they never make mistakes and they are the greatest kids ever born. When is the last time any of you saw somebody cry at work because they were being trained how to do their job? My best friend is an attorney and he and his wife run a small practice. They hired a mid-20s paralegal. This girl has been exposed in school to the field. He told me that he was showing her how to do some of the work required from her and she started bawling like a baby. She quit that day. This is his generation to a tee. Everything is just bigger because it happens to them. They feel more pain than anyone else does. They are smarter than anyone else ever born. Snowden is the biggest hero in US history. Blah blah blah.
Whenever people agree with me, I always think I must be wrong. - Oscar Wilde