It seems like, under your system, photojournalism would cease to exist pretty quickly, since nobody would pay them.
Not really - photojournalists can either be on staff, or they can offer to sell their unpublished photos to a news organization. If the photographer hasn't published them anywhere, the only place the news org can get them is from the photographer. Copyright isn't even necessary to make that kind of deal work.
Why does it matter, and what does this have to do with circumvention? What are you trying to say, that non-infringing activities should be illegal because it's hard to determine whether they're infringing? Should we do away with fair use too, because some things are fair use and other things are not, and it's hard to tell sometimes?
They can just pressure the hosting company to give them the logs when they want something.
That assumes the host keeps logs of the contents of the https traffic, which seems unlikely to be a reliable assumption. Or maybe CIAFBINSA is satisfied with metadata, like what IP connected to the server when? Also doesn't seem quite right, I think they want access to EVERYTHING.
They know that it will take a lot to get compliance from servers everywhere.
Everywhere, yes, but any reduction in their ability to snoop is cause for dire alarm from their perspective.
The US government is not the entity who issues these certs, so I don't see how trusting it comes into play here.
The US government doesn't make Cisco hardware or encryption standards either, but they're responsible for borking those up. It seems entirely plausible that the NSA has compromised major certificate authorities in some way, and if they haven't yet I'm sure they're working on it.
It'll never happen though, not so long as they remain wholly obsessed with memory usage and speed.
If this is what happens when Mozilla is obsessed with memory usage, I would hate to see what it would be like if they didn't care. Or did you mean they're obsessed with using as much memory as possible?
No, I don't. You said congestion is a problem. Capital expenditures don't prove that congestion is a problem. It indicates that carriers believe capital expenditures are necessary, most likely to keep congestion from being a problem, but that is not quite the same thing.
now you all shit on them saying there is no capacity crunch.
I'm not really saying that, I just wouldn't take a carrier's word for it.
No, I used a three step logical argument: 1- "unlimited" causes perverse consumption.
You demonstrated that in some other areas like drinks and water, but I haven't seen any evidence that the consumption of data under unlimited plans is actually problematic. And as for waste, nothing is actually being wasted on a marginal basis. The only possible waste is the telcos installing bigger and better equipment than they would otherwise need to.
Are there other markets that have unlimited mobile data where it causes huge problems, or is it metered everywhere?
All these people need to do is announce that they are illegals. Obumo...
I don't know if I'm the only one, but I just stop reading and hit "report" when I see stupid stuff like this. You don't agree with him, I don't agree with him, but intentionally misspelling his name is dumb and childish. Just had to vent.