I'm usually on board with the 1st amendment editorial position here, but not in this case.
If he had posted an article titled: "How to use bitcoin to avoid gov't snooping", I'd agree that his speech is protected. ISIS may use that information, but he'd have plenty of plausible deniablity, like a gun maker, that the tool is not to blame for its use.
But he specifically linked his instructions to ISIS, making it tactical for a specific purpose. He overtly indicated funding for ISIS as the objective of his lesson.
Intent matters, and he made his intent clear, and a matter of record.
I have no idea what the appropriate sentence is, but it's somewhere between nothing and whatever they give you for treason. If he's not a US citizen, then deportation.
You know, the same punishment we gave to Reagan and Oliver North for funding the Contras.
I suggest we extrapolate on Senator Johnson's strategy, and make a form of "security tunnel" that passengers pass through.
The tunnel would start with a body scanner, then a metal detector, then Jared Fogle would pat you down, then the fun "victory tunnel" from my kid's soccer team would cheer you up for the final section, disgraced University of Oklahoma fraternity SAE would give you ritualized spankings while yelling racist or other slurs at you!
I can't PROVE to you that this would catch more terrorists, but I FEEL like we'd be safer. Should we implement my plan? I’m not saying we shouldn’t, at a minimum we should try my plan. Why not go through the security tunnel? You’ve just gotta use common sense.”
"Taxi companies own (or lease) their vehicles; they don't make their drivers provide them."
No. They do something even worse. They own them, and control the medallions which are priced out of reach of the drivers. Then they RENT the taxi cabs to the drivers in 12 hour chunks for about $100 to $110 per day.
Don't forget that (if they were not prohibited) taxi drivers could just use their own car, or rent a car from Alamo for less, or lease a car for way less.
The drivers are economically forced to work 12 hour shifts, in order to earn back enough fares to pay off the high fixed cost of that cab rental. Any cabbie who works just 6 hours will earn just enough to pay the cab rental fee, and keep NOTHING!
So, your claim of "they don't make their drivers provide [cars]" should have been phrased as "they force their drivers to rent cars their cars at inflated rates."
You may be right, if you're referring to trains and buses.
I hope that by "infrastructure" you don't mean the existing taxi system. There is no "regulation or requirement" for taxis to work on any given day, either. And many of us have found ourselves in times and places where one could not be hailed or called.
By "jacked rates" do you mean the way cities add an "Airport pickup tax" to some taxi pickups, for no fair reason? Or the way they add "occupancy taxes" to my hotel bill that wasn't part of the quoted rate nor part of AirBnB?
I'm not entirely anti-regulation or anti-tax, but with taxis, we've definitely got a case of the current system not working well, and the innovation working much better.
I don't know the model the Steven Johnson at the Times used, but it's very possible he missed out on a big part of the revenues by artists, specifically, merchandise.
"And yet collectively, the figures seem to suggest that music, the creative field that has been most threatened by technological change, has become more profitable in the post-Napster era"
Is he just counting "music sales"?
It is very likely that other revenues, like merch sales, are often categorized as something other than "making money from music". In fact, the Masnicator has been saying for years that music has a marginal cost of zero, thus a correct marginal revenue of zero and price of zero, therefore musicians should endeavor to make money of associated scarce products. It just so happens that it works, but still much of that revenue would NOT get categorized as music revenue, despite the fact that it still ends up in the pocketbooks of musicians -- and probably a bigger cut than if it had to be filtered through the toolbooth called RIAA.
(Oops, did I type toolbooth instead of tollbooth? Well, I'm not correcting it, since it's not incorrect.)
My fave was in 1997 before DSL was available, I was using a modem to get 56k. I figured I would order a second phone line and bond two modems for 112k.
I put in the order, paid a premium for the second line (first lines are cheaper "lifelines" while seconds are considered a luxury), and then PacBell came out and installed my second line.
I bought the "shotgun" modem that can bond two dial-ups into one PC, installed it all, got it fired up, and...
Well, it turns out, the telcos had developed splitters that could take one voice phone line and split its 56k capacity into two voice phone lines, each with its own number. They had simply gone to the edge of the apartment, installed a splitter on my line, and activate line 2 on the yellow and black wires. My technology then bonded the yellow and black back into the green and red. Yay. They split it, and I recombined it about 40 yards apart. Net effect: zero, of course.
DSL arrived a year later, and I was just about the first customer. That install was an experience in itself. Two days, and three trucks and more before they figured it out.
"Google launched Plus without a clear plan to differentiate the service from Facebook."
I disagree with this one line. Google wanted to offer "circles" which allowed much more granular control over sharing than Facebook allowed, and that feature had appeal to me, because it was one of the reasons I did not use Facebook extensively. Of course +'s lack of popularity was a bigger problem, so I didn't use it either.
"Circles" was a great idea, because it more closely reflects the way that we humans are socially organized. There are things I'm willing to share with my family that I won't share with my friends...but also vice versa.