Come on, this was in 1992. Republishing old news "to bring back a topic (more or less worthy) of discussion into light after our attention span has already tuned it out" isn't the same as someone doing the same act today.
Everyone is looking at money, money, money. Your financial situation can change overnight, invalidating all your assumptions.
Since the OP seems be be focused more on what's "convenient" and"financially the bast", he should set the example and renounce his own citizenship, because nobody wants a "citizen of convenience" who will just pull up stakes and abandon ship when the going gets tough.
They might even point out he could have done the same thing in the US, via leaks to newspapers or to a sympathetic representative, without hurting the US by giving it to China and Russia.
That is YOUR claim that he, in your own words, "could have done the same thing in the US, via leaks to newspapers", which is in fact what he did.
Either you were ignorant of the facts, or you're shilling. Somehow, I doubt a shill would be stupid enough to try to pull one over my eyes, but you never know.
Also, he only needs one juror to hang the jury. Or one acquittal for double jeopardy to apply - "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" since this is a capital case.
And there's no dogmatism here? It should be called GNU/linux, With open source, all bugs are shallow, Vi vs Emacs, systemd, $WHOEVER is evil, This will be the year of the linux desktop, Ubuntu yadda yadda yadda, anything to do with ruby or ruby on rails...
For his disclosure of the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg was initially charged with conspiracy, espionage and theft of government property, but the charges were later dropped after prosecutors investigating the Watergate Scandal soon discovered that the staff members in the Nixon White House had ordered the so-called White House Plumbers to engage in unlawful efforts to discredit Ellsberg
and
He was later indicted on charges of stealing and holding secret documents by a grand jury in Los Angeles. Federal District Judge William Matthew Byrne, Jr. declared a mistrial and dismissed all charges against Ellsberg and Russo on May 11, 1973, after several irregularities appeared in the government's case, including its claim that it had lost records of illegal wiretapping against Ellsberg conducted by the White House Plumbers in the contemporaneous Watergate scandal Byrne ruled: "The totality of the circumstances of this case which I have only briefly sketched offend a sense of justice. The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case." Ellsberg and Russo were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act, but they were freed due to the mistrial.
Government actions can easily lead to a similar situation here. There's an old saying that when you go to court you'd better have clean hands. The government's weren't.
Finally - someone who gets it!!! Problem is, it's not going to happen if we don't push for it, and set examples ourselves. The whole concept of "loser edits" is based on embarrassing people who have secrets they want to keep hidden. If you're open about everything, including just how screwed up your life is, nobody can embarrass you with a "loser edit." And just as importantly, anything that's not true will be easier to see for what it is.
And yet, most of the comments are accusing me of encouraging loser edits, of outing people against their will, etc., and presenting the most ridiculous arguments. It's almost like they have something to hide:-) (joking) (maybe).
And yet your quote STILL doesn't give hard numbers. How many new linux jobs vs how many lost linux jobs (those "cloud" deployments are cheaper for a reason - employers can cut salaries). Also, the survey was self-selected. One that picks a uniform distribution across all employers, or, say, the top 1000, giving the hire/fire ratios, would be more accurate than this PoS "survey".
Think of it - business has 10 linux employees. They will lay off all 10 this year because they're going to hire one new linux employee to move their stuff to VMs in "the cloud." That counts as linux employment going up? Bull. Crap.
Yes, the linux foundation has a hidden agenda - to keep doing busywork like this so they can justify their jobs. Duh. Otherwise, they would use a proper, open, and repeatable methodology, instead of surveys with huge omissions in the questions that give a distorted view of what's happening.
I used to be a big defender of all things linux. Not any more. "Studies" that are borderline lies is only part of it.
Are you seriously going to continue to deny that you were wrong when you said that "instead of leaking it to the Russians and Chinese, he could have leaked it to reporters?" Come on, that duck won't fly. Get real. Please.
Sure, but those VMs don't exactly create a ton of job opportunities (which is why they're so popular - you don't need a huge staff to run a server farm of VMs). Companies go to VMs in "the cloud" because it's cheaper - fewer people on the payroll. So, they lay off most of their linux workers and hire one VM specialist. Sounds like many linux jobs are in danger.
You missed my point. The fact that rape victims have been speaking out has made it better for everyone, including those who still can't speak out about it.
And YOU missed the point that those who are speaking ot are doing so voluntarily, not as the result of a "loser edit" of their lives, and those who do find themselves in the limelight because of such edits are rarely happier or living better lives.
It's because rape victims have spoken out publicly that "loser edits" mentioning such things would be almost universally condemned. You obviously don't get it, just like you don't get that its the stigma that keeps victims silent, and that stigma is removed as more people come forward.
Arguing something I never said (wrt banksters) is poor form.
The statement you replied to referred to people who had committed fraud and cost others lots of money, and YOU chose to claim that had they thought they'd been able to maintain anonymity you doubted they would have done that.
No, you're the one who attempted to change the entire context. Moving the goalposts is a common technique of people who have a poor argument.
Look, I get it. However, I've been there, and ultimately out is better.
What arrogance. Better for you, perhaps, but not always better for those who are outed against their will. It's not your right to decide for anyone but yourself, and that makes defending the outing through "loser edits" using that argument pure arrogance.
What a load of crock. I have never defended outing through "loser edits." The arrogance, and the ignorance, is all yours.
If you don't have the courage of openly standing behind your opinions, then maybe they aren't worth listening to.
You've just demonstrated ad hominem. You're paying attention to who says something, not what has been said. Most people consider that a vice, not a virtue. More people, I dare say, value the ideas over the identity, and the more the better
People who don't have the courage to stand up for what they profess to believe are hypocrites. It shows that, deep down, they really don't believe what they claim to. So yes, it's an attack on them - but their actions make it entirely justifiable, because they're hypocrites, duh.
Does the name "Thomas Paine" ring a bell? Obviously someone whose ideas are not worth listening to, because:he published Common Sense anonymously because of its treasonable content.
Paine was the same guy who said "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.", "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace", "The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection", "It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving, it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe", "Let them call me a rebel and welcome. I feel no concern from it. But should I suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul", etc.
Bold words, but his actions in remaining anonymous betray his feet of clay. In his own words, he made a whore of his soul. That he was able to redeem it later is a good thing, but it doesn't detract from the point.
Perhaps others are more aware that staying alive to write another day is more valuable in the long run than becoming an immediate, little known and unheard martyr for a cause?
The excuse of cowards everywhere to not stand up and be counted. It's an ugly fact, but it's still a fact.
Like those who would stand up against an, e.g., Islamic government and say "you really ought not treat women that way." Perhaps you think that "Deep Throat" had nothing of value to say, either.
If islamist had opposed this stupidity over the centuries they wouldn't be in that predicament, would they? But no, the majority of the patriarchy reveled in lording it over women and minorities, same as religious bigots throughout time. That their ancestors didn't stand up to it kind of makes my point... not standing up just encourages stupidity, bigotry, racism, etc.
Also, we wouldn't have had to endure years of Watergate if "deep throat" had come out publicly immediately. Ever thought of that? But no, his job, his job, his goobermint pension, his job!!!
I've been the target of a fair amount of hate and discrimination, but you don't see me backing down. Or hiding behind a nym.
Yeah, thank God that/. vets the identities of people who post under other than "Anonymous Coward" names, so we know that you are the one, true Barbara Hudson (I'm sorry, BarbaraHudson) on the planet and that is your true, real meatspace name.
I've been on TV and in the news often enough that it's easy to verify that I am me. But if you have ANY doubts, send a stamped, pre-addressed envelope to me:
I'll send you a current pic and you can search the news articles to verify it is indeed me:-)
There's nothing YOU fear, maybe, but it's arrogance to project that lack of concern over your own safety onto others and tell them how they should behave. Or to d
Not really. Thomas Paine had it right. And old Ben Franklin agreed with him. Remember, he's the guy who said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.", "Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.", "As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.", "Even peace may be purchased at too high a price."
You can have your own set of opinions, but you can't have your own set of facts. Fact is that he initially leaked it to journalists. The governments' actions forced him into hiding, not his choice.
And I think after two or three hung juries, they'll let it slide.
The defense of necessity is up to the jury to decide. Juries get to pick and choose the facts and their relevancy - the judge is only there for the law.
Did you even bother to read your second link:
In U.S. criminal law, necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as self defense.
It then goes on to point out that there is no such exemption in English law - you know, the UK? I doubt Snowdon will be tried in Britain.
And the first link?
The majority began by summarizing the factors that make up the necessity defense, all of which must be met for the defense to apply:
1 The defendant was faced with two bad options and chose the lesser;
2 He acted to prevent imminent harm;
3 He reasonably believed that his action could prevent that harm; and
4 He had no reasonable legal alternative
The court then explained that those factors were not met in this case
Want to try again, this time with some citations that actually support what you're saying?
You missed my point. The fact that rape victims have been speaking out has made it better for everyone, including those who still can't speak out about it.
And in the current context, we're talking about people who express hatred behind a shield of anonymity. Do you really believe they would do the same if they weren't anonymous? Funny how, once they're exposed, they're not so defiant. Arguing something I never said (wrt banksters) is poor form.
It's a shame that there are people on this planet who think they know better than the people who have something they want to hide for social reasons.
Look, I get it. However, I've been there, and ultimately out is better. Every person who is out makes it easier for everyone to be a little less fearful. We've seen this repeatedly with rape victims, with the LGB, and now we're seeing it with the T and the t.
So let me rephrase what you said, with one change: "It's a shame that there are people on this planet who think they know better than the people who have been there because they want to be seen as politically correct."
One way to put a lid on this sort of behavior is to remove anonymity. It would solve a lot of problems, and it doesn't interfere with freedom of speech - you can still say what you want, you just have to own it, same as if you stood up in the public square and said the same things.
Because those with power would never, ever use their power to punish people who say things they dislike?
If you spoke in the public square in days past those words would not be easily retrievable by anyone in the world, forever. Lack of anonymity then was fundamentally, profoundly different from now.
Bull. When towns were smaller, everyone knew everyone else's business. And of course, if you spoke in the public square, you were identifiable just by your face.
As for people in power punishing those they dislike, the Catholic church has a long history of that, so your claim that people were "anonymous" in those days is demonstrably false. Besides, what ever happened to having the courage of your convictions? Die on your feet or be a serf on your knees? Live free or die? Give me liberty or give me death? I disagree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to express your opinion?
I guess that's been replaced with "Are you a man or a mouse? Squeak up!"
Yet another report that doesn't give hard numbers either in the summary or the article. And of course, the pdf is walled behind a "give us your information and we'll let you download it" page.
The criteria are pretty slack - as long as a company is thinking about hiring one linux worker, that's counted as a win. No saying if it's because they've consolidated several previous linux positions into one future job, or how many non-linux workers are being hired, to put the numbers into perspective.
Notably missing was the "how many linux workers have/will you lay off" question, even though we know this is happening thanks to off-shoring, etc/
I doubt we will ever have an unbiased set of numbers to work with - that would require someone who doesn't have a vested interest in the outcome.
There is no exception in the law for "sufficient justification."
Sure there is. You're not going to be convicted of disturbing the peace when you're screaming because someone is beating the crap out of you, or driving erratically when you've passed out or had a heart attack, or held up a bank because people are holding your family hostage.
While many remember the conviction of Patty Hearst for robbing a bank, not too many remember that she was pardoned by Clinton. Complicated cases make for poor law.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on, this was in 1992. Republishing old news "to bring back a topic (more or less worthy) of discussion into light after our attention span has already tuned it out" isn't the same as someone doing the same act today.
Look at it this way - with the advances in medicine, maybe we'll get to say the same thing in another hundred years :-)
Funny how I never had that problem when writing multi-threaded programs in c or c++. Oh, right, I didn't bother with crap like the stl :-).
You can either exercise total control, and guarantee no dangling pointers, or take the easy way out and pray.
See my posts elsewhere - "why" is admissible and acceptable.
On the other hand, it allows them to be a lot more casual about throwing up far more servers than they normally would, so it tends to balance out.
Not really.
I ignore what you said because there's no way they can present "proof" that contradicts the facts.
Everyone is looking at money, money, money. Your financial situation can change overnight, invalidating all your assumptions.
Since the OP seems be be focused more on what's "convenient" and"financially the bast", he should set the example and renounce his own citizenship, because nobody wants a "citizen of convenience" who will just pull up stakes and abandon ship when the going gets tough.
They might even point out he could have done the same thing in the US, via leaks to newspapers or to a sympathetic representative, without hurting the US by giving it to China and Russia.
That is YOUR claim that he, in your own words, "could have done the same thing in the US, via leaks to newspapers", which is in fact what he did.
Either you were ignorant of the facts, or you're shilling. Somehow, I doubt a shill would be stupid enough to try to pull one over my eyes, but you never know.
Also, he only needs one juror to hang the jury. Or one acquittal for double jeopardy to apply - "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" since this is a capital case.
And there's no dogmatism here? It should be called GNU/linux, With open source, all bugs are shallow, Vi vs Emacs, systemd, $WHOEVER is evil, This will be the year of the linux desktop, Ubuntu yadda yadda yadda, anything to do with ruby or ruby on rails...
Really?
As for that case, I've already covered why it's inapplicable in these circumstances, but nice try.
The movie obviously does not cover his trial, since it hasn't happened yet. So anything wrt that is just speculation among the characters.
BTW - nice cherry-picking re. the Pentagon Papers:
For his disclosure of the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg was initially charged with conspiracy, espionage and theft of government property, but the charges were later dropped after prosecutors investigating the Watergate Scandal soon discovered that the staff members in the Nixon White House had ordered the so-called White House Plumbers to engage in unlawful efforts to discredit Ellsberg
and
He was later indicted on charges of stealing and holding secret documents by a grand jury in Los Angeles. Federal District Judge William Matthew Byrne, Jr. declared a mistrial and dismissed all charges against Ellsberg and Russo on May 11, 1973, after several irregularities appeared in the government's case, including its claim that it had lost records of illegal wiretapping against Ellsberg conducted by the White House Plumbers in the contemporaneous Watergate scandal Byrne ruled: "The totality of the circumstances of this case which I have only briefly sketched offend a sense of justice. The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case." Ellsberg and Russo were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act, but they were freed due to the mistrial.
Government actions can easily lead to a similar situation here. There's an old saying that when you go to court you'd better have clean hands. The government's weren't.
Finally - someone who gets it!!! Problem is, it's not going to happen if we don't push for it, and set examples ourselves. The whole concept of "loser edits" is based on embarrassing people who have secrets they want to keep hidden. If you're open about everything, including just how screwed up your life is, nobody can embarrass you with a "loser edit." And just as importantly, anything that's not true will be easier to see for what it is.
And yet, most of the comments are accusing me of encouraging loser edits, of outing people against their will, etc., and presenting the most ridiculous arguments. It's almost like they have something to hide :-) (joking) (maybe).
And yet your quote STILL doesn't give hard numbers. How many new linux jobs vs how many lost linux jobs (those "cloud" deployments are cheaper for a reason - employers can cut salaries). Also, the survey was self-selected. One that picks a uniform distribution across all employers, or, say, the top 1000, giving the hire/fire ratios, would be more accurate than this PoS "survey".
Think of it - business has 10 linux employees. They will lay off all 10 this year because they're going to hire one new linux employee to move their stuff to VMs in "the cloud." That counts as linux employment going up? Bull. Crap.
Yes, the linux foundation has a hidden agenda - to keep doing busywork like this so they can justify their jobs. Duh. Otherwise, they would use a proper, open, and repeatable methodology, instead of surveys with huge omissions in the questions that give a distorted view of what's happening.
I used to be a big defender of all things linux. Not any more. "Studies" that are borderline lies is only part of it.
please, for the love of all that's holy... don't refer to it as the turn of the century.
if it's not a crime, it should be.
I know - makes me feel old too. But somehow, I don't think "since the previous millennium" would be any better. :-)
Are you seriously going to continue to deny that you were wrong when you said that "instead of leaking it to the Russians and Chinese, he could have leaked it to reporters?" Come on, that duck won't fly. Get real. Please.
Sure, but those VMs don't exactly create a ton of job opportunities (which is why they're so popular - you don't need a huge staff to run a server farm of VMs). Companies go to VMs in "the cloud" because it's cheaper - fewer people on the payroll. So, they lay off most of their linux workers and hire one VM specialist. Sounds like many linux jobs are in danger.
You missed my point. The fact that rape victims have been speaking out has made it better for everyone, including those who still can't speak out about it.
And YOU missed the point that those who are speaking ot are doing so voluntarily, not as the result of a "loser edit" of their lives, and those who do find themselves in the limelight because of such edits are rarely happier or living better lives.
It's because rape victims have spoken out publicly that "loser edits" mentioning such things would be almost universally condemned. You obviously don't get it, just like you don't get that its the stigma that keeps victims silent, and that stigma is removed as more people come forward.
Arguing something I never said (wrt banksters) is poor form.
The statement you replied to referred to people who had committed fraud and cost others lots of money, and YOU chose to claim that had they thought they'd been able to maintain anonymity you doubted they would have done that.
No, you're the one who attempted to change the entire context. Moving the goalposts is a common technique of people who have a poor argument.
Look, I get it. However, I've been there, and ultimately out is better.
What arrogance. Better for you, perhaps, but not always better for those who are outed against their will. It's not your right to decide for anyone but yourself, and that makes defending the outing through "loser edits" using that argument pure arrogance.
What a load of crock. I have never defended outing through "loser edits." The arrogance, and the ignorance, is all yours.
If you don't have the courage of openly standing behind your opinions, then maybe they aren't worth listening to.
You've just demonstrated ad hominem. You're paying attention to who says something, not what has been said. Most people consider that a vice, not a virtue. More people, I dare say, value the ideas over the identity, and the more the better
People who don't have the courage to stand up for what they profess to believe are hypocrites. It shows that, deep down, they really don't believe what they claim to. So yes, it's an attack on them - but their actions make it entirely justifiable, because they're hypocrites, duh.
Does the name "Thomas Paine" ring a bell? Obviously someone whose ideas are not worth listening to, because:he published Common Sense anonymously because of its treasonable content.
Paine was the same guy who said "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.", "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace", "The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection", "It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving, it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe", "Let them call me a rebel and welcome. I feel no concern from it. But should I suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul", etc.
Bold words, but his actions in remaining anonymous betray his feet of clay. In his own words, he made a whore of his soul. That he was able to redeem it later is a good thing, but it doesn't detract from the point.
Perhaps others are more aware that staying alive to write another day is more valuable in the long run than becoming an immediate, little known and unheard martyr for a cause?
The excuse of cowards everywhere to not stand up and be counted. It's an ugly fact, but it's still a fact.
Like those who would stand up against an, e.g., Islamic government and say "you really ought not treat women that way." Perhaps you think that "Deep Throat" had nothing of value to say, either.
If islamist had opposed this stupidity over the centuries they wouldn't be in that predicament, would they? But no, the majority of the patriarchy reveled in lording it over women and minorities, same as religious bigots throughout time. That their ancestors didn't stand up to it kind of makes my point ... not standing up just encourages stupidity, bigotry, racism, etc.
Also, we wouldn't have had to endure years of Watergate if "deep throat" had come out publicly immediately. Ever thought of that? But no, his job, his job, his goobermint pension, his job!!!
I've been the target of a fair amount of hate and discrimination, but you don't see me backing down. Or hiding behind a nym.
Yeah, thank God that /. vets the identities of people who post under other than "Anonymous Coward" names, so we know that you are the one, true Barbara Hudson (I'm sorry, BarbaraHudson) on the planet and that is your true, real meatspace name.
I've been on TV and in the news often enough that it's easy to verify that I am me. But if you have ANY doubts, send a stamped, pre-addressed envelope to me:
Ms. Barbara Hudson,
1312 Hymen, #301,
Dollard-des-Ormeaux, QC.
Quebec, Canada.
H9B 1M7
I'll send you a current pic and you can search the news articles to verify it is indeed me :-)
There's nothing YOU fear, maybe, but it's arrogance to project that lack of concern over your own safety onto others and tell them how they should behave. Or to d
Not really. Thomas Paine had it right. And old Ben Franklin agreed with him. Remember, he's the guy who said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.", "Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.", "As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.", "Even peace may be purchased at too high a price."
You can have your own set of opinions, but you can't have your own set of facts. Fact is that he initially leaked it to journalists. The governments' actions forced him into hiding, not his choice.
And I think after two or three hung juries, they'll let it slide.
Did you even bother to read your second link:
In U.S. criminal law, necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as self defense.
It then goes on to point out that there is no such exemption in English law - you know, the UK? I doubt Snowdon will be tried in Britain.
And the first link?
The majority began by summarizing the factors that make up the necessity defense, all of which must be met for the defense to apply:
1 The defendant was faced with two bad options and chose the lesser;
2 He acted to prevent imminent harm;
3 He reasonably believed that his action could prevent that harm; and
4 He had no reasonable legal alternative
The court then explained that those factors were not met in this case
Want to try again, this time with some citations that actually support what you're saying?
You missed my point. The fact that rape victims have been speaking out has made it better for everyone, including those who still can't speak out about it.
And in the current context, we're talking about people who express hatred behind a shield of anonymity. Do you really believe they would do the same if they weren't anonymous? Funny how, once they're exposed, they're not so defiant. Arguing something I never said (wrt banksters) is poor form.
It's a shame that there are people on this planet who think they know better than the people who have something they want to hide for social reasons.
Look, I get it. However, I've been there, and ultimately out is better. Every person who is out makes it easier for everyone to be a little less fearful. We've seen this repeatedly with rape victims, with the LGB, and now we're seeing it with the T and the t.
So let me rephrase what you said, with one change: "It's a shame that there are people on this planet who think they know better than the people who have been there because they want to be seen as politically correct."
One way to put a lid on this sort of behavior is to remove anonymity. It would solve a lot of problems, and it doesn't interfere with freedom of speech - you can still say what you want, you just have to own it, same as if you stood up in the public square and said the same things.
Because those with power would never, ever use their power to punish people who say things they dislike?
If you spoke in the public square in days past those words would not be easily retrievable by anyone in the world, forever. Lack of anonymity then was fundamentally, profoundly different from now.
Bull. When towns were smaller, everyone knew everyone else's business. And of course, if you spoke in the public square, you were identifiable just by your face.
As for people in power punishing those they dislike, the Catholic church has a long history of that, so your claim that people were "anonymous" in those days is demonstrably false. Besides, what ever happened to having the courage of your convictions? Die on your feet or be a serf on your knees? Live free or die? Give me liberty or give me death? I disagree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to express your opinion?
I guess that's been replaced with "Are you a man or a mouse? Squeak up!"
Yet another report that doesn't give hard numbers either in the summary or the article. And of course, the pdf is walled behind a "give us your information and we'll let you download it" page.
The criteria are pretty slack - as long as a company is thinking about hiring one linux worker, that's counted as a win. No saying if it's because they've consolidated several previous linux positions into one future job, or how many non-linux workers are being hired, to put the numbers into perspective.
Notably missing was the "how many linux workers have/will you lay off" question, even though we know this is happening thanks to off-shoring, etc/
I doubt we will ever have an unbiased set of numbers to work with - that would require someone who doesn't have a vested interest in the outcome.
There is no exception in the law for "sufficient justification."
Sure there is. You're not going to be convicted of disturbing the peace when you're screaming because someone is beating the crap out of you, or driving erratically when you've passed out or had a heart attack, or held up a bank because people are holding your family hostage.
While many remember the conviction of Patty Hearst for robbing a bank, not too many remember that she was pardoned by Clinton. Complicated cases make for poor law.