"Assault rifle" is a specific term with a specific meaning: a weapon capable of fully-automatic or burst fire firing a cartridge of intermediate length. It is distinct from "machine gun" (a weapon capable of fully-automatic or burst fire firing a full-length rifle cartridge) and "submachine gun" (a weapon capable of fully-automatic or burst fire firing a pistol cartridge).
Nobody hunts deer with assault rifles. Spend $15,000-$30,000 on a weapon and then use it like a $500 deer gun? Heck, some states won't even let you hunt with semi-automatic rifles; I don't know of any that permit full-auto guns to be used for hunting.
First off: a person who does communications for group 1 is probably going to do a reasonable job of doing communications for group 2.
You think that she did a good job in doing communications for the RIAA?
Based on what? They've spent the last several years accomplishing exactly the opposite of what they intended to do (As the recent NYT editorial pointed out, they tried to kill the single and ended up killing the album. They tried to kill downloading, and instead killed brick-and-mortar music stores). Everybody hates them. Even some labels are finally starting to defect from the DRM-at-all-costs bandwagon.
So if you're hiring based on merit, why on earth would you hire an RIAA marketer?
No, not necessarily. Several municipalities that have installed red light cameras have also shortened the duration of the *yellow* lights at those intersections.
With a proper-duration yellow, you have time to stop safely. With a shortened yellow, you don't, so you run the red light and the city gets revenue.
In fact, if you really want to reduce red-light running, increasing the duration of the yellow by a full second eliminates something like 80% of them. But that doesn't raise cash, so that's not what's done.
Jesus, that's putting the cart so far before the horse that the horse won't catch up before the heat death of the universe.
Nobody, but nobody, buys an iPod just so they can buy songs off of iTunes. That's laughable. The figure repeatedly comes up that the average iPod user only has less than a dozen songs from iTunes on the thing.
The iTunes DRM was there so that Jobs could dupe the music labels into jumping on board with the iPod, while all the time he realized that the place to make a shitload of money was in selling the hardware. The iTunes store, and the iTunes DRM, legitimized the device in the eyes of the labels. That's why it was there.
The problem is, the media companies won't take a stance on what you're paying for when you buy a CD. Are you buying a product, or some kind of license. They won't take a stance because they want to have their cake and eat it too.
Sony musicians including Cheap Trick and the Allman Brothers are suing the record label for screwing them out of their royalties on sales of music on iTunes and other digital music services. At issue is whether the music sold through these services is a "license" or a "sale." Sony pays less to its artists for sales than for licensing (Sony artists reportedly earn $0.045 for each $0.99 song sold on iTunes). Naturally, Sony claims that the songs sold on iTunes are sales and not licensing deals.
Assuming the mentioned case got as far as a court, Sony's claimed that in court. I'm pretty sure they're estopped from later claiming that what's transpiring is a license sale.
I'm curious about other health effects. If this is the oxygen equivalent of a 6,000-ft altitude, that's high enough to cause altitude sickness in susceptible individuals on the low side of the bell curve. That can lead to pulmonary edema, cerebral edema, and some other nasty symptoms. And the "rate of ascent" is going to be instantaneous, as you open a door and step into your new environment.
Even if those are related to the lower pressure of altitude, and not just the lower pp of O2, there are other effects of high altitude environment that are a result of the lower O2 levels. Your red cell count will increase, along with your erythropoetin levels. This can actually thicken the blood, and while not dangerous to the trained atheletes who engage in high-altitude training, might be dangerous to the sorts of folks who work in a data center.
Teach you to be more aware. If you're on a motorcycle and someone pulls out in front of you while you have the right of way and are traveling within the speed limit, the fact that it's the other guy's fault, not yours, doesn't make you any less injured.
If there were consequences to irresponsible behavior, people would be inclined to stop behaving badly.
Also a-fucking-men.
Here's what I want.
No more seatbelts. No more front airbags, side airbags, or any other airbags. No anti-lock braking systems, passive restraint systems, or traction control. No more side-impact stiffeners, no more safety glass, no more collapsible steering columns.
Just a single rusty 6" spike sticking straight out from the steering wheel.
and it doesn't put more police on the highways to enforce the laws.
It doesn't make more police want to enforce the laws, either.
Here in Pennsylvania, it's a statewide law that if you're on a multilane highway you keep to the right unless you're passing someone. If you're driving in the left lane, not passing anyone, holding up traffic behind you, you're breaking the law. Even if you're the only car on the road, if you're driving in the left lane for some reason other than to pass someone, you're breaking the law.
I've *never* seen, or even heard of, a person being pulled over for breaking this law, even though you're causing just as much, if not more, of a hazard to other drivers than someone driving 15mph above the limit.
That's because of another general problem: cops aren't out there on the roads to make traffic safer. They're out there to write tickets to raise revenue, either for the state or for a local municipality. Going after assholes who dodder along in the left lane, forcing everyone overtaking them to not only brake but to pass them on the right, isn't as efficient a revenue-generator as going after speeders, because you can't catch them by simply parking a cop off on the side of the road with a radar gun zapping people as they go by.
And since that's the mentality of law enforcement, they're not going to catch cell-phone yakkers or Blackberry tappers, either. So the law's doubly pointless.
Some wireless industry supporters argue that statutes barring texting while driving are too specific. What is needed, they say, is not narrowly focused legislation, but a campaign to educate the public about all driver distractions
Close, but not quite.
There's an infinite variety of shit you can distract yourself with when you're driving. Trying to craft legislation to address every single one of those things would be a great jobs program for would-be legislators, but it's likely to be ineffectual.
Like so many other problems with cars, this is one that's directly the responsibility of the idiot behind the wheel. Competent drivers don't distract themselves while they're driving, and the source of the problem is that we insist on giving drivers' licenses to people who are not only not competent, but whose only qualification for driving is the ability to fog a mirror.
If drivers' licenses actually signified some level of competence, rather than simply the ability to pay a registration fee, then the problem of drivers playing with their Blackberries or their cellphones or their makeup or a road map while they're supposed to be driving would tend to disappear, because those people would be either on a bus, or in the back seat of a carpool.
Probably because there's no working ordnance left?
No ASM-135s? Sure, I'll buy that.
No Soviet killsats sitting around in storage waiting to be strapped to the top of a suitable rocket and launched into the proper orbit? That, I don't believe.
And in any event, activating a production line to build a few missiles isn't the same thing as "developing a new technology."
But since the 1985 air-launch satellite intercept, a project cancelled by Congress (see "Blunt arrows: the limited utility of ASATs", The Space Review, June 6, 2005), there is no evidence that a new satellite-killer technology has been developed
So what? Who cares if no new ASAT technology has been developed if the old ones work just fine? The Soviet orbital ASAT program predated the US's F-15 ASAT program by over a decade, and it worked.
I can handle sound in space, sound from distant events being simultaneous with their appearance, and even gunshots that blow their victims backwards.
But what's really started bugging me lately, are explosions. Real high-explosion explosions look dramatically different from movie explosions, where they're generally simulated with drums of gasoline and detcord. This generates a big lovely plume of burning gas and black smoke, which is usually filmed at high speeds and then replayed in slow motion.
But when real high explosives go off, you don't get that kind of sustained burn, since detonation velocities are much faster. You get a shockwave, and sometimes no noticable flamefront at all. But the important thing is the shockwave. I'm pretty sure we've reached the point at which a realistic-looking explosion can be made with CGI, but they still keep using drums full of gasoline, even though it looks shitty. Probably the worst example I can think of is Pearl Harbor. Granted, there were so many things wrong with that movie that harping on the explosions on Battleship Row is probably a bit silly, but it illustrates my point.
It wasn't China. The companies involved were Toshiba Machine Company (Japan) and Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk (Norway). This violated agreements on export controls which both nations were signatories to. This wasn't discovered until 1987, even though the covert sale happened over the period of 1981-1984.
Toshiba was barred from selling anything to any Warsaw Pact nation for a year. Two of its executives were charged and convicted, which basically ended their careers. The president of the company and three other executives resigned. Kongsberg's trading arm was shut down by the Norwegian government. I think one of their executives shot himself.
China has some quiet subs, but they're diesel/electric boats bought from Russia. Their nuclear ones are not up to late-Soviet designs.
"I don't like it when really big companies throw their weight around," Jeff Moss, founder of Black Hat conferences, said on the Tuesday conference call. "This threatens the whole conference business."
What are you thinking, Jeff?
In 2005, you canceled a presentation because you received a legal threat from Cisco. You demonstrated to any company out there, that if they don't want a presentation to happen, all they need to do is send a scary warning on some official letterhead, and Black Hat will cancel the presentation.
And now you realize that this threatens the whole conference?
The RIAA does this thing enough times, they're going to kill someone.
The routine use of paramilitary police raids for nonviolent offenders gets people killed on a routine basis. Three cops are now on trial for murder in Atlanta because they raided a house, killed an innocent old lady, and then lied after the fact to establish a bogus justification for the warrant. Police in Virginia raided a dentist's house for records related to illegal gambling, and one of the cops violated the two first laws of firearms safety and shot him dead when he tripped with his fucking finger on the trigger.
The steady flow of federal dollars for "homeland security" has exacerbated a problem which was started by the War on Some Drugs: incompetent, ill-trained paramilitary police forces who are both encouraged to "prepare for the worst" and given access to powerful weaponry. The result is a bunch of corpses. Corpses of innocent people, non-violent offenders, and even cops. The nature of unannounced no-known raids turns non-violent, low-stress situations into violent and stressful ones, with predictable results. In many of these cases (like the aforementioned dentist), regular cops showing up, knocking on the door, and serving a warrant, would be sufficient to perform the desired search. But when a dozen cops burst through the door with guns drawn, people get killed.
The RIAA instigates enough of these raids, the RIAA are going to kill someone. For copyright violation. It's just a matter of time.
In the US, servers (including cooling equipment) consumes 1.2% of all the electricity in 2005, up from 0.6% in 2000. The trend is similar worldwide. 'If current trends continue...then by the year 2100, server rooms and cooling equipment will consume over 300,000% of all the electricity!
These people don't get anything from it, and it would take them time and effort to learn, for nothing.
On the contrary, it would be better for everyone to learn how to drive on a manual transmission.
I'm not saying that everyone should be required to drive manual transmissions, that we outlaw automatics. But if you learn to drive on a manual, you're probably going to be a better driver.
Why? Because automatics and CVTs are reactionary; you do something, and then the transmission adjusts to what you just did. Manuals are anticipatory, you decide in advance of what you want to, and then shift to bring that outcome about.
It's the difference between some mushhead in an SUV braking all the way through a turn, and someone in an S2000 slowing and downshifting before the turn, and then accelerating out of it and upshifting. The latter driver had to be looking ahead, thinking of what he was going to do before the turn came up. Learning how to drive with that mindset makes you a more anticipatory driver, even if you never drive another manual again.
Okay, huge digression from the topic, but you hit a nerve.
A farmer needing to communicate with the world and see prices and weather doesn't really count unless he plays WoW.
If he just wants to see prices and weather and send email, then dialup's sufficient for that, so why are we talking about broadband?
If we *are* talking about broadband, and we include "satellite internet" in the category of broadband, then both Canada *and* the US have universal access to broadband, because satellite internet access is available virtually everywhere in both countries. So if we count it, there's no point in comparing, it's 100% in both places. And if we don't count it, so we get some meaningful basis for comparison, then those farmers and other people living out in the boonies who can only get internet through a satellite system matter for purposes of that comparison.
People who can't get service from the traditional sources are often putting up sattelite systems
If you're including satellite systems, then yeah, broadband access is pretty much everywhere. But if you're including satellite systems, then it's pretty much everywhere in the United States, too, since everyone has access to DirecTv or Dish Network.
But I wouldn't count that, because it destroys any valid comparison to be made, and because I don't consider the multisecond ping times of satellite internet as being 'broadband.' I know the bandwidth's there, but if you can't play Counterstrike or WoW, I don't think it should count.
Don't confuse population density with decentralization. More than 90% of Canada's population lives within 200km of the US, and 41% of actual Canadian soil contains less than.3% of the population.
Canada's actually got a considerably more centralized population than the US. You've got the vast majority of your people living in a narrow strip of land.
In 1972 in the case of Branzburg v. Hayes, SCOTUS ruled that the first ammendment didn't grant absolute protection against subpoena, but asserted that "the government must "convincingly show a substantial relation between the information sought and a subject of overriding and compelling state interest" in order to compell divulgence of a source.
However, that's not at all what's at issue here. Josh isn't in jail because he's protecting a source. He was filming events that were transpiring in the public view, and his tapes have been deemed by the court to contain footage of evidentiary value. The confidentiality of a source isn't even tangential to this matter, it's completely unrelated. Josh isn't protecting a source, he's protecting vandals who committed their crime in view of the public.
Slashdot Mirror
"Assault rifle" is a specific term with a specific meaning: a weapon capable of fully-automatic or burst fire firing a cartridge of intermediate length. It is distinct from "machine gun" (a weapon capable of fully-automatic or burst fire firing a full-length rifle cartridge) and "submachine gun" (a weapon capable of fully-automatic or burst fire firing a pistol cartridge).
Nobody hunts deer with assault rifles. Spend $15,000-$30,000 on a weapon and then use it like a $500 deer gun? Heck, some states won't even let you hunt with semi-automatic rifles; I don't know of any that permit full-auto guns to be used for hunting.
What are you *on*?
Oh, that's right: ignorance.
First off: a person who does communications for group 1 is probably going to do a reasonable job of doing communications for group 2.
You think that she did a good job in doing communications for the RIAA?
Based on what? They've spent the last several years accomplishing exactly the opposite of what they intended to do (As the recent NYT editorial pointed out, they tried to kill the single and ended up killing the album. They tried to kill downloading, and instead killed brick-and-mortar music stores). Everybody hates them. Even some labels are finally starting to defect from the DRM-at-all-costs bandwagon.
So if you're hiring based on merit, why on earth would you hire an RIAA marketer?
Speeding.
No, not necessarily. Several municipalities that have installed red light cameras have also shortened the duration of the *yellow* lights at those intersections.
With a proper-duration yellow, you have time to stop safely. With a shortened yellow, you don't, so you run the red light and the city gets revenue.
In fact, if you really want to reduce red-light running, increasing the duration of the yellow by a full second eliminates something like 80% of them. But that doesn't raise cash, so that's not what's done.
...with a sign that says "Beware of tiger."
the iTunes DRM locks consumers into iPods.
Jesus, that's putting the cart so far before the horse that the horse won't catch up before the heat death of the universe.
Nobody, but nobody, buys an iPod just so they can buy songs off of iTunes. That's laughable. The figure repeatedly comes up that the average iPod user only has less than a dozen songs from iTunes on the thing.
The iTunes DRM was there so that Jobs could dupe the music labels into jumping on board with the iPod, while all the time he realized that the place to make a shitload of money was in selling the hardware. The iTunes store, and the iTunes DRM, legitimized the device in the eyes of the labels. That's why it was there.
Actually, they have taken a stance:
Assuming the mentioned case got as far as a court, Sony's claimed that in court. I'm pretty sure they're estopped from later claiming that what's transpiring is a license sale.
I'm curious about other health effects. If this is the oxygen equivalent of a 6,000-ft altitude, that's high enough to cause altitude sickness in susceptible individuals on the low side of the bell curve. That can lead to pulmonary edema, cerebral edema, and some other nasty symptoms. And the "rate of ascent" is going to be instantaneous, as you open a door and step into your new environment.
Even if those are related to the lower pressure of altitude, and not just the lower pp of O2, there are other effects of high altitude environment that are a result of the lower O2 levels. Your red cell count will increase, along with your erythropoetin levels. This can actually thicken the blood, and while not dangerous to the trained atheletes who engage in high-altitude training, might be dangerous to the sorts of folks who work in a data center.
Teach you to be more aware. If you're on a motorcycle and someone pulls out in front of you while you have the right of way and are traveling within the speed limit, the fact that it's the other guy's fault, not yours, doesn't make you any less injured.
If there were consequences to irresponsible behavior, people would be inclined to stop behaving badly.
Also a-fucking-men.
Here's what I want.
No more seatbelts. No more front airbags, side airbags, or any other airbags. No anti-lock braking systems, passive restraint systems, or traction control. No more side-impact stiffeners, no more safety glass, no more collapsible steering columns.
Just a single rusty 6" spike sticking straight out from the steering wheel.
and it doesn't put more police on the highways to enforce the laws.
It doesn't make more police want to enforce the laws, either.
Here in Pennsylvania, it's a statewide law that if you're on a multilane highway you keep to the right unless you're passing someone. If you're driving in the left lane, not passing anyone, holding up traffic behind you, you're breaking the law. Even if you're the only car on the road, if you're driving in the left lane for some reason other than to pass someone, you're breaking the law.
I've *never* seen, or even heard of, a person being pulled over for breaking this law, even though you're causing just as much, if not more, of a hazard to other drivers than someone driving 15mph above the limit.
That's because of another general problem: cops aren't out there on the roads to make traffic safer. They're out there to write tickets to raise revenue, either for the state or for a local municipality. Going after assholes who dodder along in the left lane, forcing everyone overtaking them to not only brake but to pass them on the right, isn't as efficient a revenue-generator as going after speeders, because you can't catch them by simply parking a cop off on the side of the road with a radar gun zapping people as they go by.
And since that's the mentality of law enforcement, they're not going to catch cell-phone yakkers or Blackberry tappers, either. So the law's doubly pointless.
Some wireless industry supporters argue that statutes barring texting while driving are too specific. What is needed, they say, is not narrowly focused legislation, but a campaign to educate the public about all driver distractions
Close, but not quite.
There's an infinite variety of shit you can distract yourself with when you're driving. Trying to craft legislation to address every single one of those things would be a great jobs program for would-be legislators, but it's likely to be ineffectual.
Like so many other problems with cars, this is one that's directly the responsibility of the idiot behind the wheel. Competent drivers don't distract themselves while they're driving, and the source of the problem is that we insist on giving drivers' licenses to people who are not only not competent, but whose only qualification for driving is the ability to fog a mirror.
If drivers' licenses actually signified some level of competence, rather than simply the ability to pay a registration fee, then the problem of drivers playing with their Blackberries or their cellphones or their makeup or a road map while they're supposed to be driving would tend to disappear, because those people would be either on a bus, or in the back seat of a carpool.
Probably because there's no working ordnance left?
No ASM-135s? Sure, I'll buy that.
No Soviet killsats sitting around in storage waiting to be strapped to the top of a suitable rocket and launched into the proper orbit? That, I don't believe.
And in any event, activating a production line to build a few missiles isn't the same thing as "developing a new technology."
FTA:
But since the 1985 air-launch satellite intercept, a project cancelled by Congress (see "Blunt arrows: the limited utility of ASATs", The Space Review, June 6, 2005), there is no evidence that a new satellite-killer technology has been developed
So what? Who cares if no new ASAT technology has been developed if the old ones work just fine? The Soviet orbital ASAT program predated the US's F-15 ASAT program by over a decade, and it worked.
I can handle sound in space, sound from distant events being simultaneous with their appearance, and even gunshots that blow their victims backwards.
But what's really started bugging me lately, are explosions. Real high-explosion explosions look dramatically different from movie explosions, where they're generally simulated with drums of gasoline and detcord. This generates a big lovely plume of burning gas and black smoke, which is usually filmed at high speeds and then replayed in slow motion.
But when real high explosives go off, you don't get that kind of sustained burn, since detonation velocities are much faster. You get a shockwave, and sometimes no noticable flamefront at all. But the important thing is the shockwave. I'm pretty sure we've reached the point at which a realistic-looking explosion can be made with CGI, but they still keep using drums full of gasoline, even though it looks shitty. Probably the worst example I can think of is Pearl Harbor. Granted, there were so many things wrong with that movie that harping on the explosions on Battleship Row is probably a bit silly, but it illustrates my point.
The violation of the Copyright statute for non-monetary gain is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
What?
I thought it was theft, just like stealing purses or DVDs or money.
Are those MPAA anti-piracy commercials lying to me?
You've got that story all screwed up.
It wasn't China. The companies involved were Toshiba Machine Company (Japan) and Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk (Norway). This violated agreements on export controls which both nations were signatories to. This wasn't discovered until 1987, even though the covert sale happened over the period of 1981-1984.
Toshiba was barred from selling anything to any Warsaw Pact nation for a year. Two of its executives were charged and convicted, which basically ended their careers. The president of the company and three other executives resigned. Kongsberg's trading arm was shut down by the Norwegian government. I think one of their executives shot himself.
China has some quiet subs, but they're diesel/electric boats bought from Russia. Their nuclear ones are not up to late-Soviet designs.
"I don't like it when really big companies throw their weight around," Jeff Moss, founder of Black Hat conferences, said on the Tuesday conference call. "This threatens the whole conference business."
What are you thinking, Jeff?
In 2005, you canceled a presentation because you received a legal threat from Cisco. You demonstrated to any company out there, that if they don't want a presentation to happen, all they need to do is send a scary warning on some official letterhead, and Black Hat will cancel the presentation.
And now you realize that this threatens the whole conference?
The RIAA does this thing enough times, they're going to kill someone.
The routine use of paramilitary police raids for nonviolent offenders gets people killed on a routine basis. Three cops are now on trial for murder in Atlanta because they raided a house, killed an innocent old lady, and then lied after the fact to establish a bogus justification for the warrant. Police in Virginia raided a dentist's house for records related to illegal gambling, and one of the cops violated the two first laws of firearms safety and shot him dead when he tripped with his fucking finger on the trigger.
The steady flow of federal dollars for "homeland security" has exacerbated a problem which was started by the War on Some Drugs: incompetent, ill-trained paramilitary police forces who are both encouraged to "prepare for the worst" and given access to powerful weaponry. The result is a bunch of corpses. Corpses of innocent people, non-violent offenders, and even cops. The nature of unannounced no-known raids turns non-violent, low-stress situations into violent and stressful ones, with predictable results. In many of these cases (like the aforementioned dentist), regular cops showing up, knocking on the door, and serving a warrant, would be sufficient to perform the desired search. But when a dozen cops burst through the door with guns drawn, people get killed.
The RIAA instigates enough of these raids, the RIAA are going to kill someone. For copyright violation. It's just a matter of time.
In the US, servers (including cooling equipment) consumes 1.2% of all the electricity in 2005, up from 0.6% in 2000. The trend is similar worldwide. 'If current trends continue ...then by the year 2100, server rooms and cooling equipment will consume over 300,000% of all the electricity!
These people don't get anything from it, and it would take them time and effort to learn, for nothing.
On the contrary, it would be better for everyone to learn how to drive on a manual transmission.
I'm not saying that everyone should be required to drive manual transmissions, that we outlaw automatics. But if you learn to drive on a manual, you're probably going to be a better driver.
Why? Because automatics and CVTs are reactionary; you do something, and then the transmission adjusts to what you just did. Manuals are anticipatory, you decide in advance of what you want to, and then shift to bring that outcome about.
It's the difference between some mushhead in an SUV braking all the way through a turn, and someone in an S2000 slowing and downshifting before the turn, and then accelerating out of it and upshifting. The latter driver had to be looking ahead, thinking of what he was going to do before the turn came up. Learning how to drive with that mindset makes you a more anticipatory driver, even if you never drive another manual again.
Okay, huge digression from the topic, but you hit a nerve.
A farmer needing to communicate with the world and see prices and weather doesn't really count unless he plays WoW.
If he just wants to see prices and weather and send email, then dialup's sufficient for that, so why are we talking about broadband?
If we *are* talking about broadband, and we include "satellite internet" in the category of broadband, then both Canada *and* the US have universal access to broadband, because satellite internet access is available virtually everywhere in both countries. So if we count it, there's no point in comparing, it's 100% in both places. And if we don't count it, so we get some meaningful basis for comparison, then those farmers and other people living out in the boonies who can only get internet through a satellite system matter for purposes of that comparison.
People who can't get service from the traditional sources are often putting up sattelite systems
If you're including satellite systems, then yeah, broadband access is pretty much everywhere. But if you're including satellite systems, then it's pretty much everywhere in the United States, too, since everyone has access to DirecTv or Dish Network.
But I wouldn't count that, because it destroys any valid comparison to be made, and because I don't consider the multisecond ping times of satellite internet as being 'broadband.' I know the bandwidth's there, but if you can't play Counterstrike or WoW, I don't think it should count.
That would mean that the other 59% of the land has the remaining 99.7% of the population giving a population density of 6.2 people/sq km
Giving an *average* population density.
You're still confusing population density with centralization.
Don't confuse population density with decentralization. More than 90% of Canada's population lives within 200km of the US, and 41% of actual Canadian soil contains less than .3% of the population.
Canada's actually got a considerably more centralized population than the US. You've got the vast majority of your people living in a narrow strip of land.
Reference:
Canada
Canada
In 1972 in the case of Branzburg v. Hayes, SCOTUS ruled that the first ammendment didn't grant absolute protection against subpoena, but asserted that "the government must "convincingly show a substantial relation between the information sought and a subject of overriding and compelling state interest" in order to compell divulgence of a source.
However, that's not at all what's at issue here. Josh isn't in jail because he's protecting a source. He was filming events that were transpiring in the public view, and his tapes have been deemed by the court to contain footage of evidentiary value. The confidentiality of a source isn't even tangential to this matter, it's completely unrelated. Josh isn't protecting a source, he's protecting vandals who committed their crime in view of the public.