Nope. I include a SASE and have them ship my electricity to a PO box listed by the name Mr. Pilkington.

Water is tougher, but you just send a large jar and cardboard box.

Still trying to figure out the sewage problem though.

I sure hope it's the return of Rambus!

um, jr. I spent a lot of time with Crossfire, Adventures in Math, Gato, and Kings Quest II. I learned to type playing Kings Quest II. My wife doesn't want our son to play video games, but I've already told her he's going to learn to type on Kings Quest games.

I'd vote for Terry Crews.

Triple confirmation.

This looks cloaked

I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few cloaks in my time

1. He's Australian not American
2. He's announced he hacked these people previously
3. He's already been raided
4. He wants more attention

http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/24/4024062/the-secrets-of-hacker-and-xbox-durango-leaker-superdae

Sure, it's a law firm named Prenda Law.

I find your solution to short circuit this law to be both pedantic and juvenile.

I love it.

Maybe. National security issues often times result in bad decisions (Korematsu - sorry George Takei) and scary rationale. For example, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdi was an American citizen captured in Afghanistan, returned to the US, then denied habeas rights. O'Connor, Rehnquist, Kennedy, and Breyer all said if Hamdi took up arms he can be detained for the duration of hostilities under the AUMF. Souter and Ginsburg concurred but said he should be tried via criminal law. Stevens and Scalia said screw you. Either suspend habeas (which you can't) or criminally charge him. And then Thomas said Hamdi is a combatant and the judiciary is not allowed to question the executive power (ed. Yikes!).

Scalia's dissent, joined by Stevens, should have been a 9-0 ruling. Like I said, national security issues befuddle the Court. In Korematsu the Court effectively abdicated its power and simply said we don't know war matters so the military can do what it wants. That's double plus ungood.

Of course, we have knew members on the Court, but even the remaining ones are hard to tell where'd they'd fall.

Well, sub-section 3 says "entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state" which Al Qaeda is not a foreign state. This is the same reason we keep detainees in Quantanamo instead of prisoners of war or prisoners. The Bush administration claimed they weren't enemy combatants because they didn't fight for a foreign state (standardized uniform and all that). Number 7 is more applicable, because it allows citizenship to be stripped for "bearing arms against the United States." However, section (b) states that the burden to prove loss of citizenship is on the party claiming the loss not on the supposed, um, loser. That's basic due process. Essentially if the government said he was no longer a citizen they have to prove it first.

Good question. You should have brought it up when the legislation was passed in September 2001. Here's the applicable language from the Authorization to Use Military Forced (AUMF):

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

You see the "he determines?" The Obama administration didn't make that up, because it's currently valid law. And it will be valid law until it is defeated in court or repealed. Section (b) says the AUMF complies with the War Powers Act which is complete BS, and the AUMF in total is an over delegation of congressional power a la Chadha.

But I don't make the rules.