Legal issues are very black and white, very binary. If the criterion is "all", and "all" is invalidated - even by one exception - then the whole proposition is out. "Any" by itself leaves "all" as optional. "All that apply" is what "any and all" means in legalese, except that "that apply" is not left to your own interpretation, but instead means something like "all that are not barred by superseding legal restrictions or obligations". They could use that phrase, but using "any and all", which phrases it as a positive obligation, instead shifts the burden on you to prove that something is barred, instead of them to prove that something isn't. All of this hyper-parsed language is, of course, just a substitute for honest communication. It is, in fact, intended to avoid communication and understanding, while at the same time locking in the consequences as tightly as possible.

BTW, IANAL, and I am making this all up as I go along. I bet its pretty close to correct. Of course, any and all of it could be flat out wrong.

Its a demand to be complied with. Lets say you have ten accounts, but one of them carries some legal prohibition on revealing it (setting aside the larger problems with the whole idea, we're being fine-print pedantic here...). If you can show that you are not required to provide that one account, "list all..." by itself means that you can now list none and be in full compliance. "Any and all" means that you still have to list the other nine. In other words, it is the legal way of saying don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, just in case the demand for "all" becomes invalidated.

"All your base are belong to us" legally implies that if even one base is found to not belong to us, then it is possible that none of them do - the statement is false in its entirety. "Any and all of your base belong to us" means that if we accidentally let one of your bases slip through our fingers, the remainder still belong to us. To a lawyer, internet memes are full of loopholes and thus not binding.

But It's Not Google

Let's see.... you could meet a beautiful girl and fall madly in love and have sex for free for the rest of your life...

Or... you could meet Ray the Pimp and pay $50 bucks for a night with his "best" girl, Grizelda. She even has most of her teeth!

And then you find out at the last minute that she'll sell you condoms for $200 each. No, the one in your wallet is not "compatible".

Sure Microsoft is the simple choice. In the same sense as the simplicity of Winston Smith's television viewing choices.

Pull out, already, Steve. America's asshole is sore enough.

On the other hand, Steve himself is a good candidate for the title "America's Asshole". I'm all for anyone with financial clout standing up to Obama and congress, but the enemy of my enemy is not automatically my friend.

Northeast was out of the question for a lot of people, plus the voting was suspicious, so the western folks broke off and chose Wyoming. Its nominally led by the author Boston T Party, and his book "Molon Labe" is loosely based on a hypothetical plan for the FSW. http://www.freestatewyoming.org/ Don't be fooled by it looking dead, hit the forums link (you have to register to see most of it).

Is there a way to send private messages here?

I'm looking at Wyoming, myself. The Free State Project's western offshoot is there. I'm looking at Casper or maybe the Big Horn Valley. If the latter, Billings would by the nearest "big" city. I've been up to Wyoming a few times, and I really like the place. Arizona is getting too Californicated.

Who's 'we', Kemosabe?

Some have the balls, some don't. Nature and events will eventually sort them out, one way or another.

I like to refer to it as "The Department of Fatherland Security", at the risk of Godwining this conversation.

One word: TSA.

Airports are about 80% there already.

The only way fingerprinting could possibly aid in tracking illegal immigrants is if it was used to track every single US citizen and legal alien. Then anyone caught on the street without their fingerprints in the system is by definition illegal. And even that is only useful if people are routinely fingerprinted on the street. I'm pretty sure there's a name for that kind of system.

The more likely use, down the road a (very short) way, is to make emigration illegal, or at least restricted. There's a name for places where that happens, too.

Everybody likes to talk about police states in the past tense, or in the abstract. Nobody expects the Spa... the real dictatorships. They aren't created all at once out of the blue, and they're seldom openly announced as such.

Yeah, cause if there was a need for it, it would've been just fine. No censorship without a pretty good reason, that's what I always say.

If people are learning it, is it still fictional?