Well, Apple HAS been very badly behaved lately. If nothing else, the fact that we have had to wait until this week to install 6.x because we've been waiting for a jailbreak is incredibly wrong, there should be no such concept as a jailbreak because there should be no such concept as a device that the user cannot install his choice of software. It's MY phone, not Apple's phone.

Sure, they're nowhere close to as evil as M$, but they ARE evil.

And what's truly infuriating about that is that they are the ONLY ones making a good user interface for a computer. Linux got lost in the weeds first, with Gnome and Unity, then M$ upped the unusability game with Windoze 8. Apple had to get into it a bit with removing scroll bar arrows and making all window edges growable, but overall Mac OS is by far the best OS out there, nothing else is even close as far as useability. And iOS is quite nice as well, once it's jailbroken.

There's no such thing as a G5 Mac Pro.

They're plastic fans, and run at fairly low speeds. They're also not exactly readily accessible.

And I have stuck my finger in Mac Pro and G5 fans before, to stop them and see if that was the source of the noise. Doesn't even hurt, certainly doesn't break the skin. Quicker and easier than powering down and starting up with tape on the fan.

Everywhere I've looked lately has been out of ammo and magazines, they've all been hit with the current buying frenzy. I've even had trouble finding reasonable prices on 7.62x39, a year ago a case of 1000 could be had for under $100, now it's... significantly higher.

I'm seeing AR15 lowers for $150, but backordered until June, or not accepting orders at all.

I understand why you didn't share your sources, but it would be nice to find the reasonably priced stuff.

You do realize that RPGs, grenade launchers, and mortars are completely legal to own if you pay the appropriate "destructive device" tax, right?

Nukes are a bit different, since there's the small issue of the non-proliferation treaty to deal with, only certain countries are allowed to own them (and perhaps none of them should either.) So perhaps that's where the line should be - no privately owned nuclear weapons. And I believe just about everyone would be ok with that.

So why do you think it isn't a constitutional right to have a high-capacity magazine?

Yep.

I've got a NeXT ADB keyboard, and a Griffin iMate. Works just fine.

This thing doesn't look like it's ADB, though.

How are they getting away with that? I just don't see how that could fly in court.

Cops are sometimes allowed to give "lawful orders" that make it legal to do something which would otherwise be illegal, like direct traffic through a red light. If you're following that "lawful order" the cop is not then allowed to ticket you for running the red, and if he did it would be thrown out in court.

But cops aren't allowed to give unlawful orders, orders that would result in you committing a serious crime. As an extreme example, a cop isn't allowed to tell you to murder someone, and you are fully within your rights to refuse to follow an unlawful order.

So if the cop is lawfully ordering you to empty your pockets, any crime committed as a result of that lawful order would be immune to prosecution. And if the order isn't lawful, the word should be gotten out that anyone carrying weed should refuse to empty their pockets, as the cop can't legally order you to commit that crime. If the cop then chooses to reach into the pocket himself, the person stopped hasn't committed the crime, the cop has.

A Terry stop (and the court WAS wrong to allow them, hopefully a better court will overturn someday) still requires that the cop have a reasonable suspicion that the person stopped committed a crime. That's not what's going on in NYC. They're stopping random people on the street, with no reasonable suspicion.

What the NYCLU is doing here is building a body of evidence for the court challenge to NYC's illegal practice.

You're full of shit.

23 representatives with PhDs. 17 with MDs. 166 with JDs. 22 with MBAs. All together, that's not even a majority, certainly not what I'd call "most".

And now that we have the technological capability to put true democracy into play on a massive scale, it's probably time to do it. What we've got DOESN'T work, it's been broken since nearly the beginning but it's been the best we've ever been able to put together. Coupled with strong constitutional civil rights protections, direct democracy could be the best thing so far. It would certainly be capable of being the most fair.

Well, what we have now IS better than state legislators electing senators.

But it's terrible. If we're going to have a bicameral legislature, we need to district the senate, and stop tying it to the states at all. There is absolutely NO legitimate reason that North Dakota should have as much representation as New York.

I think a better option would be a unicameral legislature that proposes bills, and a direct public vote for them to become law. We have the technology to do it now.

http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/estore/certifieddevice/cd

They claim they'll activate phones they didn't sell now.

But yes, the 4S is the first iPhone sold in any other way than as a VZW phone that can work on their network.

I believe there are a few regional GSM carriers, and some MVNOs that you can use an unlocked GSM iPhone on.

You seriously want to make that argument? Mass murders? Slavery?

How many are dead in Iraq? I think that little mass murder escapade outnumbers all other terrorist actions combined. And don't try to claim that wasn't a war started by right-wing xians, all you have to do is listen to some of the rhetoric from the man responsible, G. W. Bush.

Oh, you want state judicial murders? Yeah, we've got those too. Over 1200 of them just since 1977.

Pure terrorism? McVeigh wasn't exactly muslim, was he? How about Eric Rudolph? No?

Go back a few hundred years - witch burnings. Go back a bit farther - crusades. islam is about 700 years younger than xianity, which makes a difference in scale of fanaticism, religions calm down somewhat as they age.

And we're not exactly short on slavery either. The US imprisons more of its population than any other country, and most of those people are forced into virtually unpaid work for someone else's profit. Things which hurt no one can lead to a very long prison term, which becomes enslavement.

islam and christianity are both evil, and very much alike. In many ways, they're just different branches of the same religion, both claiming to have the truth while being very, very wrong. The xian bible is full of exactly the same kind of instructions from "god" to kill, maim, and enslave that are in the koran. They're just fortunately ignored by more of its followers.

Many Sprint phones are useable on Cricket.

What REALLY needs to happen is nothing of the sort.

Liability limits are nothing but corporate welfare. They pass on the cost of corporate screwups to everyone else, and insulate the wealthy from having to pay their fair share.

Liability for driverless car malfunctions should lie exactly where it does today for car malfunctions - with the automotive manufacturer. If the manufacturer is concerned that there may be a catastrophic bug that will kill lots of people, the manufacturer should buy insurance to cover that unlikely case. And if they pull a Ford (as in Pinto), there shouldn't be anything to insulate them from their well-deserved punitive damages.

Something I've never understood about articles like this is why they would claim that driverless cars are illegal.

They're not. Not in my state, and not in any state that I'm aware of.

Under the standard legal premise of "that which is not prohibited is permitted" that operates in the vast majority of the world, there are no laws which ban driverless cars. Automotive laws specify quite a few things, but most of those apply to:

1. The car. A car has quite a few things that it's required to have. Things like headlights, turn signals, windshields, tail lights, air bags, seat belts, etc. A driverless car could have all these things, and likely would have them. If they're all there as required, the car is legal.
There are also things a car is not allowed to do. For example, it's not allowed to be in certain places, and it's not allowed to be in other places for more than a certain amount of time. It's not allowed to go through a red light when there's a scamera at that light. It's not allowed to go above a certain speed when there's a scamera. Tickets for these things aren't given to the driver, they're given to the car or sent by mail to the car's owner. An automated car could certainly handle those rules, probably better than most humans. Because until now cars weren't capable of traveling without human supervision, there was no need to write laws that would apply to the car doing that. And if there's no law prohibiting it, it's legal.

2. The driver. There are lots of laws that apply to a driver. They specify what a driver can and can't do, what he must wear, what he must possess, and how he should behave in various situations on the road. These laws apply to a person. They are written to be completely inapplicable to a car, as there was no need to make them apply to the car. And if they don't apply to the car, they're simply irrelevant to a driverless car.

So I would say that no new enabling laws actually need to be passed at all. The existing legal structure is sufficient in most places for driverless cars to be on the streets today.