Man can be used in a gender-neutral way. Nit-picking isn't good.

Observation caused the quantum super-state of me having / not having a breakdown to collapse into a breakdown. The person with the camera should be charged with disturbing the peace for forcing reality down that particular route of events. Case closed.

I know it's nit-picking, and I do agree with the general statement, but not all side-loading requires rooting.

Some of the most popular Jailbroken iPhone apps have the same issues, like WinterBoard.

Not sure how this isn't flamebait/trolling. Responding to a generally moderate opinion about internal fracturing within a political spectrum with general bashing and over-simplifications does nobody good. Also responding with instant defensive stances about what 'they are not' when nobody called them such names to start should be clearly indicative of the poster's intent.

The term 'bug' is used in the main article by Ronald S. Oremland (coauthor of the controversial Science paper and Wolfe-Simon’s postdoctoral adviser at the time), “Even if we are dead wrong with this arsenic-DNA business, with a bit more work this bug could shed light on the limits of what microbes can and can’t do.” Maybe you should be less flippantly critical of the wording.

Didn't miss that point, and I appreciated the comment in general. The end phrase, "more likely", implies that there is a choice between, and not in addition.

That's a silly argument, and doesn't my MC any more a valid document to reference.

Queue the gimmick metal stickies under clothing, http://cargocollective.com/4thamendment

Given that Magna Carta has no bearing on American law, or the right to wield a knife... nothing?

Implication that more gear has lowered the occurrence of abuse notwithstanding.

False dilemma, you can have all the above.

I think the application (and ease of application), something the article didn't go into much detail about, will set the rules for that game. Quoted from the linked article;

"So far, the technology only works from a distance of about three or four feet (about one meter), although NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly hopes that its range can ultimately be extended to at least 25 meters (82 feet).

The plan is for the scanner to be mounted on a van, then used on suspects who would otherwise have to be physically searched." ( - http://www.gizmag.com/nypd-portable-gun-scanner/21147/ )

If it gets to the point that a van is allowed to scan past clothing at 25 meters, at the whim of a policeman, I think that the 4th amendment implications are grave, however, I don't think it's infringing on the rights of CCP owners directly, as it would only help enforce a law - a law you could more astutely claim is infringing on 2nd amendment rights. (Welcome to the shall/may state debate!)

Given that I don't live in a state that issues CCPs to citizens, it's already a moot point. I don't carry a gun because it would be a felony to do so, and this only allows the police to actually start cleaning up the guns carried by those who don't worry as much about felony violations. (i.e. The concept works under the presumption that we're all supposed to be unarmed.)

"New York gives wide latitude to the county authorities in issuing pistol licenses. In New York City, a concealed pistol license is allowed by law, but detractors have claimed it takes a large degree of wealth, political influence, and/or celebrity status to obtain.[33] In contrast, many rural Upstate New York counties are effectively Shall-Issue in their licensing policies, and some rural upstate counties have policies that allow unrestricted concealed carry after one has obtained a state carry permit." ( - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States )

Given that New York isn't completely may-issue solid it might not make the same amount of sense in application, and provides a glimpse into the de facto decisions of the enforcement on this issue - implications that may bother some gun owners in New York.

(It should be clear, but I wanted to make sure to mention, IANAL.)

It seems that's reason enough to denote the original comment trolling. Perhaps if I was needlessly verbose...

It's cool to hate facebook + sensationalist headlines get more attention = this article.