It's one thing to use it in a military context but the administration refuses to rule out using it in place of law enforcement. Or do you think that the military should be deployed against American citizens on American soil instead of law enforcement? Perhaps we should deploy them against all wanted murderers and rapists since we *know* they're guilty. The government has never been wrong about that before.

I had this problem with iCloud and importing bookmarks from Safari on my Mac to Safari on my iPhone. I tried clearing them off of one, and bam, gone on both, irretrievably so. So annoying. Anyone know what the proper procedure for this is supposed to be? I'm very suspicious of trying to use iCloud now.

It's about time something like this happened. The rights established in the Constitution are binding on the government, wherever you are and whoever you are. There is no provision for different rules at the border or outside the border, nor for citizens as opposed to non-citizens. Any attempt at limiting those rights is in violation of any clear reading of the Constitution, especially attempts to define the border as 100 miles wide, an area that encompasses several whole states and 2/3 of the country's population.

The police don't mete out punishments. If they shoot you, it's ostensibly in self-defense when they are trying to apprehend you. There are major issues when cops are found executing people. A drone can't apprehend you, and you can't surrender to a drone. If you were to put your hands over your head if you are lucky enough to see the drone coming, you just present an easier target.

Both parties' establishments are totally authoritarian. Read all the pro-arbitrary-execution arguments here to see how. They are happy to trust the government to kill only people who "deserve it".

How exactly is one supposed to surrender to a drone?

These are murder/execution machines. There is no due process, no chance of being arressted and brought before a court for your crimes, you are simply executed with no chance to defend yourself. It is the most tyrannical of powers, and of you support it, you truly are unamerican.

Regular and ongoing military operations are generally what is considered being "at war". Certainly by the people who are subject to the regular attacks that, incidentally, kill 50 innocents for every terrorist. Obama has started wars in Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. We didn't have any regular and ongoing operations in any of those countries before he came in to office. Maybe Pakistan, I could be wrong about that one.

But I'm sure it'll get 100% and A+ reviews on Game Informer and all the paid review sites so it all evens out, right?

the question is idiotic. sounds more like "asking a question just to ask it"

As are many articles on the Internet. They are manufacturing controversy, however stupid, for page views. They are trolling, and as we all know the only proper response to a troll is to ignore them.

"Additionally, it is easy to forget now, but when the iPad first came out it was widely criticized as being too similar to an iPod Touch."

The reason for all that disparagement was because it ended up in the locked-down ecosystem model of the iDevices rather than the open, general-purpose computer model of the Macs. We wouldn't be allowed to install our own software on it. Android tablets aren't much better than iPads in this regard. So yes, Apple-hate, along with a vain, irrational belief that Android was more open and therefore better, not that it made much of a difference in users' habits.

Pomposity? How dare you!

"provided, of course, that you live in a city where you don't spend the majority of your time driving"

I have often wondered why audiobooks don't take off. What do all those people do with all that time when they are stuck in traffic? Just listen to whatever is on the radio?

It's crippling to the economy. Government spending is what is keeping the economy from taking an even worse nosedive. In case you haven't noticed, we've been a recession with high unemployment since the banks crashed the economy in 2008. In my state there are 5 people looking for work for every job that's available. Spending equals jobs. Government is one of the biggest spenders. Cut government spending, you kill jobs. These things have a multiplicative effect. You kill jobs, those people who lost their jobs can't spend as much, more people lose their jobs. 2% is a lot of jobs. An analysis put that at 2 million jobs lost.

The problem isn't rising entitlements. Social Security, for one, is not responsible for a single cent of debt, and never has been. The reason SS is in any kind of trouble at all is because the government has been raiding SS funds for other purposes and owes it money. The problem is reduced revenues. That happens in a depression.

To step in to a dangerous metaphor, you weren't living beyond your means when you made 60k/yr, but say you just took a pay cut and now you're making 50k/yr (just like the government when the economy crashed and tax reciepts went down.) Where do you make the cuts? Do you stop buying guns or stop buying your prescriptions? I know which I'd cut, but insanely, we're talking about cutting the prescriptions.

Just like Republicans that refused to identify what they would cut. They wanted this across-the-board cut all along, this was their provision in the last temporary budget compromise.