So they're not "after your stupid guns" they're just after some of your stupid guns? I think this falls into the category of distinction without difference.

You do grasp that the National Rifle Association has a rather more narrowly defined mission than the American Civil Liberties Union, right?

I've never understood comments like yours--the NRA defends other civil liberties incidental to the exercise of the 2nd (for example, their support of Citizens United was an instance of supporting the first amendment as a means of supporting the second). The ACLU is supposed to stand for ALL civil liberties. It self describes itself thusly: The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country. It's lack of support--indeed, it's hostility toward-- the second amendment is in complete opposition to its stated goals (largely because of its identification as a "right wing" issue).

I don't like some of the things that the ACLU does, but in general I see them as a force for "good." The reason I won't support them is their hypocrisy on this issue. The reasoning they use to claim the 2nd amendment is a "collective right" can be applied to any other right enjoyed by "the people," and that's downright dangerous.

Please note, that I don't believe the ACLU needs to be out there defending gun rights cases--given their broad mission, I don't think this would be the best use of their resources. But a simple statement along the lines of, "we support the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and refer those seeking our assistance to one of the many single issue organizations in this area" would go a long way toward bringing gun owners back into the fold.

My wife and I go to the drive in about four times a year, and I have have say that the people we see there cover pretty much the entire spectrum, though the majority are family groups. The main draws for us are the family atmosphere, the price ($7/ea to see two or even three movies), plus no prohibition on outside food like regular theaters. They also have a great snack bar that's reasonably priced (because they're competing against outside food). We'd go more, but it's a 40 minute drive.

I read the page you linked to, and it's pretty interesting. Tuition/fees is about $14k. The living expenses are also about $14k. $2k is health insurance. $3k is transportation. $1500 is books.

Then you get to the part that says, if your parents make less than $80k a year, your tuition and fees are covered (i.e. cost you $0). So, I don't believe you're invalidating the OPs point--if you live at home, go to a local school, are covered by your parents insurance (required by Obamacare), your expenses are freaking minimal, and any debt you take on is your own damned fault.

I'll grant the point that NOT everyone is covered by the above (your parents make too much money, there is no local state four year school, etc) but the majority of UC students appear like they should be in good shape. Unless they live in San Diego and want to go to Berkeley...

I don't see a problem with the above. Obviously, the operations managers over at GientTelCo were fervently praying to whatever supreme being they believed in--because that was the only way the situation was going to get resolved in a timely manner. Given that level 1 is front line, level 2 is escalated support, level 3 is your subject matter expert, and level 4 is usually the engineer who designed the thing to begin with, level 8 is obviously almighty god. Had the guy working the ticket provided more complete information, you would not now be thinking that he was a dumb ass. :)

You've just described the relationship between a residential electrical customer and the electrical utility (the end user doesn't see the turbines, he just knows that the magic wall outlet makes his TV work). Which, all things being equal, is a pretty good comparison, given that "the cloud" is really just a reversion to the old time sharing model of computing. We geeks supply the GeeBees and the WiFis, and the rest of the world plays Angry Birds, secure in the knowledge that they are technologically savvy because they "understand" "the cloud."

What possible reason is there to move a pagefile to a ramdisk? If you've got ram to burn, then just get rid of the pagefile completely!

It's roughly the same size as some of the carriers (Hiryu and Soryu) that launched the strike on Pearl Harbor. By the standards of a modern American carrier, they're pretty small (tiny), but 27k tons isn't exactly anything to sneeze at, and calling it a "destroyer" is a bit of a fig leaf as that's roughly the size of a Kirov class BC (IIRC, the largest surface warship class currently in service with any navy that isn't an aviation/amphibious warfare ship).

Well, that and the fact that you couldn't get here from pretty much anywhere in any reasonable amount of time. Personally, I tend to think that's a bigger reason than any particular human behavior, but hey, whatever works for you.

Says the man who has never met a county building inspector. It doesn't matter if code explicitly states that something is permissible--if they don't personally understand it, it doesn't meet code. If they don't like the practice, it doesn't meet code. If they had a fight with their wife that morning, their kid hates them, and the dog just bit them, it doesn't meet code.

In a system designed such that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, how is there any difference between "innocent" and "not guilty?" It's not like juries have a box on their form that says "innocent," so even if it exists, exactly how is this special status you speak of supposed to attach?

Please explain how the above lines up with your idea that corporate entities cannot exercise rights? You've now agreed that some, in fact, can, but only certain ones. Who decides what constitutes "legitimate" press? And if we do something like that, does that mean that, say, a BP can go out and buy an outfit like the NYT and spout all the pro-BP propaganda they want to, since they're "the press" now, too? Can the Republican party buy Fox News and run thinly veiled political advertisements disguised as news? (I really, really want to make a joke here, but, sadly, the right one just isn't springing to mind).

Lastly, does that mean if I can't afford to buy the NYT, or Fox News, I simply don't have access to the press?

FWIW, I think smoking is a horrible habit and a downright idiotic thing to do, but personally, I do NOT support the ban on advertising that is becoming more and more pervasive as time goes by (it started with TV, it's spread to other media). I think that neo-nazis, KKK, and their ilk of other races who preach the same kind of hate are the scum of the earth, but I don't support muzzling them, either--hate speech is still speech. IOW, I disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

You're reaching on this one. Please note, I am NOT advocating the "corporations are people" line. I am advocating that people acting in groups have the same rights as the individuals that compose them. You don't get an extra vote because you incorporated, you have as many votes as you have members. I'm not going to dignify the "food stamps" thing with a response.

In the above scenario, the writers can say whatever the want, but the Times can be constrained from publishing it. So we're basically back to posting handbills, because every corporate owned press is off limits to whatever the powers that be find to be objectionable content.