A society that coldly ignores drug addicts would seem sociopathic. Is that possible?

Why would you consider it in the least unlikely? Here in the USA, our laws and social nets routinely ignore (I"m sorry, I meant "tacitly encourage") rape and murder in our prisons, people's consensual sexual choices, people living under bridges (hell, it forces them to live under bridges), their need for healthcare...

I don't know what makes you think it's some kind of unthinkable step to ignore someone with a drug problem. Right now our "solution" is to jail them, declare them a felon, and ruin their future. Big step to saying "you took it, you deal with it"? Perhaps. But in the direction of kindness instead of worse.

does this fact put those communications off limits?

If those communications are within areas governed by US law, then yes, it does, barring completion of the steps specified in the 4th amendment. Which, if you actually have evidence of wrongdoing, should not prove in any way inconvenient.

No government agency deserves immunity from the very constitutional provisions that authorize their existence. None ever will. Yes, this entails risk. We know. That's not sufficient justification to let the government off the leash the constitution defines.

then you should support the abilities of one of the strongest powers in the world at actually, materially, and in reality (not in your little internet fantasy) of actually protecting and projecting those ideals.

The US constitution is the document that authorizes our form of government. Even a cursory reading of it reveals that it spends a great deal of time restricting government action. Given that this is the case, it must (and of course does) follow that there was a perceived risk deemed significant enough to guide the construction of the document, that risk being the government acting in such a way as to compromise the citizens.

Further, again without much effort, we can see that the restrictions implemented at times actively disadvantage the government. The 4th amendment is a poster child for this; it would, of course, be much more convenient for law enforcement if searching any venue they wanted, any time they wanted, for anything they might happen to find, was ok. But all three are disallowed: Warrants are required, specifying where to search, what to search for, and the prior existence of a reason (probable cause indicative of wrongdoing) for the search.

This is the source of those "self-styled internet tech-libertarians" ideas that the government should not have everything easy, no matter what justifications they might bring to the table today. The document that served (and serves) as the very foundation of this country does not agree with your "you should support" assertion, and it does agree with those "self-styled internet tech-libertarians."

Indirectly related to all this is the pervasiveness of blatent agitprop put forth by the government regarding the risks of terrorism within our borders (slim... getting hit by lightning is much more likely) and the risks operations like ISIS pose to the US (almost none... certainly nothing that justifies paying them any attention at all, much less getting unconstitutionally invasive within our borders.)

Finally, as US law extends exactly zero distance within the borders of, and the communications mechanisms of, other countries, what the NSA and other TLAs do in those venues is pretty much irrelevant, legally speaking, except when it touches upon a US citizen or breaks a treaty to which we are signatory. There's no need to ask for powers out there; there's no significant limit on such activity that we didn't sign up to on our own. There's no premise that provides for search or seizure of anything within the US without a warrant pendant upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.

It's worth examining the role of the oath there as well. At the time, a person's word was the foundation of their reputation. An oath was something given when even the most awful circumstances would not disrupt the giver's honor. Should someone's oath be found wanting, their reputation was destroyed, and likely, permanently. This is the source of requiring an oath before a warrant could be issued: if the assertion of criminality was found to be incorrect, the oath-giver, a person directly responsible in the chain of warrant issuance, was harmed deeply by the utter destruction of anyone's ability to trust them -- and you could be sure the falsely accused would see that it is so.

So we can see that the government's ability to search and seize was not only restricted by procedure, but also by the willingness of a citizen to destroy themselves should the undertaking prove fruitless. The authors of the constitution really didn't want the government searching and seizing "just because it wanted to." You'll also note there are absolutely no exceptions made for constructions like "national security", "public safety", "the children" or "moral decency." The whole and entire premise that any part or parcel of search and seizure of anything within our borders should be at the government's ultimate discretion is utter claptrap made up by, and for the benefit of, the power structure.

Those are the ideals you should be protecting and projecting.

TL;DR: If the constitution says no, the answer is no until or unless the procedures specified in article five are used to change what the constitution says. Neither congress, nor SCOTUS, nor the executive, nor any TLA can implement a valid law, rule, or other form of coercion, direct or indirect, that does so. These entities can -- and do -- misuse their power to illegally impose their unauthorized will upon the citizenry -- but those same "self-styled internet tech-libertarians" will be right there to point it out to the uninformed (the majority, sadly) and the sycophants each and every time the knowledge becomes public.

You bet it's censorship.

No, it's not censorship. Censorship is the government controlling your actions by coercion, the threat of using force against you.

This may be a business taking a position that they know better than you what is good for their bottom line; in that case, it most likely represents a balance defined by the clients of the business, with the business betting that more clients will be pleased by this than displeased. Alternatively, it may simply be an artifact of someone powerful relative to the business's control who is imposing their morality upon all of the business's customers. In either case, the affected users can take their business elsewhere to a platform that does not impose moral restrictions upon them.

When the US government censors, it is almost impossible to stand against it effectively. Particularly as it often is finally determined by non-elected actors, such as the FCC and SCOTUS, both of whom have demonstrated outright contempt for the US constitution.

When a business imposes "mommying", for whatever reason, all you have to do is stop using their product and (a) you have done them a small, but real, bit of actual damage, and (b) you can return to operating as you please via no more effort than selecting a more open platform.

The bottom line is that there is a world of difference between a private entity insisting on bounds within a limited space, real or virtual, that they legitimately control, the maximum end result being that you don't get to use a space you didn't have any rights to in the first place if you insist on your position; and a government enforcing bounds everywhere using violence, where insisting on your position can lead to anything from a monetary fine to your rape and/or death within the prison system.

Math has prior art on the use of the term. In fact, Physics' use of the term is just plain derivative.

Physics has prior art on everything; math is just a metaphorical tool of physics (or else an amusing curiosity.)

This is only news to those who have had their head in the ground, listening to fox news and government shills.

I enjoy things like Baroque music, and don't care at all for things like NASCAR and 4-wheeling

Ah. Well then... concerts; recitals; record stores (now re-appearing); CD stores; instrument shops; look for clubs and charities where you can contribute; if you can, start a small scholarship fund and otherwise make yourself useful to a music academy; another thing you can do is enquire at a music school if anyone is in need of an instrument purchased for them, repaired, or restored; host a dinner for one or more quartets or other music aficionados and invite at least one likely, lovely suspect to join in. Find some events with a nice string quartet and hang out near them, just enjoy yourself. If you're comfortable leaning up against the canopy post or relaxed on the grass, others will join you. Sometimes those people will be of the female persuasion. And if not, hey, string quartets are magical anyway, so you really can't lose. And of course, there's obvious -- music lessons. Also, make sure you have a good audio-only system or a theater system with great sound. If you're a headphone type, ensure you have dual-output capability and two of the same type of 'phones. You want anything you share to reach the other person's ears just as it does yours. But headphones... keep 'em in a box until you're well into the relationship, unless you're just sharing something of a few seconds duration. Rare or fine audio recordings (check out TELARC) make fine gifts, too. If you're dating a musician and you really want to pull out all the stops, shop for a rare manuscript or document penned by a musical luminary in their line ($$$.)

The opportunities associated with your interest are broad, and the best part about it is that this particular vector will do a great job of pre-filtering for you.

Just out of curiosity -- you mention Manhattan -- can you get there on weekends? I did quite well bringing some of those ladies out into eastern Pennsylvania back in my prowling days. Some beautiful sights to share, plus caving, rafting, canoeing on the Delaware, mansions, estates and historical landmarks to look over (including a few great pubs in NY state and north) some great dining... It's very easy to put together a short day trip with some music you both know you'll enjoy... Do you have a good or great sound system in that Volvo? If not, why not? If so, awesome.

Wikipedia carries a great deal of bad and misleading information, as well as attacks and cover-ups. The editing (by which I mean arbitrary, supervision-free, largely random and often outright wrong top-down meddling with content) is nothing short of terrible. What keeps Wikipedia going is the users. What keeps setting it back is the meddling from above. Nothing has ever managed to keep misinformation out of it -- in either direction. That said, Wikipedia has long since mutated from its optimum form -- actually open -- into a pseudo-intellectual grandstand for its operators, replete with locked pages carrying their opinions to the masses.

I don't know about the OP, but I'm an engineer, and women interested in dating engineers don't seem to exist.

What you do isn't likely to be a draw unless it is exotic, either by virtue of rarity, or by virtue of publicly visible achievement (CEO of a major company, etc.)

Who you are, on the other hand, is something you demonstrate with everything you do. Worthwhile women (as opposed to self-destructive barflies and NASCAR fans) are most often looking for several things, usually in the following order.

First, looks and character. You don't have to be a beautiful man, but you will do best if you carry yourself with confidence, and no matter what you should be clean and smell good or at least not smell bad, you need to groom your hair, keep your fingernails and sweaty parts extremely clean without telegraphing obsession, and you should dress like someone who can afford to dress well, because...

Second, security. You should project the sense that being with you is a better state than being without you. A nice car, a nice ring or watch, clean clothes in excellent shape, these send two messages: that you will spend for comfort and that you can spend. Most women of breeding age (even if you're not interested in having kids, I assume you're still interested in going through the motions) are looking for a fellow who is able and willing to make that nest. That's true even if they say, and if they really mean, they don't want kids themselves. Security is a very good thing, and they've been seriously tuned up by evolution to seek it out. Also, as a life goal, a great nest is an excellent thing to aim for, to achieve, and to share.

On the subject of security, kill any debt you have if humanly possible. You'll have more money in the end. A debt-free person is a lot more attractive than one who brings such things to a relationship. This isn't always achievable, but if you can get out of debt and/or avoid it entirely, you definitely should. Financial rule #1: You don't want to pay interest. You want to charge interest.

Once you are interacting, STFU and listen. You can initiate conversations, and steer them, and you should, but you need to be a good listener more than anything else. Let her speak and encourage her to speak more, and visibly enjoy the experience (don't fake it -- build a mindset where you are interested. It's entirely a good thing.) The time for you to speak at any length is when you are asked a question. Which you answer carefully and in the most interesting way you can. Otherwise, short and sweet is the rule. This aids in making you intriguing and in projecting interest in her.

I speak from a lifetime of experience, and a great deal of success in courting the women I went after, ultimately, finding and keeping someone of such profound worth and compatibility that to this day, after decades, I am still deeply in love with her, and she with me. I'm almost 60, BTW. And yes, I am an engineer and a geek, and I am not a beautiful man. However I am confident and I am extroverted but can listen well without having to interrupt with my own take or story (one of the most obnoxious conversational failures ever, IMHO, is to interrupt, or answer, a story of someone else's with a recitation of something similar or related that happened to you. Instead, ask questions about the story and as it is told, respond to it within its own context. You can take that one right to the relationship bank. No matter how strong the urge, don't tell stories about yourself except when explicitly asked to do so. Mystery trumps bragging every time.)

When the day comes when you're trying to seriously figure out if a particular lady is "the one", watch out for serious areas of conflict that the rush of romance has (temporarily, I assure you) pushed aside: religion, politics, impingement of extended family fuckarosis, drinking or drugging habits and seriously divergent philosophical outlooks, desire for kids. Any one of those can put a relationship right on the rocks, and yes, again I speak from experience. Only the lawyers win in the end if you manage to convince yourself those things can be overlooked. It is highly unlike that will turn out to be true.

Now of course I am speaking generally, there are exceptional women out there who will be a little or a lot different, but on the whole, my experience and that of the people I know tell me that this is the way to place your bets. None of this is likely to put off an exceptional woman, either.

Where to meet people? I don't know about online dating, and have no POV to share there. It might be great. However, IRL, there are a number of places that can bear fruit. For example, the grocery store. Single women have to go there almost without fail. Tune yourself up to look for rings, and prepare and throw some conversation starters: meat counter... "Have you tried that from this store?" You see what that does? It's not about you, it's not quite about her, but it solicits her opinion, doesn't portray you as an ignoramus, and gets her talking to you. "hmm... sounds good (or in case of a negative, 'oh... hmmm. What would you suggest instead?'), what do you think of a caesar salad, what about a good [wine, side, etc] to go with?" It will help considerably if you can cook and know a bit about food and wine. In other ways, too -- highly recommended. You can turn this around on a dime, by simply getting her to ask who this is for. At that point, "Oh, just me. Although... you know, I'd be delighted to cook for you... (nice smile.)" All she can do is demur, which should not put you off in the least. It'll happen. But so will successes. No try... no success.

Don't stick to a single grocery store. Go to as many as you can so what you're doing isn't clear to all who see you at it the second or third time.

There are other forms of common ground. Shopping in general; laundromats; clubs, swimming pools, luncheon places, the beach. They're all potential meeting venues as long as you treat them that way, and prepare some contextually appropriate conversation starters. Move around. Test the waters everywhere.

In conversation, don't over-share, and avoid complaining -- about anything -- no matter what. That just projects "I am a victim." You want to project "I am a (humble, funny, intelligent, strong, quiet) force of fucking nature." On receipt of complaints, your answers are either potential solutions (only if practical and realistic) or restrained sympathy combined with a good ear.

Lastly, and I am quite serious, consider becoming a martial arts student. Say nothing about it unless there is a scheduling conflict, and then say no more than "oh, I'm sorry, I have a workout that evening/day/whatever. Let her ask. She almost certainly will, eventually, if nothing else. Then tell her. You seriously undertake and stick to martial arts, and eventually -- just a matter of a couple years -- you won't have to project strength and confidence. You will be strong and confident and the ladies who are looking will know it sure as a cat can smell tuna. Yes, I'm a martial artist.

Good luck.

Algernon? Is that you?

Don't feed the trolls. Especially the cray-cray trolls.

Do you really want your Bay Area case where some wing nut has sued Google for not basing the Android clock on days since Biblical Creation to be decided by an imported judge from Alabama who may actually think they're right?

I want judges to be part of a service where they have to pass an exhaustive test that demonstrates they are both well informed and even-handed, and I'd want an overwatch panel too. Don't mistake my suggestions as intended to cross every t and dot every i. They're problems to be solved, not glib answers.

A full jury trial for any serious (felony) offense is extremely expensive and time consuming, and plea bargaining is a way to reduce the burden on courts and juries by exacting some form of a minimum toll on the guilty without going for the maximum.

There are way, way too many laws. Get rid of drug and sex worker cases and reduce lawsuits and you'd have a whole different idea about "how busy" the courts are.

does John Boehner get to automatically impeach President Obama

First, presidents should not be making law. There is zero provision for it. Second, the President, as the head of the enforcement arm, should have a system for watching for such things and seeing to it that they are brought to the president's attention for action as the chief executive. I think that would be excellent.

Why even mention "a well regulated militia" if that is not the justification for the 2nd Amendment?

You have suffered a parsing failure, because you are ignorant of the meaning of the words when and as written, and because you have failed to discriminate between an explanation (which you got wrong anyway) and a direct instruction (which you advocate ignoring.) I will illuminate them both for you:

Well regulated as used at the time meant "consistently supplied", and the point was that everyone (which is essentially what the "militia" was comprised of) should show up with a weapon and ammo and so on if and when called up, and therefore, those rights were very well protected.

Regardless, the first phrase is an explanation, and the second is a restriction on government. The restriction doesn't go (shouldn't go -- it certainly has done) away until an amendment says it does as per section five. That it has is utter sophistry. Someone would have to demonstrate, at the very least I would say, that the need for armed citizens has passed. There's lots of evidence they are very badly needed, and we are suffering when they are not immediately available.

There's no authority to arbitrarily say "we don't have to obey the restriction, and it is the worst idea EVER to think that the government can say that, because if they can do it with the 2nd, they can do it with every other amendment and rule as well. Good bye constitution, hello banana republic.

So just to make this clear - I arrest you for drunk driving. But I search your trunk later and find you have a kidnapped person in there, and I can't charge you for it?

That's exactly right. Just like the limits on getting a warrant, the state gets to labor under a handicap, because it is known (extremely well known, now, as a matter of fact) that it will abuse the privilege if and when it is allowed to run free. Unrestricted government is dangerous. As we see every day. And as the founders knew full well.

You're right, nobody likes lobbyists. But they do actually have a purpose.

Sure they do. To subvert the system. Out they go. Your argument that congresspersons who would not otherwise learn about issue X will then do so because some lobbyist bribes them is utter horseshit. The lobbyists don't bribe them to learn; they bribe them to steer their vote, and the one with the biggest payoff is the one that wins. It is purest unmitigated corruption and it should go.

What if I like champagne, cinnamon or wagyu beef?

Then Americans, seeing the market, will labor to produce as similar a product as they can. Otherwise, your wish for funky foods does not outweigh the need to restore the American economy.

What if the cost of diamond engagement rings goes up 10x because the US doesn't produce a meaningful amount of diamonds?

That would be outstanding.

Anyway, my point is that I admire people with a strong desire and thoughts about how to turn things around in this country. It's just much harder to fix things than it looks

I think your position -- your point -- is that, like most Americans, you don't want to think about what's wrong and you don't want to actually have to fix it, nor have you seriously thought about it. Your response wasn't well thought out at all. If course there's more detail to solutions like this, or exactly this. Of course solutions will change things, and of course the government should be handicapped in its ability to abuse citizens, its ability to coerce the states, and its ability to subvert the constitution. Finally, you will recall, that I never once said anything about such ideas being "easy."

I would like to see this science of which you speak. Not the Fox News edit either, I want to see the SCIENCE.

Let me google that for you

You should have done that yourself. That's what part being responsible is: informing yourself. And not from the lips of Jenny McCarthy, either.

we probably have one of the best judicial systems in the world

If that's true -- I don't know -- it is a horrifying commentary on justice within the entire human context. Because the US justice system is severely broken in just about every facet one can name.

There is so much wrong, it is very difficult to believe that the system can be fixed at all.

That said, this:

First, they should have a "judges service" where a judge serves a randomly assigned trial with one requirement: it must be somewhere FAR from where they live. During their service, they are isolated, just as a jury would be sequestered. They would serve for the length of the trial, and we'd keep them in luxury, although 100% isolated from anything but the courtroom, a legal library, medical care, and food service. No television or Internet or radio, just movies on request (DVD, blueray.) This isolates them from bribery, bullshit trading of people's futures at the golf course, and other forms of influence peddling. Once served, they get paid time off equal to the length of the trial.

Second, we need to get rid of the laws that amount to the government attacking the people and/or corporate welfare. Broadcast station regulation, Drug laws, anti-sex-worker and client laws, seizure-without-warrant laws, and I think we should provide relief from laws like building codes where the prospective builder can show what they are doing is no threat to anyone else but the builder and any prospective buyer. There are an amazing number of building codes that amount to silly nothings for a farmer out on the plains, just for one of many possible examples. Reducing the bogus law overload would reduce the docket of the courts to a huge degree.

Third, plea bargaining has turned out to be an extremely bad thing. It should be abolished.

Fourth, piling on charges post-arrest should be abolished. You should have sufficient reason to arrest someone in the first place. You didn't do your due diligence beforehand, then you suck.

Fifth, this business of taking people's resources away from them before they've had their day in court essentially puts them in a can't-defend-themselves circumstance, and is unjust in the extreme anyway as it is pre-conviction-punishment.

Sixth, cops are just too bloody free with shooting people, pets and so on. I suggest we remove the option of lethal weaponry. How is a good question, but I'm sure we can come up with something. Tasers are part of the answer; some kind of glue gun might be another.

Seventh, the constitution needs some updating. To begin with, it needs some kind of teeth. Congresscritter dimwit writes up a law that infringes on your right to keep and carry, he's shown the door. Writes a law that amounts to the government censoring speech, shown the door. And so on. Still in this context, the 2nd is perfectly clear if you're not being outright disingenuous or ignorant, but it needs some exceptions -- nukes, bioweapons, chemical weapons obviously, but we might want to consider sonics and beam weapons before we get into another hairball over those when they arrive. The 4th *clearly* was written with the assumption that a warrant was *required* and for that reason, it spends most of its text describing what constitutes "reasonable." But again, the disingenuous and ignorant have said it means "if I think it's reasonable, we don't need a warrant." It needs to be re-written so that this kind of sophist fuckery isn't so easily pursued. The commerce clause also needs some work. The current government interpretation of it is like a kindergartner's explanation of atomic physics. If I grow a crop for my own consumption in my state, it's not interstate commerce. If I use a telephone to call my neighbor in the same state, it's not interstate commerce. And so on.

Eighth, ex post facto laws have to go. This business of adding to people's punishment after conviction is already explicitly forbidden to both the federal government and the state government. Once sentenced for X, people should serve at *most* that sentence for X. Less if the state thinks it has a good reason.

Ninth, and related to eighth, once a sentence is served, the records should be sealed from everyone but law enforcement. Otherwise we will continue to create a massively disadvantaged class of hopeless, angry individuals (and remember, some of them will even be innocent... they're *really* going to be angry.) Let the start over. The punishment sentenced should be the whole punishment. Not a sentence to inescapable purgatory. If you want someone to have a life sentence for something, then fine -- do that. But don't release them into the populace with a boot on their neck 24/7. Quite aside from the injustice of doing so, it's eventually going to lead to someone kicking back -- the more people lose, the less they have to consider in guiding their behavior. And right now, a felony conviction is, for most, a guarantee of losing a whole bunch, forever -- as well as what amounts to an very attractive invitation to pursue further criminal activities, where a felony conviction isn't a downside, it's more like a basic credential, highly attractive because the ability to improve your circumstance becomes open-ended again.

Tenth, corporations are not people. Or, if you insist on trying for such a comparison, the ones to use are "sociopath" and "psychopath." They need to be completely excised from the legislative process.

Eleventh, I suggest lobbyists go as well, in favor of a system where a congressperson has a system that constituents can access where they can either open an issue or join other voices on an issue so the congressperson can determine the level of concern without money or favors being involved, and then make the decision based upon their best understanding of what is actually best for their constituents.

Twelfth, we need to determine what basic survival needs are and make sure that no one in our country falls to a level where they cannot access such needs. To this end, I think every town and city should be required to provide a basic hab -- four walls, heated in winter and at least ventilated otherwise, cot and bedding, chair, basic desk, some kind of nutritious but bland-as-possible gruel, shower, drinking water, shelves for clothing, lockable door -- where people can go for shelter. How many beds would be determined statistically, plus a safety margin. It would be smart to provide basic phones and Internet, too. See 13.

Thirteenth, communications are as needful to a modern citizen as food and water. I think it is long past time that they were moved out of the commercial sector and into a general tax-supported model. Everyone, and I mean *everyone*, should be able to call the cops, the hospital, their mom, and so on. Everyone should be able to get on the net and job search, participate in the political process, and so on.

Fourteenth, every trace of religious affiliation should be purged from government at every level, including the courts. No statues, no plaques, no sayings on money, no creches, no Christmas trees, no assertions of atheism or Islamic principles or Christian values, no oaths to "God", no prayers before meetings, no assertions or other nonsense on money. No tax exceptions (or even notice.) Absolute, dead silence on the matter. Religion should not be a matter for government other than to see that person A doesn't interfere with person B's choices within the bounds that those choices don't directly interfere with something or someone else. Animal sacrifice, for instance; noise for another.

Fifteenth: No more exporting jobs, and no more importing workers. You want to sell stuff here, you build it here from materials sourced from here using labor from here. Free trade was a well-intentioned gesture that has had immense negative unintended consequences. If we don't stop it, instead of foreign folk enjoying the benefits of our economic peak we will be drawn down to the level of the least expensive foreign worker. It has already begun. Unemployment numbers do not reflect the change of state from a qualified job to burger flipper. I know some of you will understand exactly what I'm talking about here.

Sixteenth, a lot fewer lawsuits. My sense of how to accomplish this is to limit -- cap -- the legal fees that can be charged for litigating a lawsuit, and the amount of court time one may occupy before the judge must render a decision. No more percentages of awards for the lawyers, either. If we make lawsuits less attractive to lawyers, I think we'd see a whole lot less of them.

Seventeenth, and this is really, really important: Shut that "fyngyrz" guy the hell up. What a pain in the ass.