Encrypted traffic can be deprioritized at the ISP level, just like any other traffic.

I don't see anything that approximates what you're saying after "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." As a matter of fact, that's the entire First Amendment. Any contradictory law that follows this is null and void, from a legal standpoint.

It's high time to make up our mind as a nation as to which side of the coin we want. Are we going to have the freedom to say whatever we want, in which case we expunge defamation/slander and espionage laws, or the freedom to express most things except for ExtensiveLaundryList, in which case we do away with the First Amendment, or at least parts of it?

I, personally, would prefer *actual* freedom to say whatever the individual wants. Any laundry list can be perverted to censor more than was originally intended, and this usually happens to the more juicy tidbits of information.

Know what trumps that? The First Amendment. Next!

So they've definitely confirmed that this spare electricity that's generated via the hornet's chitin is used in the formation of Adenosine Triphosphate or glucose, the chemical energy and energy storage (respectively) that power fauna? Well, all save those arsenic-philic bacteria that they recently uncovered, but that's a long shot from what we're discussing here.

Once the ISPs start losing a significant portion of their revenue stream, they'll think twice about arbitrarily banning paying customers from their service.

That's funny. They have no problems taping us.

Thank you.

People escape from N. Korea. If a noteworthy protest, or heck, if an attempted revolution had taken place, don't you think that those who escaped would eventually mention this to a news outlet? Beyond a reasonable doubt, yes.

It seems to me that you mistakenly categorize the military as being distinct from the population. There is plenty of historical precedent where members of the military overthrew (or attempted to overthrow) a despotic regime. If *I'm* not mistaken, then N. Korea probably has a draft, and all of the general public opinion gets injected into the military with every new recruit. If the people truly felt oppressed, then some indication of this would be evidenced by a coup attempt. As this has not happened, any claim that the N. Korean government isn't approved (or at the very least condoned) by its constituents must be taken with a grain of salt. For historical precedent, there were protests and revolutions in Hungary, E. Germany, etc concerning the USSR. Many assassination plots were attempted with the Nazis. etc

Anybody smart enough to become a leader of a country is presumably smart enough not to sacrifice the vast majority of his population, as would be the case in the event of a nuclear war. Without constituents, there are no taxes. Without taxes, and people to work for those taxes (government contracts etc), the leader starves. One can only cram so much food and water into a bunker, after all; eventually this leader would still starve. Not to mention quality of life issues, but I suppose those are more... flexible when it comes to a fundamentalist/idealist. The point remains, anybody with enough wit to take the reigns of a country probably has a fundamental understanding of what happens without the majority of that country's population, and consequentially wouldn't dare to gamble with their lives.

Are you a telepath? Can you teach the rest of us? Because you seem to know an awful lot about the internal motivations of foreign countries' leaders, and what they would or wouldn't do. Have you considered a career as a 'personal consultant' (or whatever they call occult psychics) to our own country's leadership? ... if so, please don't.

We just recently had our own religious fanatic in office, and he had opportunity to nuke a whole hell of a lot of infidels. I guess we're all lucky he only decided to invade two of their countries for dubious reasons. At least he didn't nuke the entire middle east. So you see there's hope. If our own experience is anything to go on, then Iran will only invade two non-muslim nations, and N. Korea will only reinvade S. Korea, both sans nukes. This is assuming that their leadership is exactly as crazy as our own past leadership was; they could be saner, they could be crazier, but let's wait until they actually do something before we 'retaliate'. I didn't have to tell you this because I'm sure you read my mind to ascertain my own motivations and so on long before you get this post, but I figured I'd share with the rest of the class. Cheerio!

Who in their right minds would invade a country over a hostage situation that should have been handled domestically (viz.: by the Iranians)? Where is this rhetoric from Tehran, and how does it size up against our own? (Give us the context too, if you wouldn't mind.) Cite your sources in regards to the meddling in Iraq. Pure speculation pieces won't do, of course; we'll need actual proof. Going right down the list here: when did any official communique from the government of Iran state that, somewhere in their 5 year plan, they're going to wipe Israel of the map? Could it be they were making campaign promises? Again, we'll need sources and context. Finally, how is attempting to catch up to the US (and France, and China, and Russia, and India, and Pakistan, etc etc) militarily any sign of aggression? If anything it's a sign of a national survival instinct.

Thank you in advance for supporting your assertions. Few people ever do.

I don't see any difference between N. Korea and Iran in the respect that they're different from us, yet functional. If the people of N. Korea didn't approve of their government, one would see demonstrations, if not coup d'état attempts. This, however, is nowhere to be seen. From this we can infer that their government is adequately representing, and working for, them. A nuclear war would destroy most of their population, and would go against their current status quo (of government evidently working for its people). [I forget who said it first, but the people get the government that they deserve.]

I doubt that the N. Koreans don't have any idea regarding what would happen if they detonated a nuke somewhere. Just because they're different from us doesn't mean they're insane. Perhaps you could cite precedents of the N. Koreans' that support your notion of their leadership is so mentally incompetent that they'd risk a nuclear war, and why you personally think they haven't learned from this.

How is calling the German army by its official name in any way pretentious? 'Accurate' is more like it.

Maybe now that they have these new toys we can stop agitating them like schoolyard bullies. Or is this the wrong forum to post this?