Ok, "goatse" in a story, followed by a link... Is anyone really going to click it without hesitation?

It is a privilege, not a right. Try driving drink and killing a few people and see how long you continue to have that "right". A right is something that cannot or should not be taken away. A privilege can be taken away and must in some circumstances.

I'm not angry, just surprised.

Where is this "right to unrestricted travel" defined? It's not. You're attempting to make passengers of all vehicles equal and that's just not the case. A passenger on a scooter cannot do the damage to others that a passenger in a plane or bus can do.

I can restrict your ability and means of travel. If you want to cross my property, I can say no. Or I can say do it on foot, but not in a motor vehicle. The government can do the same in the public interest. Would you allow any average joe to drive a rocket-propelled car around? Seriously- people have put JDAMs on vehicles - should they be able to drive them down your street? How about when your kids are playing in the front yard? Consider that and then argue this non-existent right to travel and the means by which it's accomplished.

Is there any doubt in your mind that a passenger on an airplane can do more damage than a passenger in a car? Come on! News for nerds? Y'all should be insightful and intelligent, but his post gets ridiculous rant modded insightful and I am modded as a troll? Seriously?

In response, you're goddamned right they can be denied a privilege. Do you think a repeat-offender drunk driver who has killed should have the privilege to drive again? Not a chance.

Now, if you want to argue that they were denied the privilege to fly without due process, well, there's no due process for preemptively denying that privilege. The guy's name showed on a watch list - there's usually a reason for it and for those who shouldn't be there, they have legal recourse to get removed.

Your arguments are red herrings laden with a smattering of pure bullshit. This guy has a right to walk anywhere he wants, travel freely, until someone with more power gets in his way. Sucks to be him.

Let me amend my previous remark - if the guy can strap on a pair of wings and flap his arms fast enough, then he might have some semblance of a right to travel through the air. Or maybe if he is shot out of a big cannon in the direction from whence he came... Although any form of air travel is trumped by public safety concerns.

Still, no "right to travel by air". I just love how people take random things (e.g. healthcare, social security, etc.) and start calling them rights. They're only rights if a greater majority is willing to give up something for someone else to have them. Or a gov't mandates it, usually against the will of that majority. That's taking away civil liberties.

"Not to mention the civil liberties abuses that result when someone is denied the right to travel (by air) with due process, no notification, and no effective means of appeal."

That remark alone shows your ignorance. There is no "right to travel (by air)". It is a privilege for those who meet certain conditions. Having the money comes first. After that, keeping out of trouble, public safety concerns, all that comes next. If they cannot meet those conditions and, perhaps, more, then they cannot get on a plane.

I think he meant: http://www.statueoflimitations.us/

"I voted... And I agree with the guy who didn't vote. So just use me as a proxy for what he said and all will be happy."

Seconded! People are seeing a lot of change we neither needed nor wanted.

The biggest reason this doesn't happen is cost. Those crappy phones you mention (I have similar setup) costs the manufacturer pennies to make. There's no fancy operating system, no connectivity with disparate systems, no pricey architecture, nothing fancy. In order to do what smart phones do, the cost would go up. Your smart phone isn't cheap, but the price is subsidized by the phone provider through deals with the manufacturer and built into the cost of the plan as a whole. Good luck, but I wouldn't expect it to happen any time soon because most people won't pay hundreds for a home phone system when they can get one that works with 4 handsets for $50.

By your logic, splash screens and boot screens displaying manufacturer and product are, in fact, advertising. They are not critical to functionality and only serve to advertise the product in question.

Doesn't putting a logo or a brand name on a product constitute advertising? That's been done all over operating systems since the beginning of time - prior art?