But the NSA won't read your comment, cause they only track the metadata. And everyone knows metadata can never be changed.

Taking money from dumb people should never be illegal. If you're dumb enough to believe that a Nigerian prince needs $50k to transfer $100m to the US. Then by all means, this should be legal.

Ponzi schemes should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but the burden of proof should be on the schemed.

For instance, if I ask you for $1k, and promise to return you $10k in 6 months with no proof or explanation of my scheme, that should be perfectly fine and legal.
On the other hand, if I have a porftolio with 100 other investors, and their phone numbers and you call them, and they say yeah this is legit, this man is a genius, blah blah blah. And I take you're money and flee the country, then yes that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Or this

Don't you mean island?

I imagine Oracle's Mission statement is the exact opposite of Googles.

Citation

No, they incarcerate more. Racism is unfortunately worldwide.

"Black prisoners make up 15% of the prisoner population and this compares with 2.2% of the general population – there is greater disproportionality in the number of black people in prisons in the UK than there is in the United States."

Maybe the US govt can start twampling the 6th through 10th amendments next year

Don't forget the 1st, 2nd and of course the 4th.

In fact, the 3rd amendment is the only one that I'm aware of that they haven't tried to violently violate, yet.

I agree, that's why I sold my 1st gen iPad. I don't expect a decade of support, but at least more than 2 years.

Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?

Peasant 1: Bread.

Peasant 2: Apples.

Peasant 3: Very small rocks.

I agree that we in the US have long ago since stopped being the land of the free, but I don't think Stalin is a good comparison. I doubt we really know how many people disappeared in the night, how many were actually incarcerated, how many were sent to Siberia, how many were just killed outright.

I actually expected this to be an article about how the infotainment systems were causing wrecks and was a bad idea, not that we should just use a phone os to do it.

This is The United States of America. How dare you expect anyone in this nanny-state to be responsible for their own decisions, good or bad. If you make good decisions and manage to claw your way up to the upper echelons of society, you need to pay your fair share. And if by some chance you are aren't one of the lucky few, then by god, the Federal govt will take care of you. Because bad decisions are never based on your decision making shares, but it must be someone elses fault.

You're right, I went off on a rant (stupid HTML shit pissed me off at work). The banning cars argument is stupid. How's this argument.

Drunk drivers kill people , but people still do it, therefore we need to ban or license alcohol.

Is basically the same argument as

Criminals with guns kill people, therefore we need to either ban or require a license to own a gun.

Both of these are stupid arguments when looked at logically, criminals will break the law, while non-criminals won't. Requiring a license to buy a gun or alcohol will not stop people from getting killed. It might make it a little harder, but I doubt it. The Newtown shooting happened because a person stole guns from a law-abiding citizen. Had his mother had a license or not, it doesn't matter, those kids are still dead. The same thing in Virginia Tech. The student bought guns, after a background check. What more laws do we need? What is different between having to have a background check or having to have a license to buy a gun?