Let me rephrase that. It could be used as a justification of such a law, yes. My point is that it doesn't have to be, and we're better off not doing that because that would have undesirable legal side effects down the line.

"General well-being of the people" is a very vague notion that can be used as a justification for too many things, most of which you probably wouldn't like at all. Of specific note is that it doesn't require any outside actor - they could just as well limit your own activities that are potentially harmful to yourself, even statistically speaking (i.e. not harmful to you personally, but universally banning them would prevent enough people from exercising them in a harmful way that it would improve "general well-being"

It's far better to go with some more concrete justifications, such as specific measurable harm that is inflicted by the actor to other parties. It's not exactly hard to do with pollutants, either, because the emissions are measurable, and so are their effects. It's still collective harm, since it's pretty hard to quantify the individual damage you get from e.g. AGW (though still possible in some cases, and I'd love to see the polluters pay compensation and damages specifically to people they hurt whenever we can trace it), but then at least it's about harm, not some nebulous "it could be better that way".

I see the difference. The point is that it's not about "general well-being of the populace" at all.

Uh-huh. Right.

You know what would be even better news for US tech hardware exporters?

If they didn't have a huge boat anchor attached in the form of NSA built-in backdoors and vulnerabilities.

Really, if you're a foreign corporation that competes in any way with US corporations/interests/research, or any government/organization/individual that US TLAs could possibly even tangentially term "of interest", would you buy stuff from US makers/manufacturers despite what's been revealed publicly over the last 20 years to present concerning US TLA activity within the US tech manufacturing/exporting industries?

Particularly in light of the recent revelations of so many unlawful and/or unconstitutional programs and activities engaged in by US intelligence organizations courtesy of the courageous whistle-blower Edward Snowden, which keep revealing new programs that violate constitutional principles and prohibitions with every new dump from the trove.

US tech companies have to overcome all that (quite understandable and logical) mistrust (good luck!), and *then* compete against other corporations that don't have that perceived millstone around their necks.

This will not turn out well for the US tech industries that need/rely on exporting their goods, and with cheap imports flowing into the US, even those who were national/regional in nature will find themselves priced out of the market.

1. Mining/Drilling - Offshored

2. Steel mfg - Offshored

3. Heavy Industries/Factories - Offshored

4. Artificial politically-motivated limits on energy production and artificially-created increases in cost.

5. ...?

I'm not liking the direction this is trending.

If it roughly parallels past similar historical scenarios, it doesn't end well for anyone in the US (well, except those 'too big to starve'), neither Left nor Right, nor atheists, Christians, Muslims, or whatever "ism" or party you favor.

Strat

perhaps you could also lock down the picture capability too by interfering with interlacing and/or refresh rates somehow.

Interlacing? Refresh rates? This is 2015, those things don't apply any more: everyone has LCD now. Software has no real control over the display.

We have some standards documents which must be purchased. In order to prevent copyright theft, the distributor of the PDF files requires software on your computer which will actively disable the native clipboard and screenshot capabilities while the PDF is open. In addition, the software will look for common screenshot software like snagit and greenshot and force them to close before you can launch the PDF.

This sounds like malware to me.

What extent of "encouraging" do you find acceptable? For example, should we tax people higher if they don't exercise enough, and then use that money to give everyone else free gym passes?

Well, why are we punishing people who earn money through hard work? Why is sweat-of-the-brow taxed higher than rent?

As long as you have one rate set higher than the other, you can make that argument either way. Why not set a single flat rate on all kinds of income? Isn't it only fair?

Are you sure about the "Free speech" zone thing? I don't remember those coming about until George W Bush's term; I sure as hell don't remember anything like that between 1989 and 1992.

If he's that bad, then why is he allowed to walk free? And why is there an arrest warrant out that's only valid in one place? Nationwide arrest warrants are not uncommon.

I'm sure he wouldn't have been stupid enough to show up just because a permit was issued for him to perform in person. (Or if he was that stupid, his handlers wouldn't have been that stupid.) A performance permit does not overrule an arrest warrant; who would ever think that?

Sounds like a missed opportunity for open-source: the hardware companies making Cell should have invested in compiler engineers to make really good compilers for It (or just add onto gcc), and open-source all the work. Then lots of people would have wanted to use Cell processors because of the performance.

Making a nice product, and then making closed, proprietary tools that are needed to best use that product, isn't a winning business strategy. Give away the tools free so people are interested in trying out and using your product, and then it gets designed into high-volume parts.

I'm fine with that, so long as said flat tax also extends to capital gains. We could even just take the present budget, measure the current taxation income, and work out a flat tax rate for personal+corporate+capital, and see what it'd need to be to maintain the same level of it. I'm pretty certain that the end result would end up way better for the 99%. Which is exactly why such a thing would never pass in DC.

You might want to be careful with that line of thinking. For example, forcing you to exercise would also measurably lengthen your life; do you want the government to be able to mandate such a thing?

No respect for the American judicial system, you mean? That's quite different from society as a whole. I think if you ask random people whether they believe that the judicial system in question genuinely represents them, you might find that distinction to be quite visible.

Which is, frankly, ridiculous, because it circumvents the entire notion of constitutionally protected rights. You don't need to get rid of the First Amendment, for example - you just need to enact laws that make most people felons, and then you can selectively strip them of their rights as needed. And this all can be done with a simple legislative majority.

If you believe that everyone who doesn't wear a shirt "looks like a hobo", you're a part of the problem. Stop being judgmental towards people who choose convenience in their clothing over some rather arbitrary and outdated criteria based solely on looks.