I agree with that statement. But one problem is that a president generally tends to push their decisions on other people. If I don't trust the ability of a certain person to make decisions that I agree with, then it's a problem for me if that person becomes president.

There is little I can do in that regard.

Because they couldn't overcharge. I'm sure they researched the industry and discovered that it is highly price competitive and that just putting an aluminium frame on it would justify a doubling or tripling in price. So they weren't interested. Apple only likes markets where they can overcharge to a massive degree. They don't want to just make money, they want to make stupid amounts of money.

How is it relevant? It points to his decision making processes, among other things. He looks at science and religion and concludes that creationism is a real thing that actually happened. I think that's relevant. I want a leader to be able to look at the same set of information that I have and reach a similar conclusion. When someone looks at the same information that I have and they come to a conclusion that is wildly different than my own, then obviously one of us is seriously mistaken. On this issue in particular, I think that all available evidence is so overwhelmingly on one side that I find fault with the decision-making abilities of people who take the opposite conclusion.

There is a fairly large group of people in this country who will not vote for an atheist for whatever reason, maybe they just don't trust them. I'm in the opposite camp, when people hold religious views that I find to be frankly ridiculous, and even contrary to physical evidence, I have a hard time trusting their decision-making abilities. I doubt that they can be trusted to make a good decision when they are faced with evidence that goes against their religious beliefs.

Paul's belief in creationism I believe is also tied to his views on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. If he is president when a bill comes across his desk to legislate things like that, I don't think he's going to represent my views. At best he's going to say to leave it to the states, and at worst he's going to make something illegal on a federal level which I do not agree with.

I don't know the answer to that, but I know this for a fact: both the Republicans and Democrats have proven, year after year, that they do not give a shit about neither civil rights nor personal choice. Both of them are in bed with corporations and lobbyists, and that's where their loyalties are. Are Libertarians going to be any different? I don't know, but I'm not willing to cast my vote for one of the actors that has already proven to be at fault. I would rather vote for an unknown then get another 4 years of the same old bullshit.

That being said, if Bernie Sanders ran with Elizabeth Warren, under any party, I would vote for them.

It just takes a little education. In the 2012 election I had a few friends wearing their Ron Paul shirts and things like that, expecting some sort of revolution if they voted for a Republican. I pointed out that Ron Paul is a creationist and suggested they look at Gary Johnson instead (most people hadn't heard of him - thanks, media!). My friends who appreciated the more libertarian views of Ron Paul decided to vote for Johnson instead, contributing to Johnson's 1.27 million votes (more than all other minor parties combined, the most successful third party since 2000, and the highest total for the Libertarian party ever).

I think that if younger people see the bickering and fighting going on in the 2 major parties, and they notice that when either of them are in power the people get fucked in some way or another, then they'll consider a third party a viable vote. People who have grown up watching the past 10 elections or so may be of the mindset that a third party vote is a wasted vote, which is complete bullshit and hopefully the younger folks won't be afflicted by the same kind of apathy. I don't expect to see a groundswell of support for third parties in 2016 necessarily, maybe they go from 1% of the vote to 2%, but I think that the numbers talked about in TFA are unrealistically skewed in suggesting that new voters will automatically vote for one of the major parties. They aren't affected by the same kind of thinking as old voters, and they very might well believe that neither of the major parties really represents them. They would be correct, also.

I know, only because where I work is using them. Idea is it is a general two factor token. Can be programmed by the end user or their org. Also in theory a lot of companies could all use their platform and you have one two factor device for everything but in reality you use it for whatever your company does and nothing else.

Once programmed it acts like a HID class keyboard. You push the button, it spits out a string of characters, that being the two factor code for your account at the time.

Giving the benefit of doubt, that has probably been done here. But then, "connected by a opto-isolator" is NOT "physically seperate". Claims like these cross the line from "dumbed down to wrong" to "obvious BS" when they go like "practically physically seperate"

Weight (still an issue), size and power.

And why should they? There are more dangerous things about flying than feeding a NMEA stream from one system into the other through, let's say, a serial connection that has Rx cut.

Is the in-flight entertainmeny system able to show that world map with the cute little plane that indicates the planes position?

I doubt they have someone copying the updeted position from the avionics system to a USB-stick, unplug it from there and plug it into the entertainment system to update position data every few seconds...

There goes your "completly, physically seperate".

Heck yeah, it's trivial to make such a connection reliably one-way only, but even then, "physically seperate" would be an outright lie.

I had never seen a black rectangle with rounded edges before the iPhone! ... ...well unless you count the TV I had as a child. And the TV I have now. And probably half the electronics in my house.

The whole "trade dress" concept seems a bit silly to me in the first place but ti is beyond stupid when they can claim something as simple as their rounded rectangular design as being "trade dress".

Wait, you can do that?

I wonder what would happen if such a referendum passed in a state capitol.

Also, what other laws can you opt out of?

No, you see, "local municipality" is just a codeword for "big government", so the problem is that you don't want big government doing things like running utilities, because fascism, and when you have big government (i.e. a council of a town with a population of 1,000 people) competing against the free market and small business (i.e., Comcast), then that's unfair because monopoly. Not Comcast's monopoly, the monopoly that big government would have (because it's the government, duh). Also, small businesses like Comcast could not compete with big government like the council of a town with a population of 1,000 people.

Hope that clears it up for you.

I believe the DDG-1000 series was supposed to address that, I remember reading about the power system and how it was modular enough to allow virtually all power to be directed to any particular system. "All power to weapons."

That was my impression also. I don't think the purpose of the specific system being designed and tested right now is to allow a ship to destroy an ICBM. Maybe start with one that can destroy Iranian dinghies, then one that can shoot down incoming mortars and drones, then one that can acquire and destroy incoming tank or artillery rounds, then missiles launched from planes, then larger boats and planes, before you can scale the size down while keeping the same power required to track and destroy an ICBM. It seems like if they could do that, then they're probably pretty close to also having a version small and powerful enough to mount on a tank. It may not be powerful enough to destroy an ICBM, but if you had a tank that could fire at other tanks and also shoot down incoming anti-tank rounds then you probably wouldn't need very many of them.