I don't think your West Bank comparison holds water, because it's not as if the settlers have no support from the government. Israel has been perfectly willing to tell us to fuck off over the West Bank, while I would bet that the Iranians want no part of any "cyber terrorist" organization, at least not one that operates outside of their direct control.

God brought .NET to Bill Gates in a dream, as an apology to him and the world for ever letting MFC exist.

I don't think it's archaic at all. It seems to me that nationalism is a fickle spirit. A man born 30 miles south of the Canadian border would fight and die for the US, while his neighbor 35 miles to the north would do the same for Canada.

That same American man considers his countryman who's thousands of miles away in Florida to be his national brother, but he considers the Canadian man to be a friendly neighbor.

The point is, in the monkey regions of our brains, people form deep internal commitments to the team they're born to play on. Yes, people can change teams, and one of the hypothetical virtues of the US is that we're supposed to let anyone play... but the best way to be sure that someone's #1 nationalistic allegiance is to the US, is for them to have been born in the US.

The version in the story is too complicated, but there's an easier way. The catch is that it has to be really cold outside... I'd say at or below freezing.

All you have to do is acquire a bottle of lighter fluid and a lighter. A zippo lighter works best. Spray a puddle of lighter fluid on cold pavement. Light the fluid (may take a while, it's difficult to ignite when cold). Once it's burning, stand back and spray a steady stream of lighter fluid into the flames. After a spray or two, a fire tornado will develop. I've made fire tornadoes that were an inch or two thick and at least ten feet tall.

What a false dichotomy you've presented there. I would choose a third option: let's trade some freedom and privacy for safety and order, but maintain a hard line beyond which the government cannot reach. IF only there was some important document that laid that out... oh right, it's the Constitution. Too bad we ignore it.

I enjoyed Voyeur too, though I can't remember how much of that was quality and how much was me just hoping for some boobs (of which there are none, but there is some exceptionally lurid dialog).

No game better fits the description of "good game on bad platform" than Burn : Cycle for the CD-i. The atmosphere, soundtrack and "mature" content were amazing.

If EULAs were written in plain language, and required that you sign them at the time of purchase, they'd be fine. But all of the "by opening this software" EULAs are bullshit by definition.

... because if it does, I'll have a killer suit against Burger King for making their food too delicious.

"Say you a girlfriend/boyfriend who's straddling the legal border and a year or two younger than you, no problem in state X... but what if she lives just across the "magical line" in state Y... now you're a criminal"

Different age of consent between states may be confusing, but in the end, the "answer" is that you're bound by the laws of the state you're currently standing in.

"How about two persons of the same gender get married in state X and receive marital benefits, but then need to move to state Y due to work relocation or whatever. Are they still married?"

This one is easy: yes. The United States has something called full faith and credit. It means that most things, like marriages and driver's licenses, are equally valid in any state no matter which state issued them.

I can see how the Quebec stop light difference would be annoying though. Oregon does something a bit different, which almost got me in a wreck, but I'm still not sure what the hell happened (I took off when I got the green light and was almost destroyed by a wall of cars).

This post is off the front page, so no idea whether you'll ever see my reply, but... Ron Paul says in the first five seconds that Lincoln didn't have to use war to end slavery. He states clearly and multiple times that slavery should not be allowed, that it is not a state's rights to enslave, and that his only point is that slavery could have been ended without the loss of 600k American lives.

Seriously, are you psychotic? Mentally challenged? I don't see why you can't understand the plain English in that minute-long video.

You're seeing this all wrong. No one said that the Constitution is perfect and should remain unchanged. The only thing that has been said is that the federal government should be forced to operate within the terms of the Constitution. If new situations mean that the Constitution must be changed, then great. Some of the best parts of the Constitution are the changes that were made since it was written.

And you're wrong about the level of interaction between citizens in the early US states. They were tightly linked in terms of trade, culture and defense. In a crude 5th grade summary: tobacco and cotton came from the south, machined tools and clothing came from the north. Grain, lumber, gunpowder, lead, iron, coal, cattle, etc. were all shipped between states in a web of supply and demand.

Furthermore, news was not rare. The early US had several successful newspapers that were widely distributed.

Anyway the question of the best balance between state and federal power doesn't matter until we the people have some way to effect it. Our current way, the drafting and protection of laws and documents like the Constitution, don't mean shit if the federal government can do as they please without regard for the rules. That most important first step is to demand that everyone play by the rules as they are written. The second step is to debate what rules we should make or repeal.