What you are missing is that a warrant for something un-Constitutional is invalid even if issued in accordance with unanimous decisions from the SCOTUS., therefor actions taken to execute said warrant are illegal and are criminal acts carried out under color of law. Dred Scott comes to mind, though hardly the only example of the SCOTUS ruling contrary to letter and/or intent of the Constitution.

Courts are not the final arbiters. People are. What can the government do if most of the population (including a large percentage of workers within said government and members of the military) refuses to comply?

There are already laws on the books regarding citizen rights & responsibilities pertaining to dealing with agents of the government committing criminal acts under color of law. I would refer you there.

Strat

So you would accept it as Constitutional if the courts rule that police randomly entering & searching your home without a warrant or probable cause to believe a crime is or is about to be committed is not a violation of the 4th Amendment?

No US court has the power to overrule the US Constitution, secret or otherwise. Any such rulings are by definition unlawful and un-Constitutional. An un-Constitutional law is no law at all, and it is the duty of every US citizen to ignore and/or disobey/violate it if/when it conflicts with the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.

Strat

The federal government of the United States of America is a federation of (supposedly independent) states. The electoral college and Congress are set up in ways that make the states more important than their constituent citizens. This is by design because of the nature of the union. Marriage between X and Y is a union between X and Y. Their children, A, B, C, and D have no say in the continuance or divorce of said union.

Also, direct democracy is rule by people who have enough time on their hands to vote on everything. That's retirees and internet trolls.

Or even better: "Google Handed Data of Three Wikileaks Staffers to FBI"

Did I miss something? Did they skip FBI 2 just like Windows 9? That headline could be written in a less confusing manner: "Google Handed Three Wikileaks Staffers' Data to FBI"

Government bureaucrats & officials, and the innumerable laws, rules, and regulations at local, State and Federal levels at their disposal to interpret however they wish unless/until there's enough public attention and outrage to force the issue.

The same government that prevents Tesla Motors from selling cars directly and also in many areas limits the choices available for domestic home high speed internet services. The same government that completely ignores the US Constitution and shits all over the 4th Amendment with NSA bulk surveillance.

You know, the guys you help elect and vehemently defend because "he's your guy" and you don't want those other guys to get in even though they agree on everything except carefully focus-group tested and selected wedge issues designed to keep the electorate divided.

Strat

Show me an unbiased politician, and I'll show you a politician who will care more about the bribes than the issue.

Create Star Trek parody videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... And according to the video, they also play Wii.

Mount an NFS share to /dumbidea then dd a huge new file to /dumbidea/superslowswap and mkswap /dumbidea/superslowswap ; swapon /dumbidea/superslowswap
This might not run as desired.

Dead people are more likely to be sedentary.

The problem with such a program is that the insurance company has the data from other dongles on the same roads. Presuming there are timestamps on the accelerations, they can model traffic flows. If everyone is stopped at a stoplight in the reconstructed model but your fake data shows you driving through the light at speed limit minus one, their analysis program will know something is wrong with your data. Investigation ensues.

Some companies will happily spend money and people on the security problem, but individual people within the company refuse the spend the time, using workarounds to skip having to deal with security. Sometimes this means using the computing resources nonsecurely, but other times it means avoiding using the computing resources.

"Their impotent wails of despair give us sustenance."

The job description of Pope includes believing at heart "if a man strikes you on the cheek, offer him the other cheek [to strike]." This does not preclude defense of others, but it also doesn't suggest an allowance of escalation in defense of others. If a man strikes my mother's cheek, I can strike his cheek to defend her, but if the same man merely calls her an ugly name, from where does the call to violent reaction spring? Righteousness or wrath? Hopefully Francis will think about that some more.