This is obviously a story about Icelandic whaling. The Japanese aren't the only ones conducting marine biology research on whales.

I wasn't talking about leaving. I was talking about dissolving relations with a governing body. As in, all of us don't like it, so we make you (the government) leave.

"Consent of the governed" disappeared with Lincoln. The right of States to leave the Federation has been forcefully infringed. It's funny how he has the reputation of freeing slaves, when in reality, he just ended up making a slave of everyone.

Possible but not likely. It is more likely that the country is split into many state run networks, all of which have a state owned machine with a 10.76.1.11 interface. It would provide more IP space, segregate the country into different Internet groups (in N Korea probably social classes), provide protection for some of those classes against DDOS worms infecting other classes, and make the "for your own good citizen" monitoring more tractable.

There are some addresses on the internet that are only associated (except for misuse) with 1 device, these are "public IP".

There are some addresses on the internet that are intended to be associated with multiple devices, these are "private IP".

Private addresses can only be "seen" on a local network, so only one instance of a private address per local network. If you ask for a connection to a private address and the local network doesn't have it, your network won't make any connection for you (even though hypothetically there is several people in the world on other local networks with that address).

It's like being at a family reunion and asking for "John", and not getting a response because no one there is named John, even though a lot of people in the world share that name. On the other hand, if you ask for "Gilgamesh", well then people know to send you to ancient Sur, even though no one in your family is named "Gilgamesh". John is a private reusable identifier, Gilgamesh is a public unique identifier.

The consequence of this is that to run a service for which machines from outside of your local network can connect to, you have to associate the service with a public address. Due to North Korea being one gigantic "local network" (something that usualy only exists on the scale of homes and companies), no one in the world can request a connection to anyone in North Korea, unless a public address/port pair is preallocated to that person. NKoreans can still request connections to the rest of the world, assuming that the routers on the edge of their private network can remember all those connections. For a healthy country, remembering so much would be almost impossible, but for North Korea, it is a sign of how few people can make Internet connections to the rest of the world.

If you respond at all then you can be controlled. For example, antagonists to muslims could use you. The proper response is just to carry on, defend yourself if needed, petition the courts if the crime is ignored (likely not), but otherwise ignore them.

I wouldn't say that violence is the problem. Violence is what threw out the British Empire and freed the US Colonies, and led to the first amendment.

Violence against tyrants is not a problem, and Islam attempts to make itself a tyranny over the whole world. But violence must come second to reason. An idea is far more powerful than any violence. The American Revolution could only be successful because of the support of enough people sharing the same idea.

The problem with Islam isn't the violent ones, it is the nonviolent ones. It all of the Muslim world actively engaged in violence rather than passively accepting it, the public idea of the religion would solidify and the religion would be destroyed shortly. But the US is hardly in any position to criticize, given the empire building and foreign slaughter it has been engaged in.

You should have read the entire chapter.

He spends the entire rest of chapter clarifying what "the law" is.

Have you noticed the pattern? It is not about some list of legalize, "this is ok and that is not ok". It is restated many times in the letters of the apostles as well, the measure of a person (that everyone was said to fail except Jesus) was a matter of "heart". Even after claiming to fulfill the law in your quote, Jesus dismisses those who take the law to be a matter of legal technicalities rather than a philosophy:

There are many people who devote their entire existence to trying to use law to force you live your life as they see appropriate. They will use all their self righteous motivation, all the existing laws protecting the 2 large political parties, and all of your tax dollars to find a way to answer that question.

The danger of this is that they won't charge you if they think the court will strike down the law on appeal. That is how National Security Letters have survived so long, they drop charges against violators.

If "drawing the foul" is really his plan, then (I'm no expert just speculating) that he would have to be careful of them charging him with an economic crime. Like "not paying taxes on printed firearms" or something, in order to pretend like they are not violating the constitution. Or violating a patent on firearms, or violating Apple's claim on rounded corners, or "terrorism" , or "disturbing the peace" (which I imagine has more severe charges the 3rd time you do it), etc.

It sounds a lot nicer when you say it that way than when you say "scarcity of counterfeiting".

I've never understood the appeal of museums. They are the most boring place in the world to be dragged to. It's not like you can learn anything or interact with anything there. It's like people are afraid to admit they are boring because they are afraid to appear uncultured. Does anyone honestly enjoy museums?

Regardless of the language, hopefully by 2115 they will stop using variations of the word "own" to mean "defeat".

That is absolutely nonsensical. Do eye glasses count as technology? Does sitting in a car and looking out the window count as technology? Subjective laws are never a good thing.

The distinction that everyone seems to be missing is a matter of principle. Would it be legal for someone not working as a LEO to use one of these devices nonconsentually? Probably not, it would probably be considered stalking, voyeurism, etc.

You can filter out stories? Is this a slashdot feature or do you need a plugin? For example, how would I filter out all the global warming (or whatever they renamed it to again) stories?