Urban areas are about the exact opposite of native, aren't they?

The plane won't crash: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=12798

So for the rest of it, you just have to weigh the risk of someone getting hit by a stray bullet vs. the reduction of risk of the terrorist bringing down the plane. I'm not sure which way that would go, but if this is such a problem, why don't we hear about shootings on buses?

With respect to "no security", yes, if people can bring bombs on planes, that's bad. But regarding guns, why would Mr. Smith be more dangerous on a plane than on the ground (where his training can get him a permit to carry in most states)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrens_title

Why do you need increasing sunset lengths? A statute against murder, for example, should be easy to renew. It'd take a few minutes at most, even if you require a voice reading of the full text. I'd imagine if you used unanimous consent or voice votes, you could renew all the obvious, non-controversial laws in a couple of days sessions, at most. Is someone really going to be the jerk that fillibusters the law against murdering the President (murder being a state issue and fillibusters being a federal Senate thing, I had to specify this more)? It seems like their party (since political parties aren't going to disappear any time soon) would quash any attempts at that because of how the public would react.

This would never work, because as you pointed out, it's impractical from the start. A better approach would be to pass a constitutional amendment that provides for a mandatory sunset of laws. Ideally, you'd also require codification of all laws.

So the amendment would say something like, "1) All new laws passed by Congress must be codified into titles. 2) Each title (or existing uncodified law) shall automatically sunset and be removed from the official record of titles after __ years from the later of its original passage or last renewal. 3) For the purposes of this amendment, laws existing at the time of this amendment's ratification which were originally passed over __ years previous shall be considered to have been last renewed at a date within the last __ years, with the date randomly assigned by the ____ office."

Thus, you'd cause all existing laws to sunset slowly over the next __ years (for whatever value you fill in), and they'd have to be codified when they were renewed.

Then, if you want to help keep laws simple (which seems good in theory, but may just push the complexity to the executive branch's rulemaking process) and ensure there's been adequate time to read them before voting (which I support), you could pass another amendment (or add another section) that says, "Any law passed by Congress must have been read aloud in full by a representative or senator, as appropriate, or it shall be null and void." Obviously, the exact wording of these amendments might need some tweaking, but it seems more sustainable.

The title says "30 years", but it's really "30 months" according to the "two-and-a-half years" bit in both the summary and the linked article. Also, the linked article's title says "30 months".

I knew someone would reply with this. Yes, we can all cheer personally that the bad guy is off the street and they're not going to tie anyone else up. But from a legal point of view, once the immediate threat has ended, you can't use force in self defense.

My point was that this is not an example of "Britain locking up people for defending their families", especially with the implied contrast to the United States. Legally, they locked this guy (and his brother) up for chasing, beating, and permanently injuring a guy in the street. Had the same beating happened while they were still in immediate danger, the legal situation would've been entirely different.

From the article you linked to:

This wouldn't be legal in the U.S. either.

Amen, though I'd like to see this extend to everything, not just commercials. I have no problem hearing police sirens in rap music listening to the album at home, but on the radio (which most people listen to in the car), it's just obnoxious.

Aren't the pilots already doing this with their radio (the code being the flight/tail number)?

The GPL explicitly says you don't have to agree to it to use the software. It only comes into play when you distribute copies of the software, which is something unambiguously covered by copyright law everywhere. The majority of people here arguing that argue EULAs are invalid are not suggesting that they should be able to *distribute copies* of Mac OS X or Windows.

They're saying you can't have a transaction that looks like a sale in every way, but when you open the box, it says you have to agree to another contract (that you can't negotiate or change) which says that your transaction was not a sale and that you agree to all sorts of draconian conditions. Plus, EULAs often purport to apply in such a way that you have to agree to the agreement before you see it. Imagine you buy a car, but the car's key is inside a box with tape that says, "If you break this tape, you agree to be bound by the agreement within." The agreement inside the box says you didn't actually buy the car, you're just leasing it and thus you're not allowed to figure out how the car works, so you must bring it into the dealership for work. This is what (the majority of, as there are always some crazy folks) the "EULAs are not enforceable" comments are about.

[citation needed]

If the damages are paid in stock at market value instead of cash, the whole thing is no different than if they had simply paid cash and then the prevailing plaintiffs bought that stock. Alternatively, in practice, wouldn't the plaintiffs most likely end up selling the stock in fairly short order anyway, to get the cash?

In the end, a cash judgment still takes money away from the shareholders. The company has less money available to pay dividends or grow the business.