Thus far my comments have been regarding a hypothetical "treasonous" government -- leaving the definition of that to the reader. However, even if the government isn't "treasonous" it may be that a substantial number of its citizens wish to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness -- even if the government is operating entirely within the law.

The question then becomes less about "Constitutionality" and more about exactly how many people want to depart from the existing form of government and its principles.

What if 30% so intensely object to the present form of government that they advocate armed rebillion toward the end that they might institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness?

Is that enough for the more conscientious of the military to stand down as that 100 million citizens seek to leave what they must see as the moral equivalent to a plantation?

A little anecdote: The wife of a friend of mine, on the morning of 9/11/2001, was watching the news reports come in and the moment the attack on the Pentagon came in, she blurted out "That was the Israelis."

Your little "lesson" about not attacking the military is such common sense that even some housewives consider it incredible that any but a false flag op would do it.

History would tell us that asymmetric war isn't fought the way you portrayed in your prior comment -- hence my comment on your ignorance. It is fought precisely to garner public support.

If you had argued that hotheads, loose cannons and false flag ops are not practically soluble by freedom fighters, then I might have asked you to expand your comment.

One of the most important pieces of career advice I've received is to make sure that people who cause pain feel the pain. It is not my job to be a whipping boy who suffers for every bad decision I tried to warn someone about. If management insists that I do something really goofy, then they should not be spared from the consequences of their plans. Insulating them only enables them to keep making bad choices and inflicting them on codependent organizations.

You say "rubbing their nose in it". I say "making sure decision makers understand the results of those decisions".

And having succeeded, they continue to use those same computers to this day.

From a review of the Samsung 840 EVO 1TB SSD I just stuck in my MacBook Pro:

From the same site reviewing a WD Black 4TB HDD:

So assuming IOPS scales linearly with heads (they don't), you'd need about 1,000 heads to get similar random access performance out of HDDs as one SSD.

There's a reason everyone's migrating to SSDs for anything remotely IO related.

You are obviously unqualified to answer for sandytaru. You are utterly oblivious to the history of asymmetric warfare.

And I'd recommend a sit-stand desk to anyone at all. Even if you don't stand all the time (I don't), being able to spend part of your day standing will make you feel better without discomfort, in fact being able to switch back and forth is more comfortable than sitting.

Obviously not, but you may not realize how open the company is internally. Larry Page stands up in front of the entire company every week, for example, and takes -- and answers -- live questions. There are no negative consequences for asking hard questions, and hard questions do get asked. Sometimes the executives duck or dance around them, but not very often, and questions that aren't really answered continue getting asked until they do get answered.

In addition to that, other than things like acquisitions there are very few "top-level executive decisions" at Google. Most decisionmaking is driven from the bottom up.

You're probably still not impressed. Whatever. I'm just giving you my perspective and opinion. I would think that an intelligent insider's viewpoint would be of use to you; you're certainly free to dismiss it, whether or not that makes any sense. Time will tell, and I'm quite confident that the future will bear out my statements.

Not according to YouTube employees who made the transition.

This is why it's not a "standing desk" but a "sit-stand desk". The idea is that you alternate between sitting and standing, changing position every hour or two.

Then it's not the same as mine. I've also followed the company from the beginning... and I have the benefit of the insider view.

YouTube was a very obvious acquisition. What YouTube needed to survive and grow was low-cost scalability and a way to monetize the views it was getting. What Google had was massive data centers and network connectivity, plus a proven revenue model. YouTube also needed a better search engine, and Google was interested in finding ways to index and search non-textual content. It was an ideal match, technologically.

Actually, the total tax burden for the working and middle classes in the USA is not that different from much of Europe. If you deduct the amount that the US citizen pays for health insurance from the amount that the EU citizen pays in taxes (while receiving socialised medical coverage), it's often quite a lot more. Part of the reason that the US has what appears from the outside to be an irrational distrust of government is that they get such poor value for money from their taxes. This leads to a nasty feedback loop (population expects the government to be incompetent, so it's hard to get competent people to want to work for the government, so the government becomes more incompetent, so the population expects...).

The basis for your claim is?

The basis for my claim is three years of seeing how the company operates and what decisions it makes, and how, from the inside.

Please elaborate. On the face of it your response is unconvincing. In a domestic conflict there are going to be a substantial number of the standing military's ranks that will be sympathetic to the Constitution -- the lack of honor by many in the military notwithstanding. How many of them would it take to so debilitate the treasonous government's military that it would be no more effective on US soil than it was on middle eastern soil?