:)

To be fair this doesn't really prove or disprove anything except that MtGox's specific business model doesn't work.

Defending the constitution does not mean preventing any change to it at all. It means making sure that any attempt to violate it by act of congress is reversed. If the constitution is changed such that clauses are added or removed, then his job is to defend the changed constitution.

Surely you agree that the citizens of the US still have the right to amend the constitution as long as they follow the amendment procedure specified in it.

I think the US military won in Iraq. Against opponents that had military equipment.

So, you think that if the citizens of the US decided to stage an uprising, for whatever reason, and if this was opposed by the majority of the US armed forces, they'd need to invade the US!? They're already there. They just need to defend essential infrastructure.

But at that point it will be too late anyway. The people will have effective control of the country without firing a shot.

They don't need to. They just need to prevent the citizens from taking control of essential government infrastructure.

The ACLU is about protecting civil liberties, and not the constitution. The constitution is one of the means they fequently use since the Bill Of Rights ostensibly has the same purpose so it's a good tool for the purpose. Whether gun ownership is a civil liberty or not is hotly disputed in the US, but in the rest of the world is considered to not be one. The rest of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights are less contentious. No doubt is the 18th amendment was still in force, the ACLU would not make any effort to defend that either.

It's not likely to be very effective. Have you seen the weapons the government has? The only way to succeed in a revolution is be to make sure the majority of the army is on your side or at least neutral, in which case, weapons are irrelevant.

I think the amendment is intended delegate responsibility for gun control to the states. If a state wanted to they could simply pass no law, or if the populace felt strongly enough, add a second amendment style clause to their state constitution.

Cool! What was the evidence, and what defence was offered? The only articles I can find was a statement that the transcript was obtained. The failure of any of the reporters to go into detail about what was said makes me suspicious of bias here.

You'll not get close to orbital speeds until you're close to the centre of mass. At 200km, you're barely going faster than an object on the ground.

Do you have some information about theevidence that was presented to the magistrate, what witnesses actually said, or what the magistrate said?

If you were a magistrate, based on this information alone, would you have found him guilty? If not, then do you think it's possible that there is some other information that the magistrate was aware of, and we are not?

He got charged for disorderly conduct. But we don't know the details of why or what he was actually alleged to have done.

As for wiretapping, he shouldn't have been threatened with it, but he was never charged.

LEO isn't about height though. We can get there pretty easily. X-15s managed to get half way there in the 1960's. You need to get to about 15,000mph to actually do anything useful at that altitude.

The things have more uses than space elevators. A thinner stronger cable is always going to have uses even if it's only a few metres.

People want the government to spend money more than they want the government to not take it.

The reason both major parties are so similar is that they target their platform to what most voters want.

The elected portion has very little power and lacks the cohesion to actually agree to much.