"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (Emphasis added).

I agree the right to bear arms for food-gathering purposes wasn't the point of the 2nd Amendment, and I implicitly said that wasn't the stated purpose. You could make an argument that being able to gather food would be a necessary ability, and that any free man must have that ability, etc., but it's not stated that way in the US Constitution. What IS stated, is that the right to keep and bear arms is "necessary to the security of a free state," which is the same thing as "to maintain a free state."

AK-47s can be used both defensively and offensively, and indeed one could say that at the time it was designed its role was more defensive than offensive, whereas neither Little Boy nor Sarin are a defensive weapon - Only a lunatic would use one in their homeland, whereas an AK is useful for police forces, militaries driving out invaders, etc.

So, their purposes are not at all identical. Also, their scope is not even in the same ballpark - Sarin and Little Boy are indiscriminate killers (WMDs), while an AK can be used to take out individual combatants. Your simile is no more valid than saying the space shuttle and a 747 serve an identical purpose to my Honda Civic, that being the transport of persons and goods.

If you think 7.62x39 is "funky" you're not part of the "gun crowd." If you think 7.62x39 is a "crap round" you're also not part of the "gun crowd." It's a versatile round that's been around a long time, and packs enough power to take down a dear or something without having quite the weight or shoulder-killing punch of a .308 (7.62x51) or the older Russian 7.62x54R. I think you'll find quite a few people using an SKS chambered in 7.62x39 as a deer rifle, in places where it's legal to do so. As far as cheaply made, the base model AKs (such as WASR-10), yes. Some of the better ARs on the market are anything but "cheaply made shit," however. Also, the prices now are not significantly higher than when Bush was in office... prices spiked for a few months a year ago, but they're back to about where they've always been, maybe even a little lower.

The true reason for a civilian to own "those things" is because they love freedom, and a balance of power between a government and its citizenry is the only way to ensure the continuation of freedom (hence the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution).

Sir (or ma'am), if I had any mod points I would give them to you. I think an argument could be made for a "right to bear arms for food-gathering purposes" (a right to not be reliant on others for food, when you could go hunt it yourself), but the US Constitution specifies as justification of the right to bear arms the equipping of a militia, in order to maintain a free state.

Hah! Reading/writing this on an Elitebook 8530w right now, which I keep using precisely because of that 1920x1200 display. I keep a pair of old IBM CRTs on my desktop because they have a proper high resolution as well, and the only equivalent flat panels are still way more than I'm willing to spend.

1080p sucks for anything but watching video from a distance.

By your logic, perhaps the inventors of black powder and smokeless powder should be castigated as well? After all, without bullets the AK would simply be another bludgeoning tool. Or how about whoever created the humble machete, which has been used in countless massacres across Africa?

One good example is relatively sloppy tolerances - In most rifles, these are rather frowned upon, but it's also one of the reasons the AK can go through mud, snow, sand, etc. and keep firing. The loose tolerances keep it from running through hot, cold, lack of oil and cleaning, and other abuses long after most rifles (most certainly including the AR/M-16) have jammed up.

In a general-issue military weapon, reliability is far more important than accuracy, so this tradeoff works well for the AK. It's not something you'd want in a hunting or sniper rifle, but for the intended purpose it works great.

To protect the unions? It would be nice if life were really so simple, but face it - it's not! I've lived in the Seattle area most of my life, and even though our economy is more diversified than it used to be, it's still heavily dependent on Boeing. At one time, the entire economy of the area rose and fell with Boeing, now it's held a little more steady with companies like Amazon and Microsoft, however Boeing is still a major employer here. When layoffs happen or jobs move to other states, we still feel it in all parts of the local economy - unemployed people don't buy as much fast food, they don't buy as many electronic products, they don't pay for private music lessons for their kids, they don't buy musical instruments for their kids, they don't buy new cars, they put off normal maintenance on the cars they have, they don't visit the ski areas, and they don't pay for their kids to go to university. So, most sectors of the economy start to suffer, and tax revenue falls drastically. Sometimes a bit of an investment in the form of tax breaks serves to keep the economy strong and pays off hugely over the longer term as local jobs are protected.

Technically, I'm against tax breaks for businesses, but only because I'm against taxes for businesses, both large and small. Businesses large and small are job creators, without them none of us have an income, and yet our governments treat them as a revenue source, taking money that could be used to create more jobs. As a result, we have high unemployment rates and small businesses shutting down because the tax burden has become too heavy, and big business trying to make due with fewer employees than they should, raising employee stress levels far beyond what's healthy. As much as I don't like paying taxes, I think it would be far better to raise personal taxes and reduce or eliminate business taxes, to encourage job creation.

Oh yeah, and Tesla. Now I'm not off-topic. :)

Yeah... because multi-sourcing major components of the 787 dreamsaster has worked out SO well for them. People keep talking about Alan Mulally's future in connection with Microsoft, but if anyone's gonna poach him from Ford it *should* be Boeing. A lot of heads need to roll over in Chicago to get that company back on track.

...when I put a piece of black electrical tape over the webcam on my laptop and tablet. Ok, maybe I was being paranoid, but as we've all seen now: "Just because we're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get us." Sometimes I hate being right.

Buy it all, figure out what works, return what sucks... that's what return policies are for (and incidentally is what happened to the last Belkin product I purchased, and why I'll never purchase another one).

That, or if you're buying for a business just remember: No one ever got fired for buying IBM, F5 or Cisco. Or HP for servers. ProLiants really do kick ass, although I hear Dells tend to use a little less power for equivalent performance... probably because they skimped on the redundant fans or some other "doesn't seem to matter until you need it" hardware (but that's pure speculation).

Or it's possible Dell equipment runs by feeding on the souls of the poor bastards that have to use it. Anything is possible.

Came in second? Didn't you pay any attention whatsoever? He won!

That happened to me. I set my owner on fire.

They both do it... "corporate philanthropy" (or whatever you want to call it) is a big thing with Microsoft. There are a few reasons for that, I think... part of it is because Microsoft is actually made up of people, some of whom actually care about other people. Part of it is also because there are interesting technical problems involved in disaster response, and places where software can help. Finally, being involved in humanitarian efforts gives corporations a bit of a better public image.

Remember though, that the shitloads of money Microsoft made for sir Gates has been dumped into all manner of medical research, and while the company may spend millions on development and investigation of smelly ideas, they also spend millions on disaster relief around the world, donations to charities, matching gifts for employee donations, etc.

There are many, many things wrong with Microsoft's corporate culture, but the amount they give to charity in support of all manner of humanitarian efforts is one of the things I've always really liked about them.

Disclaimer: I'm currently employed by Microsoft (for just a short while longer), however the opinion above is entirely my own.