"In America we have free speech. it is against the constitution for them to censor speech in such a way."

When Valve software becomes the government, then please let us know.

The real issue - the elephant in the room which the net neutrality debate serves to dance around - is lack of effective local competition.

The USA professes free trade, etc, etc but is actually one of the most restrictive countries to do business - and (possibly illegal) state/regional sweetheart deals on local loop mean there is no effective competition for broadband services (A duopoly is as bad as a monopoly and in most areas there is a legislated monopoly on local loop).

With effective competition, net neutrality is a non-issue. There's a reason that this is only popping up in the USA and that's because the vast majority of consumers face a market with either only 1 or 2 broadband providers.

Meantime in Europe, I sit on a 100Mb/20Mb VDSL circuit - unthrottled - getting full bandwidth - and knowing that if my ISP plays stupid games with access to Netflix I can switch to another one with 2 phone calls. They know it too, so they actually provide good customer service instead of the surly service commonly encountered Stateside.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases...

That's fine, IF it's entertainment.

The problem is that poor people buy the things out of desperation, not for entertainment.
People are spending food money on the things and that's simply wrong on so many levels.

It's not water. It's mostly liquid methane.

Those who aren't clear will make damned sure they are for the next one.

kinetic energy weapons using nasty stuff like DU often use shaped charges to pierce a hole in the target and then spray the interior with molten metal to take out the squishies inside.

DU has another tactical advantage - it burns furiously. Tanks hit by DU rounds usually result in the crew being incinerated .

Having said that, Uranium is a chemical toxin which is hard to clean up and leaves a heavy metal poisoning legacy for a long time after it's used like this, so there are sound envionrmental reasons for not using it.

Using lasers on missiles or aircraft is easy - all you need to do is heat the skin until it's ruptured and aerodynamic forces will do the rest. Railguns have been promising ever since the Nazis started experimenting with them in 1937, however the fundamental problem of self-destruction hasn't been overcome yet, no matter how the USN wants to put a positive spin on things.

"they can't 'compel speech' and especially not false speech "

They can and they have, usually as "you will issue this statement or go straight to jail"

Having been in this situation: Yes they can.

If a warrant canary would provide information about being targetted, then removing it in response to a superinjunction result in a very pissed off judge on your tail.

"I think in this case, the sheer scale of the crime would warrant a harsher sentence than your street corner pusher."

Why didn't Regan and the rest of the Contra mob get similar sentences then?

If you get caught driving without a license in the UK the car will be impounded (bailout fees) and you'll be arrested, charged and kicked out the front door of the station within a few hours unless you have prior convictions.

Court a few weeks later, _if_ the police don't let you off with a caution in the meantime.

"If you can't put what you want into your own body then you don't live in a free society and you're kidding yourself if you think you do. "

If narcotics were legal, usage rates would probably drop 90% overnight - back down to 1880s (or earlier) levels.

The reason narcotics are so pervasive (apart from Ronald Regan orchestrating the greatest cocaine smuggling outfit in history(*) whilst simultaneously pushing "the war on drugs"(**)) is that there are massive profit levels to be had and every time the legal system ups the risk, the profit to be had increases further - in other words the prime motivator is money.

(*) http://listverse.com/2015/01/1... - the #2 entry - and was part of the way the contra deals were funded.

(**) This dichotomy is what drove the rapid expansion of the USA's prison system in the 1980s and it's not really a coincidence that poor and black people are disproportionately affected - almost all the cocaine Regan's group brought into the USA was turned into crack and sold in poor areas.

If there wasn't money to be made, narco-gangs wouldn't exist, people wouldn't be selling crack to schoolkids and most importantly of all, there wouldn't be an incentive for people to tempt others into an addiction cycle (bear in mind that fewer than 5% of those who use heroin regularly ever get hooked with slightly higher stats for cocaine) in order to make money out of them.

If people aren't pulled into an addiction cycle for something that's hideously expensive, they won't end up restoring to crime in order to make money to buy their fix.

Silk Road exists because of the War on Drugs. There's a war alright - and the narcogangs have won it already. They prefer the status quo as it's more profitable.

Switzerland has shown the way and Colorado has shown it can work in the USA.

As for Ulbricht: Being caught redhanded chatting as "Dread Pirate Roberts" is a slamdunk. I'm surprised they didn't have a camera looking over his shoulder before he was apprehended.

"most investors would be perfectly happy with a company that made absolutely no products and provided no services as long as it was making an adequate return."

Such companies exist. They're called Ponzi schemes.