Wear a MacDonalds outfit instead, if that's what makes you happy.

The US Constitution was an open declaration of treason against the Crown

Nonsense. The Revolution had been over for years when the Constitution was ratified.

I think you mean the Declaration of Independence, which didn't have any amendments, much less a second one. Now that was a suicide pact ("Live Free or Die!"). The Constitution on the other hand, was the result of many of those same authors figuring out how to create a government and maintain an orderly society. It was also a counter-revolutionary document, to rein in some of the more extremist notions of democracy and fairness that were going around at the time. It was also designed to preserve slavery, which is a discussion for a different day. And the Second Amendment, very specifically, was designed as a tool to maintain slavery. It had nothing to do with a personal right to own and carry It had nothing to do with making sure tyrants could be overthrown. It was meant to preserve the Southern slave patrols because they were worried that some abolitionist might become President and prevent slave patrols from forming their nasty little posses. The Second Amendment is an artifact of slavery and of a very ugly period in our history. It's something we should be ashamed of. I say this as someone who has owned a gun over 4 decades.

I'll second that moron, check before you make statements and if you can't check don't assume otherwise you'll make an ass out of yourself.

Well, no, the theory is military who hooks up nuclear warheads to the internet should be imprisoned for life and those warheads disconnected. The surreal idiotic supposition, that other people can gain control of your nuclear warheads is ludicrous and if they can, well, it is all to late already, is in not?

If your suit isn't comfortable, buy a nicer suit. A good suit is extremely comfortable.

Pretty bloody easy to define the difference between hacking and act of war. Any hacking attack you can simply divert by cutting the connection is not an act of war. A major electro magnetic pulse generated by a thermonuclear war head is an act of war.

For the idiots at the NSA, permanent damage versus repaired disruption. They just need to ask the buddies at the CIA when it comes to their idea of torture, permanent harm equals torture non permanent harm according to them, based upon them being a bunch of sick psychopath sadists, does not equal torture.

So if you ain't using explosives on digital infrastructure it ain't war. No matter how badly behaved the NSA has been, their acts have not quite crossed the bounds of an act of war. Somehow I guess this will be another example of American exceptionalism and when the US does it, it is not an act of war and when any other country does it, it is an act of war and the US must spend another billion dollars on the US military industrial complex per incident or so the lobbyists say.

It's called monopoly activity. Someone gets in early and buys up all control because they believe they will be able to charge more than the rest of market by establishing a monopoly. With regard to copyright this also ties into killing the distribution of independent content by turning broadband into overpriced strangle band to make it too expensive for them to digitally distribute content. Now tie this into corruption of government and corrupt three strikes laws disconnected from the net and threats of criminal penalties for minors infringing copyright. So management by psychopaths and unlimited greed.

So this gives you Foxtel, News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch and his dog Tony Abbott and the crippling of Australia's digital future to feed one asshats insane drive for profits and power as well as his corrupt pathetic political minions.

Point of revenue taxation with full cost and profit declaration at the point of revenue. So don't want the revenue, fine, leave. Who cares where the company is based, who cares where the product is manufactured, with full declaration of costs and profits and all taxes paid at point of revenue it makes no difference. Add in fair trade requirement where imported product is required to compete with locally produced product based upon the application of all costs of local legislation and transport costs will localise production.

It is not about the psychopathic lie of which country provides the best corrupt tax basis, it is all about which soundly based and managed countries produce the best revenue opportunities, the ability to sell product and services.

Yes, a stable and secure windows 2000 pro with some optional trimmings on the side.

Tell that to conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt, who said he believes semi-automatic rifles are great for women because they don't have to worry so much about aiming.

Believe it or not, this is a common trope in the gun community. They need lots of bullets in case they miss.

You will find that all of those quotes except that of George Mason are fraudulent.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/w...

The actual Thomas Jefferson quote is, “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]“

The George Washington quote isn't found anywhere but on Second Amendment activist sites. It doesn't appear anywhere in Washington's papers. The first quote, which you attribute to Alexander Hamilton, is usually attributed to Samuel Adams. The only problem is, Adams never said it either.

That's the thing about this Second Amendment "movement", which as I said, started in the 1980s. They lie. They make stuff up. Maybe they don't realize that people can check these things, or maybe they don't care. As I said above, it tells you everything you need to know about the intellectual honesty of the pro-gun movement.

Though assuming you were Musk and were putting some stores out there for people to look around... how would you structure it?

Keep his idea of the slick showroom, but leave out the Apple geniuses.

Put all the data online and populate the store with the equivalent of well-trained booth-babes from both genders. Have a kiosk for payment. Low overhead. Have a couple of cars for test driving.

By the way, I finally drove a Tesla a little bit. They're really nice. The chair of my wife's department at the University bought one and he had us out to the house for a BBQ a few weeks ago. Let me cruise around his tony suburb for a little bit. I love driving a car without engine noise.

If you haven't known Christ, you haven't known liberty. Would that you knew what you're missing.

Judging by the ones who loudly proclaim their Christianity, he's not missing much.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/...

It is down to a matter of control. One bullet fired at a particular target versus a continuous beam of laser energy including, potential for reflection, aim vagaries and the threat to civilians, much like using chemical or biological weapons. The preference is to get the enemy army to surrender not to mass main or murder as many soldiers and civilian bystanders as quickly as possible. If that was the case we might as well just let the nukes fly and get it over with. So it is worse because of likely hood of collateral damage. As for law enforcement use, a stern legal reminder needs to be issued to law enforcement that the only legal use of force is the minimum use of force to initiate an arrest. They are blatantly abusing the law when they use chemical, electrical, sonic, percussion or brute force weapons upon citizens with no intent to initiate an arrest.

We can also let 99.9999% of businesses decide it. That is the reality by far and away the majority of businesses will benefit by net neutrality, from cheaper data transmission, to protected from interception traffic and competitor driven censorship. All tech staff need to get out and produce an advisory to management about the extremely damaging impact to business digital communications with the loss of net neutrality and the requirement for management to instruct lobbyists to ensure an absolute tiny minority of companies in the order of 0.0001% of companies can control, limit, censor and intercept business communications. A loss of net neutrality is a real threat to the future of by far the majority of businesses.