It happens, and it's difficult to notice if the typo is also a valid word. My two comments are in complete agreement though, so you're misreading as well as mistyping.

Or he just doesn't care, because it's only a tiny minority who doubt his citizenship, and they wouldn't be convinced by anything; they'd just claim whatever document he supplied was faked. The word you want is "unredacted" not "underacted" BTW.

He's just not spending the inordinate amount of time it would take to personally convince every birther out there that what he says is true - especially since there's probably simply no possible evidence that would satisfy some of them, they'd just say he has the resources to fake it now. There's already been plenty of evidence produced that the man was born in Hawaii, more than enough to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone but a conspiracy theorist, and he has more important stuff to get on with.

It wasn't "What does the government do perfectly?" It was "What does the government do better than private industry?"

.

If you seriously think that BP would have done a better job of protecting the environment absent the EPA, or that fewer rapes would occur without any police, or that less justice would be served without any legal system, or that Microsoft would have been less monopolistic in the absence of government... well, you must be taking some non-FDA-approved drugs.

Protecting the environment. Providing police protection to people without money.. hell, providing damn near anything to people without money. Providing impartial justice - the government doesn't always do it well, but better than private enterprise. Managing large systems like the interstate highways, whose scope is beyond what any individual private enterprise has an interest in supporting, but which nevertheless support the common good. Overseeing dangers to public heath - organizations like the FDA, USDA, MMS and so forth simply would not exist if government didn't, and the degree to which they work is in inverse proportion to the amount of influence private profit-seeking entities have over them. Providing universal standards and accreditations. Preventing private monopolies, which are a natural outcome of uncontrolled markets.
.

Actually, there is a way to cancel government services. It involves getting enough people to agree they aren't needed, and supporting candidates for office who will cancel those services. You simply can't do it on an individual basis, because a properly designed democratic government serves the people, not persons. There have been services provided by government in the past which no longer are.

If you want to see what a country looks like without a government, I understand Somalia is pretty close to being an example of just that.

They are all giant douches, is there really a need to find out if one is a bigger one then the other? Have we really resorted to just picking the lesser douche?

Yes, and yes.

The idea that individuals should have the right to keep and bear arms is an interpretation, not necessarily supported by the text, though. It's an interpretation I find eminently reasonable, but it's not the only possible one.

It's also possible to interpret it as saying that "the people" as a collective (rather than as individuals) have the right to keep and bear arms, to prevent their subjugation by foreign powers. That also fits the facts of the context.

In which case the people of the United States are served by having established a standing army (which we didn't have at the time), with no limit on the weaponry it can keep and bear, commanded by civilians elected by the people.

That's not the interpretation I would favor, but it's legitimate and justifiable by the text. My intent is strictly to show that more than one interpretation is possible.

As it happens my own interpration, and yours, are not binding. The only binding interpretations of what the words mean are the interpretations made by the Judiciary - that's their job, as defined by the Constitution they interpret for us.

No, actually it didn't. The latest upgrade (the one after the one which removes the OtherOS functionality) contains such language, I understand - Ars reported on it. I haven't yet accepted the one which removes OtherOS so I can't speak to that personally, but I'm a person who does read EULAs and I didn't grant Sony any such right.

That said, they probably are legally clear in no longer providing a service, even though their actions amounted to bait and switch - IANAL but they are a big corporation, and nowadays that usually means they can do as they like.

There's enough murk to make it plausible they'd rather settle though; for one thing the fact that they have *now* inserted that language tells me they're not on quite as solid a legal ground as they might like (perhaps, like you, some PHB simply assumed it was there earlier), and ethically they have a lot of people convinced they're being dicks - including people for whom this isn't a personal issue but who may be potential customers now hearing bad things about how Sony treats customers.

I'm not in the habit of recording every ad I watch so I can't prove it of course. However it was certainly well known that it would run Linux, and that was indeed the tipping point that got me to put the money down for the very first generation to hit the stores.