I got a kick out of the rule that you can have one golf club, or two clubs, but the golf clubs is right out.

Cause, you know, more than one club per hand is just too dangerous.

Just FYI, as you get older, it gets harder and harder to see things that are close to your eyes, leading you to hold things you want to read further and further away from your face, not closer.

An iPad is a poor PC replacement for most old folks. They don't need to be doing tasks like email on a small screen with a touch "keyboard".

At what point do you realize that if you're going to use it as a PC, you should just buy a PC?

The article might as well be me... except it's 270 miles, and my dad does provide some front-line tech support. But my mom is still on AOL.

This Christmas we had her try various tech devices from smart phones to tablets (Android and iOS); the end verdict was she is still most comfortable in front of a monitor with a keyboard and mouse. Tablets worked OK for some of the things she wanted to do, but the lack of physical keyboard was problematic, esp. when it came to email. And it's also more comfortable for her to be sitting in a chair NOT having to hold the screen. Tablet screens also suffer compared to larger monitors when you're old and want a large font.

So while mom might end up with a tablet as an accessory, they are NOT desktop replacements. And don't solve the AOL problem either.

To the article submitter, what does your mom use AOL for? The AOL experience isn't necessarily much different than the browser experience, for certain activities, so you might want to try setting up Windows 7 and then seeing if the browser is "close enough".

Ultimately I got my mom a new PC (her old one was OLD and took days to boot (ok, 20 minutes)) and put windows XP on it. Fortunately she doesn't feel the need to download the screensaver du jour, so with virus software XP is OK and what she's familiar with. Did end up having to put AOL back on it but dad is working on weaning her over to a browser. If she makes that transition probably on to Windows 7.

Two people can't use the same IP address at the same time either - your packets are interleaved.

It just so happens that your packets are interleaved on the microsecond scale while gun use is interleaved on the order of hours/days/weeks.

If you are shipping items from country to country, in addition to the time it takes the postal systems to move your package, there is also the time it spends in customs. Lots of packages sail right through, but some get "stuck", and when they get through customs is up to customs.

So your package could have spent weeks in customs somewhere.

...don't let people have access to the hashed passwords for your system.

From the user's perspective, it's don't use the same password in more than one place, so that if one place does let its hashed passwords loose, it can't be used against you.

...I got this bug on a website I do *NOT* use Facebook to log into, so the Facebook statement appears incorrect in that regard. (I was logged into Facebook in that browser though.)

The policies did originate in the legislative process.

The issue is that some people are claiming the legislation says something different than other people claim it says.

And that's a very common occurrence in our government - the executive always attempting to take the broadest interpretation of executive power as possible.

It's a big reason we have that whole judicial branch.

The answer is, it depends. My current answer is wait for other elected US officials to act. That's worked pretty well for hundreds of years. Somebody acts outside the bounds of the law, they eventually get removed from office, possibly put in jail, etc.

The nice thing about democracy is it's a structure that resists consolidation of power. If one person starts getting too much power, other people will use democratic mechanisms to reduce that power. It's not like the Republicans would allow George Bush to become a dictator, or the Democrats would allow Obama to become one, because then no one else gets their turn in 4 or 8 years. And consolidation of power means a Senator who used to be able to leverage his vote for consideration of his pet projects (or donors or whatever) doesn't want to find himself where he's only leveraging his vote to not get arrested. And all those corporations who finance political campaigns don't want to be in a position where a dictator can come seize their assets either.

And even the President himself doesn't have a whole lot of incentive to become a dictator - he's going to be rich whether he stays in power or not, so best not to get in a position where the only option people have of getting rid of you is killing you.

The idea that any single entity is going to consolidate power across 50 states, each with their own military and police apparatus, and with the cooperation of the members of our volunteer military, is just plain ridiculous.

What we're talking about here is a very sensational, but very minor, topic. More American citizens live or die on changes in DUI laws than the drone use policies. George Ryan (former Illinois Governor) killed more American citizens as a result of taking a single bribe than Obama has killed with drones.

Like all issues with what should, and should not, be legal actions by the government, this one will get settled through legislative or judicial process. We're not talking about the arrest, jailing, or killing of political opponents. These are people who have specifically declared a desire to destroy the political process entirely.

There are no US citizens captive in Cuba. We did put one in the brig in South Carolina for a while, which was absolutely a violation of due process. That was the last President, not this one.

There's a difference between expedience and casualties.

If the police come to arrest you, and you pull a gun on them, they are not going to risk getting shot and are going to shoot you instead. No trial.

If you have a 5-year-old in a bunker, and the police think you're about to cause harm to them they are not going to risk it and they're going to shoot you instead. No trial.

If you are hiding out in enemy territory where any American coming to get you is going to be shot on sight, there's no reason for us to risk the lives of Americans to come force you to trial when you don't want to go.

When you make it clear that you would rather kill the people coming to arrest you than be arrested, you're going to get killed. This should be obvious.

If you want to remove yourself from the rule of law, you can't complain when you lose the benefits of the rule of law you removed yourself from.

If you want a proper trial, simply present yourself at the nearest major international airport and I'm sure the US government will be happy to bring you home for one.

If, however, you know your government kills members of foreign terrorist organizations living in certain lawless areas of the world, and you publicly declare your support for such a foreign terrorist organization, and then move to such an area of the world to associate with members of that organization, don't be surprised when a missile lands on your head.

There are certain definitive actions an individual can take where we know they have decided to give up their due process rights. For example, in World War II, if you traveled to Germany and put on a German uniform, you got treated as an enemy combatant, not a US citizen. No trial necessary.

When the belligerents are not uniformed members of a state military power, under when can we assume a US Citizen has decided do not want to participate in due process? It is reasonable to assume that an individual in a terrorist camp in the desert of Yemen isn't interested in standing trial - they have, through their actions, obviously declared themselves an enemy combatant, by declaring and acting on their intentions to be one.

Choosing to avoid due process is not the same as being denied due process.

Or it could mean that if your father is an irresponsible dick..

- He's less likely to marry your mother

AND

- You're more likely to be a criminal

Unfortunately it's unlikely that more marriage is going to make your father less of a dick. Or that telling your father he should get married before having children will help.

Personally, I favor castration. Once you're behind on child support for two or more kids, off with your nuts.