I did it when I was about your age, but I had a friendly employer who let me take "flex" time off to attend classes. This was back in the mid seventies of last century however.

You'd probably be modded as "Funny" (or perhaps "Insightful"?) if you weren't posting as AC. ;)

Spamex.com does that for a small yearly fee without needing to register a domain, etc., but it isn't being maintained and their service will probably disappear at some point.

Better be careful. These days, words like those on the Internet can get you tossed into prison by DHS.

1,700 professional architects and engineers who do design high rise steel framed buildings like the three that supposedly "collapsed" on their own disagree with you . If you would merely take an hour of your time and watch the actual overwhelming amount of evidence that indicates explosives were used instead of being a government zombie and believing everything the government tells however implausible, it would change your entire worldview.

You obviously didn't watch the video. There were many firemen complaining about the huge explosions in the lobby of the tower that had not been hit by an airplane yet. One of them, who was bleeding from the concussion warned that the building had been wired for explosives as building 7 obviously was if you had ever watched its collapse. Also there are audio/video recordings by amateurs and professional newscast crews that documented the series of massive explosions that were coming from buildings one and two both before and after the second airplane hit a building.

Do you think all of these various recordings and testimony by firemen who were on the scene is faked? If not you would have to be blind, deaf, and very dumb to deny the fact that there were huge explosions taking place at ground level on 9/11.

Watch the short video that my sig links to, then tell me that. Also, how do you explain the obviously conventionally controlled demolition of Building 7 that was announced ahead of time?

The only time I decided to give jury duty a try they treated people worse than cattle as though our comfort and our time were of no value whatsoever. That is when I decided I never wanted to be a slave of the courts ever again. Fortunately my name was not called and I didn't have to serve on a jury, which is a good thing because I have severe arthritis (and thus could have gotten out of jury duty), and the miserable chairs we were forced to sit in all day long waiting to be called for a jury was like trying to rest while sitting on a block of concrete. The next day I was so tired, sore, and exhausted from the ordeal I could barely move. It took me about three days to recover physically.

... or it might reveal the f*chk-ups of the quack that took your life.

It's probably better in some cases to just tell them it would be much simpler, faster, and less costly to rewrite the whole thing.

How would you fine a foreign based company?

Personally I yearn for good ole' BCD arithmetic.

Agreed; however, since this is a battle of grammar Nazis, I must say that I think "Becoming ubiquitous" would be more accurate.

When I was a kid we used an outhouse, you could shine a flashlight down into the stench of the toilet (a very small structure with a wooden bench supported above a hole in the ground about 12 feet deep or so). What you saw, was a writhing mass of brown mass of feces being composted at breakneck speed. After looking at it for awhile (we were kids at the time ;) you realized all the writhing was being done by a massive number of maggots just a few feet beneath the toilet bench where you sat, and they were composting those feces as fast as they could eat. Today the soil underneath that outhouse would probably be almost ideal fertilizer.

The Supreme Court erred by ruling certain drugs illegal. Anything abhorrent to the Constitution (regardless of what the Supreme Court may say), is not only illegal it is also null and void. Enforcing that reality is the problem. We the people are the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional or not because we can (at least theoretically) dissolve the Constitution and government if we choose - although it would not likely be done without violence. Here is something Thomas Jefferson had to say about it:

[How] to check these unconstitutional invasions of...rights by the Federal judiciary? Not by impeachment in the first instance, but by a strong protestation of both houses of Congress that such and such doctrines advanced by the Supreme Court are contrary to the Constitution; and if afterwards they relapse into the same heresies, impeach and set the whole adrift. For what was the government divided into three branches, but that each should watch over the others and oppose their usurpations?
~ Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821.