Hmmm.. So your argument is that because the internet crosses state and international boundaries the Fed is free to regulate it. The problem with this is that the commerce clause is about regulating TRADE as it crosses the boundaries between the states and other countries. The Fed can regulate, tax and otherwise control things that cross the state's border, but what happens within the state is the business of the state. The Fed has been justifying a LOT of things using the Commerce Clause, which are really pushing us into some very grey areas.

Please tell me why my interaction with my local phamacist is regulated by federal laws? Please tell me why I cannot grow marijuana for my personal consumption in my back yard? Both of these are because the Supreme Court does not agree with your interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Don't blame the Feds, blame the Supreme Court which has allowed the Fed to implement such laws and regulations.

So, my reading says that the Fed can regulate buying/selling (commerce) that crosses the state line over the internet, but if the state wants to regulate ISP's within it's borders, it is free to do so w/o Federal involvement as long as the state doesn't stray beyond it's constitutional power

Both your reading and my reading of the Commerce Clause carry zero weight. Only the opinion of the Supreme Court matters and it has made it quite clear that your reading does not agree with its view of the Commerce Clause.

Right. It has always been a tradition for the top tribal leader to line his and his family's pockets.

A traditional that has long been utilized by western economies.

The Republicans that are concerned about civil liberties (ie, those who didn't think about civil liberties when the patriot act was first signed, but have regretted it) will support this move.

Unfortunately, those Republicans don't exist. Well, to be more accurate, they exist, but not in any elected office.

Hold them until until the owner/driver of the car has been successfully prosecuted and then sieze them.

Another person suggested creating a user that does backups, all it does is backups, and that user is the only one who has write access to the backup drive. That seems like a reasonable solution as well.

One could have a directory in the hierarchy above the backups that can only be executed by the root user. In this case, the backup directories and files below it can have normal user permissions, but the backup will not be accessible with normal user credentials.

Then they run that test as part of their automated "Test Windows" run (which probably takes hours to do)

I am going to nitpick on your analysis, but I have zero sympathy for Microsoft having (hypothetically) a test system that takes hours to provide a result. This is a company with billions of dollars available to it. Invest in more test hardware if the test systems take too long to run.

[ -z "$STEAMROOT" ] && echo "stop right now!" # no need for if ..then.

Euh locks on doors don't stop burglars. They stop kids from doing petty vandalism. Burglars can easily pick your door locks, or will simply break a window to enter.

In the UK at least, door locks have an important function. They turn entering your house from traspass (NOT a criminal offense) into breaking and entering (a criminal offense).

In the USA they invoke a requirement to get a warrant for LEO to enter the house.

How about, instead of playing war games, you use the same resources to actually secure the vital infrastructure that we get regular scare stories about,

You assume that the cyber war games are about preparedness. In reality, these events are about creating headlines that can be used to justify more intrusion into people's private lives.

Let me first express my sympathy for your personal tragedy.
And now respond:
1. The drugs taken were already illegal. Your personal experience shows that the laws against such drugs don't work.
2. You ignored my point that we have historical data that banning personal vices leads to more hardship, not less.

The standard Uber defence of "he's a contractor" will last about 2 second before being torn to shreds by the dumbest of Australian judges (who will be quite intelligent in their own right mind you), Uber facilitated the transaction, Uber takes the money from the client and gives the money to the driver

In just about any jurisdiction, I think that the fact that Uber takes the money puts Uber on the hook for damages. If the passenger pays Uber, then the contract is between the passenger and Uber.

Uber is following the Paypal playbook. Steadfastly deny the obvious ("we are not a bank") until they are established enough to go legit.

Doesn't seem fair to me, but then the constitution is probably written in some strange dialect of English where the meaning is something different to a lawyer.

Substitute Supreme Court for Humpty Dumpty:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

Because crack and illegal abuse of prescription drugs also ruin people's lives.

Yes, but whose lives are ruined? The lives of the people who choose to take such drugs.

Plenty of people's lives are runing by gambling and alcohol, yet we know that banning these vices leads to worse problems than regulating them.

So a conductor "sliding" to a start an orchestra. But on a computer / the interwebs...

And if the orchestra includes a Theremin?

I imagine that the Prime Minister thinks that he can force Google and other emails providers to hand over emails to GCHQ and, crucially, the Prime Minister cannot comprehend the idea that people can set up their own email server.

The same argument goes for other protocols.

Probably, no one, other than politicians and Dail Mail readers, takes this seriously. It will be forgotten about after the next election.