Where did it "rule" that? I'm not looking for an interpretation - if they ruled it, they must have actually said it. Where?

Nope. You're just documenting your own failure to understand how our kind of legal system works.

What makes you think you're more qualified to judge constitutionality or legality than our Supreme Court? Courts judge these things. Your opinion doesn't matter - these things remain legal and constitutional until and unless successfully challenged - that's how our system works. It is challenge-based. If you don't get that, you're just clueless about our Constitution, how it's judged, and the broader legal system in which it resides.

I'm saying the founders gave a rough sketch, and in this case that sketch was too vague to work right. We'd either need to fix it, or accept that it won't work. It's quite likely the founders would've accepted it, maybe not even included this restriction if they knew it wouldn't work, or done a better job drafting it. Still, their system as a whole worked well enough, and provided means for its broken bits to be improved. If some part is important now, we can still fix it. If not, why worry about it? Build momentum, propose an alternative, and maybe it'll be fixed. Our government isn't a shrine to long-dead people -it belongs to the people alive today.

It's also important not to treat the founders as if they significantly agreed with each other. They didn't. They had huge differences, long debates, and like any representative government, they had an enormously difficult time reaching agreement. Our first government failed. We're in a heavily evolved descendant of the second try.

How do you quantify resemblance?

There's nothing unconstitutional about what happened. Maybe you'd like to amend the Constitution to make some parts of it unconstitutional - maybe even some of those amendments would be ok if they were practical and enforcable, but your attempt to portray yourself a defending the Constitution here against assailants is ridiculous - you just don't like the way our system works. Which is fine, it's just the posing that's off.

There's no good way to come up with a hard line against this kind of practice. If we're going to allow bills to evolve as they pass between both houses, then how would one quantify sufficient "gutting and stuffing" to cross a threshold of "is not allowed"?

I realise it's tempting to say things like "The government isn't bound to follow the Constitution", and some political persuasions love to do that without either understanding the Constitution or how law works. We need reasonably bright (even if not necessarily precise) lines within which reasonable practices are workable.

Either way, the Constitution doesn't stand alone - like other Common Law nations, we have a body of legal practice that has evolved and will continue to evolve as our needs change and as good legal ideas come into vogue. This happened in the Founders' times, it happened well before them, and it will continue for as long as our nation does law this way.

As long as "easy" takes precedence, the internet will never be secure. It is absolutely impossible to have security between 2 parties when a 3rd is involved (CA's). It was done that way because it allows people who don't know anything to have SOME trust. But if there are people involved trust will be broken. 2 party authentication is the only way to solve the problems. If people don't know how to get secure credentials between themselves and another party then maybe they need the internet that still has training wheels and padded helmets.

Yes... the hardware distinction is important. I have a Hopper V2 from Dish with integrated Sling. Its also utterly damn infuriating that I have a device behind my home firewall that I have to log onto a CLOUD service to be able to access. I should be authenticating to my Sling, not to their shit.

Blocking Windows Update at the firewall, then running your own windows update local server with vetted updates would work around the problem.

If you look around you'll find wackos of every kind. Unless there's a lot of these attention-desperate people, why should we be interested in this?

Even this is unacceptable. I should be able to have access to my data without it going to another entity first. The data is useful. I should be able to have full access to my data with my data never leaving my sphere of control. Asking another entity for access to what was never theirs to begin with is utterly ridiculous. That's equivalent to buying a house and it keeping track of when you come and go and giving that data exclusively to home builder or realtor, then you having to ask permission to have it.

This is at least a bit over a year old.

Nature had a good publication on this a bit (same research group) over a year ago.
http://www.nature.com/news/fir...

Hopefully this won't be like promising new battery tech that's always 5-10 years away. Assuming black phosphoros turns out to be a viable material, how long would it take until chips made with such transistors are actually mass-produced?

That only increases the urgency of finding out, if the person is really serious about being a parent. Children are supposed to have a life that's better than ours was; they are not supposed to inherit severe character flaws because we were too cowardly to deal with them.

I do agree, though, that there are lots of self-centered (and often emotionally immature) people who really do fit the description you gave. That something might be uncomfortable, or require some effort, or *gasp* involve admitting that they were wrong and need to change, these things are enough to stop such people from doing the right thing no matter how important it may be, no matter how lasting the consequences are. It's even harder to raise a child and help them become an adult when the parent is not really an adult themselves.

I don't recall what ports the Nexus Player has - anyone know if this will work with one of those?