what it will do is add more difficulty and expense to challenging them in court

Nonsense. It doesn't add a single synaptic transaction of difficulty or a single cent of expense to challenging them.

Wrong, GM will use it as a way to bash people into submission. When someone talks about suing and gets noisy enough, GM will send them a very powerful letter explaining to them in the most confusing way possible that they're already agreed to not sue them and that suing them would break this contract which would result in a counter suite from GM.

Go ahead. Try that shit on me. I'm begging you.

This is how liberty dies ... with thunderous applause.

This will be abused. This will be used to shut down protests and stifle dissent. This will get hacked.

There's no way this toy ends up in the hands of anybody without eventually becoming a Really Bad Thing.

same endurance as ARM-based tablets with similar battery capacities while running a full-fat desktop OS rather than a phone OS with delusions of competency.

I don't know about you, but the last thing I want on a tablet is a "full-fat desktop OS".

It's not a freaking desktop. I don't use it like a desktop. I don't need the bloat and overhead of a desktop or a desktop OS.

If you want a full-fat desktop OS, get a Windows tablet or a laptop. Because until I can get a tablet with 1TB of storage, I'm not wasting several hundred megs of it on a piece of software which has been steadily growing bigger for the last decade.

The average app I download on Android is well under 30M. And, for me, that's a selling point.

And, really Android is essentially Linux. Are you suggesting Linux is lacking competency? Because Linux has been running efficiently on smaller systems for 20 years now.

Never have I seen a more apt typo

What makes you think it was a typo?

I assumed it was humor.

They may be power-hungry (although not that much anymore), but from my experience in doing ports, the best ARM SoCs barely have the performance of 12-year-old x86 processors.

Meh, one of the things I like about tablets is that it finally forced people to scale back the bloat and make leaner software.

A full featured piece of software in 25MB? Count me in. Your 4GB bloated install, not so much.

And, really, my now 1.5 year old Android tablet is a dual core CPU with enough juice for what I need it to do.

The last thing I want is Intel ushering in the new era of going back to bloated software which demands absurd resources. Microsoft is already doing that.

Seriously, design something new and interesting. Don't just keep shoe-horning the x86 architecture into everything because you don't have anything else.

No need to run x86. So why push x86 into the portable space?

Kinda what I was thinking. x86 is now ancient, and unless things have changed a lot in the last few years, tend to be pretty power hungry.

So, I guess if I want to run Windows on it, or legacy software, or have no real battery life this could be a good thing. And, really, who expects to run legacy software on a tablet?

Or, Intel could actually try to make a lightweight/low power chip meant specifically for tablets and not try to further saddle us with an architecture which is already long in the tooth. But, apparently they've grown beyond the 'innovating' phase of a company, and are well and truly into the 'flogging a dead horse' phase.

If you're going after Chinese white-box tablets, you're not aiming very high.

Me, if I saw a tablet which said "Intel Inside", the tablet would still be inside the store when I left. Because, right or wrong, my perception is it's going to suck power, and it's probably going to be geared to people who want to install Windows applications.

No thanks.

Every single article of the Constitution requires common sense to interpret. Of speech the First Amendment says simply "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". It doesn't say the President will not executive-order that nobody can say anything mean. It doesn't even say that States can't infringe on the freedom of speech. It doesn't imply that you can threaten people recklessly with impunity. Hardly anyone even claims it implies you can shout "fire" in a crowded theater when you have no reason to believe there is fire.

Do you really want a Constitution 10,000 or 100,000 pages long? One whose Second Amendment alone has to be constantly reviewed and updated because new devastating chemical and biological agents are developed, or something 1000 times more powerful than a nuclear weapon and weighs only one pound is invented?

The police didn't force the destruction of evidence. It was the principal that told the student to delete the recording.

You know, to a highschool student, I'm not sure there's a whole lot of difference.

Because when the principal, the administrators, the teachers, and the cops are all standing around telling you that you must delete it or face consequences ... which entity is it which is forcing you to delete it?

And since the police then subsequently charged him with something, pretending like they didn't play a role in this farce is pretty naive.

Since an "arm" is defined as a "weapon", then you see no limit. The qualifier in "small arms" is there for a reason - because "arms" are unlimited. I don't think you will find much company. Your suggestion that maybe the 2nd Amendment needs to be qualified is well taken, although arguably a guy driving an M1A2 tank with a nuclear demolition charge aboard down the street is not "bearing arms", and a lot of us think it is plain enough that the clear intent is not to allow unlimited weapons in private ownership.

The Constitution is supposed to be interpreted with common sense. If it tried to spell everything out to the nth detail, it would be 100 times its size. It would probably be the size of the tax code or the Affordable Care Act, and nobody who finished reading the 5000th page could possible remember what it said on page 10.

What happens to the vast minority of people who always think they are in the vast majority?

They become politically active, and then continue to loudly claim to represent the vast majority even though they don't.

We're on pretty exactly the same page.

Interesting that you phrase that control in the past tense. A two-bit IED kills you just as dead as a million dollar smart weapon. And you don't measure the victor by who suffers the least casualtes. The victor is the one left standing on scene after the fury ends. The one who, in the end, cares more about the outcome and is willing to endure. As such, the best it can possibly end for the US at this point is a draw. The worst is an outright loss.

So I'll tell you what happens when you pit guys with rifles and IEDs against a standing army and air force. A lot of people on both sides are killed and maimed, but eventually the standing army finds something else to do, or in the domestic case gets fed up and goes home, the indigenous people endure, and their aspirations have not been killed. Remember Vietnam?

If the purpose of the Afghanistan conflict was to punish and run off an evil regime supporting the civilized world's enemies, that was accomplished with stunning effectiveness and economy within a year. That was the time we should have declared victory, left a threat that the same devastatioin would be visited again if such an evil regime ever returned, and left the hellhole alone. The remaining 12 years were just dick-yanking - not the guys on the scene; the morons directing US policy. Leave the hubris of nation building entirely to those whose business it is - those who live there.

Much as I agree with your points a, b, and c, actually your oath to support and defend the Constitution would obligate you to honor this amendment, properly enacted, just like any other part of the Constitution. I don't think the oath restricts you after your term of enlistment ends, though. You fall back on the same love of country and countrymen, and if the Constitution were to be so corrupted, then the regime would become the enemy.