And add to that the transaction fees charged to merchants as I said below. They are ridiculous. Many merchants where I live have a minimum charge you can make with a card. Something like $10 or $20.

So you are the reason that a lot of stores have a minimum charge amount for credit / debit charges. The transaction fees charged to merchants are ridiculous and so are ATM fees. Until these fees are reduced, you will never see a truly cashless society. And that doesn't include those that have less trust of banks than they do of governments.

I am agreeing with what you said putting aside the beta/VHS blunder....

But there is a more direct way it happened that Windows got more market share... Namely, it is what comes with most, if not all, new consumer x86 based computers. It is just about impossible to get a supported Linux computer and by supported I mean one that will solve problems with the programming not just the hardware.

So to recap, it isn't solely marketing that gives MS their dominance but their partnering with OEMs and to a lesser extent their abuse of their monopoly to keep competing operating systems off new machines.

OK... Let's just burst your anti-government bubble there..

They need to ask permission because the FAA specifically banned such behavior last month.

Gone are the days, when pursuit of happiness was understood as a natural right granted to each human being not by their government, but by the Creator.

To start with, you are confusing your documents. The quote you give is from the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution which is the document establishing our government. Next, you assume that there is a "Creator". All I got to say is show me. Lastly, your rights end where others rights begin. It would be pure anarchy otherwise as I will demonstrate below.

Today one must get a permission to drive a car, carry a weapon, perform in costume [LINK OMITTED], or, indeed, to fly a drone.

Drive a car: So in your world you would allow everyone, regardless of demonstrated ability to do so, drive a car on public roads? Sounds like a plan to me... A plan for death and mayhem that is. Besides, this is State government not Federal requiring the license. If you had actually read the Constitution, you would know that States have far more power to regulate than the Feds.

Carry a weapon: Again in your world, convicted violent offenders should be allowed weapons even while they are in prison for murder? I also bet you believe that you should also be allowed nuclear weapons too right?

Perform in costume: That is a city ordinance. Again, not fed and not even State. I am sure NYC has a reason for that ordinance, take it up with them.

Fly a drone: There have been many instances where these drones have caused passenger airliners to almost crash. The more they are allowed, the higher the probability will become that one will cause a crash. One can only hope you are on the plane that crashes because of it. Again, your rights end where others begin. That is the job of these agencies. They oversee the public spaces such as airspace.

And finally, may I make a suggestion? If you really, really want less government, then move to Somalia. I am sure they will welcome you with open arms (pun intended).

or people could stop buying from tombstone vendors that are complete idiots. Some vendors are smart enough to buy a properly licensed object (of the gazillions out there) and embed it into the memorial. Problem solved.

Did you really think this is the first time someone wanted to do something like this? The parents just need to stop shopping at Billy Bob's Discount Tombstone & Tackle Shack if they want something atypical.

or people could stop buying DC Comic's shit for being the dicks they are since they could very well license it to them but are refusing. Of course, that will never fly because of asshats like you that can't see a parent's grief in their murdered child.

Talk to me about "licensing" when it is YOUR child.

And the insurance is the other way round. The named drivers get fully covered to drive the insured car, and they also get bare legal minimum insurance driving another car if they don't own it. But if somebody else drives the insured car, it is up to them to get insurance.

That is not true. If the driver is not the owner, but was authorized to drive the car by the owner, then the owner's insurance covers. It doesn't matter if the driver was named on the policy. If the driver drives without the owner's permission, then not only is it grand theft auto but it is considered uninsured. I know because I was hit by a driver in a stolen car where the thief ran away in all the confusion. Luckily I had full coverage and my insurance paid my medicals. Had I just had liability then I would be left holding the bills.

If you drive a car that is not covered by insurance, whether you have insurance on another car or not, it is still considered uninsured.

Having said all that, since automotive insurance is a state thing I suspect the laws governing the insurance varies by state. What I said above is correct for my state.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Brennan wrote, "The most disturbing aspect of the Court's decision today is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen's interest in freedom from suspicionless investigatory seizures."

The same can be said of random drug tests.

I tend to agree with you but not to the paranoid extent you are taking it.

More to the point, I can see this being touted for home security (being able to enable / disable security systems from your phone, turn on and off lights, etc.) but that won't take off until they can guarantee the security of the Internet (which is something no company can do). As we all know, anything exposed to the Internet is just that... Exposed! To think it won't get exploited is putting your head in the sand.

Besides, for any of that stuff you don't need it exposed to the internet. Just a local network that blocks all devices that haven't been programmed into the router. That way when you lock yourself out of your house you can unlock the doors with your phone while you are standing outside. Who in their right mind would want to unlock their doors when they are on vacation?

As I have said before, I don't believe the US constitution applies outside the borders of this country for non-citizens... so it isn't the same level of constitutional crisis that we have here at home with a widespread, ongoing and wholesale violation of the fourth amendment threatening the very fabric of our society.,

Yet we have a whole war going on in Afghanistan by applying American laws on foreign citizens.

By your definition the US has no need of its extradition treaties since American laws don't apply to "non-citizens".

And in this case the US FISA court is telling the NSA it is OK to tell American corporations, on American soil, to violate the fourth amendment on their behalf and since it is in a secret National Security Letter, keep your mouth shut about it OR ELSE!

And you are willing to pay triple or quadruple in the store right?

I always see this kind of comment where people seem to think that cost won't be passed down to their wallet but the reality is you don't want the increased cost any more than the growers do. So why don't you put your money where your mouth is the next time prices jump and remember your comments above.

Let's correct a few things for you here...

We ignore the law

Correction... Businesses ignore the law when they hire the illegals. The state of Georgia implemented the strictest sanctions on employers of illegal immigrants and the end result was was a huge failure! ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/re... ). And where were the so called "American workers" to take up the slack? Well, let's just quote that article:

Despite high unemployment in the state, most Georgians don't want such back-breaking jobs, nor do they have the necessary skills. According to Dick Minor, president of the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Grower's Association, immigrants "are pretty much professional harvesters" with many specializing in particular crops.

To even further disillusion you:

Georgia's experience is consistent with economic research on immigration. Although many Americans believe immigrants "steal" our jobs and push down our wages, economists find little evidence of that.

Immigration policy is designed to control the entry of immigrants, it's time we started treating that way.

They are trying to do that with modifications to a law that really, really needs fixing. The example of Georgia shows that isolation such as you are proposing doesn't work and in fact leads to economic harm. So exactly what would you propose? Would you work in the fields to enforce your vision when the immigrants all leave?

Although that is true, there are also many states that have laws on the books regarding police officers "moonlighting" since so many of them got caught double dipping claiming their police salary at the same time they were working their security stint. My state of WV is one such state because of the massive amounts of abuse like that going on. It got so bad in fact that there is legislation that was passed forbidding state police officers from moonlighting.

That would be Blackwater not Blackwatch...

There is just so many things wrong with this concept it is hard to know where to begin...

If they are private corporations, then where is their proof that they complied with the open bidding laws every state has to gain the contract for the SWAT services? Where is the contract that specifies the services to be rendered? Where is the contract that specifies the amounts to be paid for those services? Where is the assurances that they won't use state resources in providing those services? Since it is tax dollars paying for the services, where is the state audit trails required of all grants and contracts that ensures proper spending is occurring and that any over-runs or under-runs are not being exploited? If federal grant money is used, where is that audit trail and if the amount is over $25,000 where is the FFATA reports on the federal share spent as required by https://www.fsrs.gov/ ?

I am in state government and have to deal with these issues daily. By them saying they are private corporations, it throws them into the same category as any other private corporation having to contract for their services which kicks in so many laws it will make your head spin.

No plugin Auto-run for untrusted sites.

Well, you have 2 flaws right there. First, the verification method for "trusted sites" and second, the trust and verification of the trust authority. So you should have stopped at "no plugin auto-runs."