Yes, whereas Dartmouth College v. Woodward had nothing to do with the right of a Corporation, and everything to do with the rights of government. One could say that it established that a Corporation could in fact enter into a contract, but that was already part of Common Law; while the limitation of State Government toward its ability to abridge or nullify contracts was specifically enshrined in the Constitution. It grants no right to the Corporation. It reaffirms a limitation of Government toward the treatment of Contracts.

Entirely possible that I misread your intent.

No, it's not. There is a difference between a person, citizen, and an entity endowed with certain rights by Government. The constitution protects one of those, but not the other. CU does set precedent in assigning protections from the Bill of Rights to said legal constructs, where precedent did not exist before. That's significant, whether the ruling is disagreed with or not.

As you can see, the Clause in question cares not about citizenship, or even humanity, and the right for a Corporation to enter into contract is certainly enshrined in Common Law.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railway's judgement did not even mention the 14th amendment (though it is accurate to say the defense attempted to use it) I think you're misconstruing some judgements that favored a Corporation as acknowledgement that the Court previously held them to be natural citizens.

Ya, because fear of a neocon president sure scared him away from invading Georgia.

First, instead of linking a page that gives you eye strain and is generally a boil on the ass of the internet, please link to the actual source, as has been pointed out before.

And second, I think this link (the one mentioned above, not the one in TFS) should go to as many leaders of state as possible, just to help them put their own imagined importance into perspective.

Oh and by the way, want to know if their hacking attempts were successful or not? That's easy to determine now.

Is any Blackphone service still legal to use?

You now have your answer.

Enjoy the illusion of privacy.

And which of those failures were down to fundamental airframe issues rather than program failures?

Now that we've established you can read, perhaps you can take a few minutes and read a bit more on the one called the PATRIOT Act.

Pay particular attention to the parts that state "FUCK YOU VERY MUCH" when questioning the legality or priority of the Act above any other law in existence today.

I believe you'll find all of the legal transgressions you're looking for in there.

I don't know. Why don't you ask the makers of these games.

Oh look. They ain't UT clones. There's a RTS. There is a survival horror game (ok, this now almost forces the "and how many survival horror games..." question). And I think over there's an Adventure game. There's a racing game in there too, go, try to find it!

Having an off-site seed bank is about as worthwhile as feeling good about the spare tire you left at home in the garage after you totaled your car in an accident.

I'm sorry, but you seem to have skimmed over the whole point here.

This isn't about the amount of potential interference a radio device might cause.

This is about a government agency taking it upon themselves to declare such a device as legal to use in the first place.

Erh... that was a comeback to a "your mom" joke. Mod it funny, mod it offtopic, but don't try to reply on topic to it. :)

Nice history lesson there. I do appreciate at least being reminded of what the government used to give a shit about.

As for today, you've got to be fucking kidding me if they'll ever admit to this level of illegality.

If and when they ever do, it will be right after they pass laws to make all of activity legal.

Don't worry. Apathy will ensure those laws pass too.

No, it's pretty clear we've known this for a very long time.

What is perhaps not so clear to people these days is there's not a fucking thing left to be done about it.

The BBC doesn't say that, Professor Harrison says that.

The BBC does say that this year we will have paid off the last outstanding WW1 debt when we refinance the outstanding £1.9Billion balance of the 1932 war bond.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/busi...

The author of the article you point to, Finlo Rohrer, has also been heavily criticised in the past of biased and misleading articles, so I would take whatever he writes with a pinch of salt...

No, thats a common misconception - the Bf109 had time enough for between 30 minutes and 45 minutes over target, while also escorting their bombers to and from the target. While carrying out bomber escort duties you do not want to loiter, so there was no requirement for a longer loiter time for the Bf109s - as such, it was a very effective aircraft during the Battle of Britain. BTW there was no such thing as the ME 109 - the aircraft didn't carry that designation, its been a long running post war media misconception.

And once again, you are wrong - Germany was still attacking mainland Britain and the convoys in the English Channel right up until Germany was overrun, so there was plenty of defensive roles to be filled by the Spitfire. And of course you ignore that by 1943 the bulk of Spitfire sorties were over occupied France, Belgium and northern Germany in roving attacks and enemy air force suppression. So it wasn't as if we had a pointless load of Spitfires sat around waiting for the Luftwaffe to attack while the USAAF took the fight to the continent...

British bombing policy was, after fairly disastrous attempts early on in the conflict, limited to the night stream approach - a steady stream of bombers attacking a single area target from night fall to dawn. As such, the British had no requirement for a bomber escort aircraft, unlike the USAAF which conducted "precision" daylight bombing and as such needed long range escort fighters to protect the bombers.

Both the Tempest and the Fury were decent aircraft, and the fact that over 1,700 Tempests were built shows that - however it was hampered by low availability of the Napier engines after its introduction in 1944. The Fury didn't even make it into service during WW2, so while it was a nice aircraft, its beyond the scope of discussion.

I'm also not sure that your comparison between "favoured aircraft" and "aircraft left to rot" is valid - the Spitfire performed exceedingly well throughout the war, and was even being produced after the war in certain versions. It is the only aircraft that was in continuous production throughout the war on all sides - even the Bf109 production ended before the war did.

The Meteor was a fair aircraft for its time, and it was in turn fairly quickly replaced in its role by the Hawker Hunter in 1954, so the RAF hardly had an obsession with it. The Nimrod was a damn fine airframe for the duties it was given to - it was the only fully British airframe which could carry out the post war roles it was put in, hence why it was chosen. Neither the Victor nor the Vulcan could fulfil the same role, so no comparison there.

As for those two, well, we used their conventional bombing capabilities once - the Black Buck raids over the Falkland Islands. They weren't used in anger before or after that - and right at that time the Tornado was being delivered, along with the capability of laser guided bombs, so we no longer had the need for a heavy bomber, and both the Victor and Vulcan were expensive to operate as tankers, so they were simply removed from service altogether when the time came (the Victor struggled on until we had enough L1011s and VC-10s converted, but once they were delivered the Victor was dropped like the proverbial hot potato).