It's his right to live yes but that doesn't make it someone (or everyone) else's responsibility to help him do so. It's people's fear of death that causes the dissonance you speak of, not our upbringing that socialism is bad. I know I don't have a right to everyone else's money (or the doctor's services) even if I need them to live. But if I were facing death I might be tempted to claim I did because fear will cause all sorts of irrational thoughts and ideas.

This is the fundamental problem with a "right to healthcare". You are either claiming a right to other people's money or a right to other people's time or both. This, when considered fully, is tantamount to slavery. That is why we do not have a "right to healthcare".

You're missing that this is wireless technology and there is no way to directly connect to one AP while ignoring all others (at least in the connection phase). Every packet is broadcast to every antenna that can receive it, every packet is coded with the MAC address of the source (so the recipient knows who sent it and can reply) as well as the intended recipient (or all if it is a real broadcast). AP's that aren't listed as the recipient should drop/ignore packets they receive that aren't addressed to them but there is nothing forcing them to do so. While maybe not 100% technically correct, I believe it is sufficient to explain the problem. The problem is this: every antenna in range can receive every packet and can decode basic information about the sender and intended receiver of the packet. This cannot be fixed technically as it is by design. The only thing than can be done is to legislatively outlaw the practice of gathering this information and/or using it to compile a database.

It means you have a tyrannical government acting above outside of or against their mandate.

It IS a living document now that can be changed. However, the methods for changing it, properly, are hard and those in power are to lazy to do it, especially when the people aren't forcing them to. Of course, if they were to do it the proper way, they actually need the support of the vast majority which in most of these cases they do/did not have.

Digital information/goods easily fit into the "effects" part of the protection. They went out of their way to enumerate just about everything that existed that could be searched or seized so I have no problem envisioning their original intent would of included emails, phone locations, etc. if they existed at the time. Not only that but I can envision them going, "DUH!", at how obvious this should be.

The founders believed freedom was more important than individual life, so, yes, I believe they would stand by those convictions even in today's super scary environment.

If the people believe the 200 year old document is out-of-date, there is a mechanism to change it and it's called a constitutional amendment. Sure, they are hard to pass because most people have to agree on them but that's by design. If you want to redefine and limit the fourth amendment, that is the only legal/constitutional course you could take. Everything else that has been done that conflicts with this amendment is illegal.

Exactly which part was reduced to absurdity? Just because the actual inner-workings of software is abstracted from the developer that doesn't change what it is.

While a physical apparatus and/or medicine can be described mathematically, they are not, of themselves, math. Software, on the other hand, is math that can be described in special languages that are easier for humans to read. See the difference? The description (or the can be expressed as) is reversed. Software starts out and is math, period. It is a series of add/subtract/multiply/move statements, nothing more. If the algorithm for calculating a number's square root on paper is not patentable then neither should software.

Well, now that's a different story. Unless they are going for improved flexibility (which I'm not sure if it would help) that is completely overblown. Warm-up should be 5-10 minutes, max.

They only recommend you do that to prevent you from over-extending and hurting yourself. It's about pushing your muscles to their max constriction in a slow and controlled manner before you do it again with weight, speed, and/or bad form.

Yes, it mentions it as a justification/rationalization of where the right comes from, no mental gymnastics required. It is clear when it says that "the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" which is how it is interpreted to mean everyone, because "The People" includes everyone.

This is where straw-men arguments confuse normal people. I don't believe that the laws outlawing the ownership or possession of any type of weapon is constitutional, period. The very clear and precise wording of the Second Amendment is hard to argue in an intellectually honest manner (i.e. not arguing up means down because "blah"). I also do not think it wise to allow everyday Joes access to unstable and unsafe nuclear materials. There was/is a simple, constitutional solution to this that the Courts were too weak to require but should of been mandated. After the discovery/invention of the atomic bomb a very clear and simple Constitutional Amendment should of been proposed that would except Nuclear, Chemical or other WMD's (Specifically defined) from the rights recognized in the Second Amendment. This would of been an easy sell, I cannot fathom who would of voted against it. But they didn't go this route, and I suspect it is because they didn't want to make it clear that this is the only legal route to restrict the Bill of Rights.

Given the speed in which publishing and distribution can happen in this day and age, I would say 10-15 years is about the maximum reasonable limit. Any longer than that and it is no longer serving society, only the copyright holder at the expense of society. If you can't make your work worthwhile in that amount of time, try harder next time or find a new business to be in.

You forgot the Rocky Horror Picture Show where they stop singing it abruptly right before they would of have to pay to license it.

This is where current copyright is unconstitutional on its face. It says "for limited times" to "the Authors and Inventors". A copyright term of "Life" granted to the Author is not limited from the perspective of that Author, it is unlimited. It is all the time they have in the world. So right there, in plain English, the law that was passed that extended the copyright term to be based on the life of the author/inventor is unconstitutional as Congress was not granted the power to secure for unlimited times the exclusive rights.

This is where current copyright is unconstitutional on its face. It says "for limited times" to "the Authors and Inventors". A copyright term of "Life" granted to the Author is not limited from the perspective of that Author, it is unlimited. It is all the time they have in the world. So right there, in plain English, the law that was passed that extended the copyright term to be based on the life of the author/inventor is unconstitutional as Congress was not granted the power to secure for unlimited times the exclusive rights.

I take it you've never seen or filled out the forms required or participated in the interviews necessary to get a government clearance. That alone is a lot of trouble. It's easiest when your young as you can actually remember all the details of your life and associations that they require you to disclose.