Of course not, they also need skills. Which apparently you don't have.

The US is allegedly a rich country, that your government chooses not to help is the problem.

We choose not to have the government help much, because government is inherently wasteful.

Instead many Americans donate money to charitable organizations that waste far less of the money, so more people obtain help... America by far has the highest rate of donation to charity.

I've always wondered how god-fearing republicans can choose to not the help poor people

That's where you are utterly, terribly wrong - I am an independent, and do not attend church. But I know a lot of "god-fearing republicans" that donate a large amount of charity, plus every church I've every know has lots of missionary work they do to help the poor.

In fact if you look at statistics you'll find that Republicans donate quite a lot more (on average thousands more) than Democrats do - because like you they don't really care about helping the poor, they just want to feel like they are.

How does that disprove that it is the true descendant?

The damage was done ... the fork was good and right. It's lovely that some attempt was made to right the ship later, but sometimes it's just too late.

The whole "ignore them and just pretend that we are the only real deal" thing didn't work at the time of the split, and it probably won't work now. It's kind of childish, really.

+1

Evolution doesn't try to explain how life began.
It is therefore funny to me thatsome people think there's a contradiction between evolution and ancient stories about how it began. Even more odd, some people assume the HOW is incompatible with ideas about WHY life exists. Those are three separate questions.
   

Here in Canada, we use common law as the basis of our legal code. So the wording really interesting, what you're actually missing is the case law behind how the law has developed and why mischief is actually a fairly serious crime on the books here. If you're actually interested, you can go over here and start looking through the vast library of it.

Anyway, for your analogy, that comes under several different laws. Mischief(interrupting the cable service on your end), theft of service(from the provider and to you), B&E(altering the state of your house), probably possessing tools to commit the BE(another law), peeking through the windows(invasion of privacy). But it does actually align with the definition in relation to data just fine, since the case law data has defined this clearly. It's also just as important in common law that the law itself clearly defines what is, and isn't. And in this case, with the previous cases of mischief of people "capturing data" in an unauthorized way, section 1.1(c) is what will most likely be applied.

RCMP compared to say? OPP and issues with let's say...oh...Caledonia? Or several other issues? Let's run away, away, run away way. Let's arrest the other non-native protesters so we don't enflame the natives? Doesn't get better when the OPP are involved or the courts either here in Ontario. How about Ipperwash? When the natives were shooting at the police, and they had it on film, and the courts refused to hear the evidence? I've have a friend who was in the military at the time and she was shot at while her helicopter was doing a flyover. They refused to allow evidence of that in too.

Or how about the CBSA, when they stopped hundreds of american natives coming into Canada with guns? The RCMP arrested them but the courts let them go and where did they end up? Ipperwash shooting at the OPP, at the RCMP, and at the CF's. Please, the RCMP has problems without a doubt, but they're not a patch on either what goes on with the natives, some of the serious issues with the courts, or even with the provincial police forces when the government jams their fingers in and tells them to "back off."

Protip: In Canada, the courtroom is owned by the judge. Not the crown, the crown can offer whatever they want. The judge however can slap them with whatever sentence they want, that however can end up before the superior court(think state level supreme), which may decrease the sentence or even increase it if they think it isn't severe enough.

Here in Canada, we use common law as the basis of our legal code. So the wording really interesting, what you're actually missing is the case law behind how the law has developed and why mischief is actually a fairly serious crime on the books here. If you're actually interested, you can go over here and start looking through the vast library of it.

Anyway, for your analogy, that comes under several different laws. Mischief(interrupting the cable service on your end), theft of service(from the provider and to you), B&E(altering the state of your house), probably possessing tools to commit the BE(another law), peeking through the windows(invasion of privacy). But it does actually align with the definition in relation to data just fine, since the case law data has defined this clearly. It's also just as important in common law that the law itself clearly defines what is, and isn't. And in this case, with the previous cases of mischief of people "capturing data" in an unauthorized way, section 1.1(c) is what will most likely be applied.

Come on man, the police only quit him after somebody ordered the snipers to open fire on the crowd. And the police/army didn't even do anything to him except go home. Nobody overthrew or dragged him out or anything; he fled. They stripped him of the Presidency for abandoning his post. I'm sure we, or Russia, or any other country would do the same, and appoint a temp President that same day. (Did they have a Vice President?)

One thing that tells me that the Maidan was legit was their behavior in the hours after he fled. Everything was wide open, and they didn't loot shit. That was real grass roots, and just because Western powers stuck their fingers in it, doesn't make the protesters any less noble.

And Yanukovich was crooked as shit. You don't contest that, do you? He was Russia's man, and even Putin doesn't want anything to do with him now.

But speaking of Putin, and why I'm replying to you; I must admit, I really like him. He speaks clearly; he makes sense; he's not obviously lying to me through the TV like most of my Presidents have. He might be lying, say, about those guys that weren't Russian servicemen in Crimea. But all I've really got is known liars accusing him of lying. Russia should have gotten Crimea, unless we're really considering giving it back to Turkey. They tried to vote before, but Kiev put them down, and Gorbachev/Yeltsin was in no position to do anything about it. I wish Russia would have bought it, and let the Ukrainians vote on it (Yes, a bought vote is still a vote. They could have traded their gas bill.). But I think Yanukovich's pussiness in fleeing really caught Putin off guard, and he had to do something very quickly. Whatever happens to Ukraine, Crimea was never on the table, and it's been critical to Russia's security, and a part of Russia, for the entire modern era. What we saw in Crimea was what Putin could come up with in a week. One Ukrainian died I think.Not bad actually.

And I must remind Americans that if it were Mexico we were talking about, and not Ukraine, we would be freaking the fuck out. Kind of like we did in Cuba.

Liar. Feinstien did say he should be killed. The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Again, you either lie, or perhaps live in a dream world. Legally, he could have made no case for the defense of what he did, nor had a public trial. In the secret trial he would have eventually had, his defense would have been limited to personal stuff; Constitutionality is not a permissible defense here.

Right there, your BS becomes clear. He never had any credibility, before or after (actually he does have some now, since federal judges and others have agreed with his premise); he's just some dude. The credibility is in the leaked documents; either they are true, or not. Anything beyond that, especially disparaging the messenger, is only intended to obfuscate the truth revealed in the documents, which he did not create himself. In these parts, we call that an 'Ad hominem'.

And what the hell does that have to do with us and our Constitution? It tells me that he had 2 goals: End our surveillance state, and keep as much of his life as possible. Goal 1; he did what he could, and as to goal 2; there are exactly 2 places on this Earth where the CIA won't touch him. He went first to one, and then the other. No one else would take him. (And as far as the security of the West goes, I'm far less afraid of Russia than China. He made the right choice between the two.)

As if the leak itself wasn't a 'propaganda tool', yet his simple question is. But exactly what propaganda was there, in either his question, or Putin's answer? His question was legitimate, and he obviously believes in the cause enough to give up a cushy life in the US to live as a house slave on the outskirts of Moscow.

And Putin's answer wasn't propaganda either. He said plain as day that they don't have the money or the gadgets to do it, and that it also would be against the law. All 3 of those things are true in Russia right now. We are so quick to throw the propaganda word around, I think we forgot that it's supposed to mean something when we say it.

I know you want to tell me that Putin would if he could. That has what to do with what?

First of all, sorry about your not closing the quoting tag you used. I do that sometimes, and it's so sad to see all your hard work obscured under an italic fog... so I thought I would at least respond in detail to help make up for it.

The charging point you make is a great one. There are some powered mounts that you can plug a phone into, but they require more work to fit... I prefer a general mount you can use with separate power so that as I change phones I can maintain the same mount.

A really excellent non powered mount is the FlexPod, if a model exists for your car... it's very sturdy and is not obtrusive when not in use.

If notifications are an issue you can usually set the phone to something like Do Not Disturb mode. But I've never had that really cause issues.

Now about the Garmin device giving great directions - that may be true, dedicated devices have had a while to build good nav systems. I personally use Apple Maps and find the navigation for that works pretty well, it also gives land guidance... (it was better than Google Maps for navigation from Day One).

But, there also exists a Garmin dedicated app with offline maps. You get all of the Garmin benefits you detailed, only it's easier to update,

And you can switch to Waze when not needing navigation (I totally agree with you about Waze navigation not working very well). As you say, nothing beats the Waze Police/Hazard alerts.

I'm guessing you're heterosexual then?

Please point out the part of the US Constitution that says the Federal Government can't spy on foreign countries, then justify Snowden's leaking of intelligence methods and sources that had nothing whatsoever to do with American domestic civil liberties.