Well it says that you have the right to secure your persons, houses, papers, and effects. It doesn't say anything about cell phones. If the founding fathers had wanted you to have privacy on your cell phone, I'm sure they would have put something in there about that.
The answer, of course, is "money". People will go see this. Or if they don't, it's because they did a bad job of following the formulas. The summer blockbuster formula has worked out pretty well. People like watching stuff blow up, even if they could have predicted what would blow up and what it would look like before they paid $13 for a ticket.
Battleship took in $300,000,000. It cost $200,000,000 to make. That's "why". People recognized the name, and hoped to combine their love of stuff blowing up with their fond memories of a game they used to play. They get a little charge out of the connections. It's worth $13 and two hours of their time.
I could see this doing equally well. I can't say if it's the best use of the studio's quarter-billion-dollar investment, though it should be a reasonable one. It's more likely than some unknown script, which even if people really like it stands a very small chance of making more than $300 million without the extra name recognition.
I probably won't be seeing it. Maybe I will; I saw the Lego movie, and it was pretty good (though I paid no more than my Netflix monthly subscription fee for it). I'd rather see them spend their money on something with a bit more merit, but that's just me.
Otherwise, it's just lip service. Your government is already ignoring your Constitution on a large scale, but apparently nobody gives a damn
I am not American, still, I do truly believe that hundreds of millions of Americans do give a damn.
The problem is not giving a damn. The problem is that guns are a stupid way to try and change governments, and everyone there must intuitively understand this. I keep reading comments by 2nd amendment fundamentalists saying they're packing guns so they can overthrow the government
The first problem is that if you go it alone, if you're a solo shooter, you can't achieve anything and will be killed immediately, then written off as mentally unstable. This does happen in the USA and in at least one case the shooter did claim they were rebelling against the government. Regardless, such events are zero impact.
The second problem is that if you try to team up with like minded people and form a group of armed citizens who are going to engage in a revolutionary coup, you will need to communicate in order to find such people, and at that point you are very likely to attract the attention of law enforcement who have totalitarian surveillance powers and the ability to move against "cults" or "terrorists". And almost by definition if you're trying to overthrow the government through force of arms instead of the ballot box you can be described as a domestic terrorist. You will end up sitting in jail for many years, and most people will likely never hear of you, or if they do read about your case in the papers they will just forget about you.
The third problem is that if you do somehow overcome the first two problems and succeed in forming some kind of revolutionary militia, taking over some territory and defending it against the US army in a new American civil war, you will need a system of government for that territory. How exactly you prevent that new government from eventually going the same way as the existing government would be an open question - attempting to encode the principles of the new state in a constitution apparently doesn't work very well, and I don't see many other ideas from the "guns give us freedom!!" crowd. This is the problem repeatedly encountered by countries in the Middle East where governments are overthrown (without guns, normally) and then tend to get immediately replaced with something worse.
So for these reasons the notion that Americans are free because of guns just doesn't seem to line up with common sense, to me. I cannot imagine any situation in which civil war in the USA would be allowed to happen - civil war is so universally catastrophic that an overwhelming majority of American's would strongly support forcible suppression of an armed uprising using all the tools of a professional army. Your Glock ain't gonna do anything against a Predator drone.
First of all, GEGL will definitely be in the next version of GIMP... second of all, once GEGL is complete (which is again slated for the next version of GIMP), virtually all of those additional features will suddenly become feasible to implement where the previous architecture of GIMP made them untenable (and why no progress has been made so far, or often very little), and they will probably come into play quite quickly afterwards, You may be right that not very many may get in for the next version, but because of what GEGL opens up the possibility to do within GIMP, the release cycle between 2,10 and future stable versions that implement such functionality will be much lower than the time frame between 2.8 and 2.10.
In other words, not very far at all.
Quite possibly... I've been driving for 25 years and never received any ticket for going too fast, nor given any kind of ticket or warning for ever going too slow, except in online forums such as slashdot, and only by people who object to those who might diligently pay attention to what the traffic law expects.
If I were ever dinged for going too slow when I was actually traveling the speed limit, I would challenge the ticket, win, and the issuing officer would probably get a reprimand for being an asshole.
Why does everybody assume the solution to threatening vehicles on the road like drunks or an SUV behind you is to speed up?
Honestly, I wonder the same thing.
Well I think what's most likely happening is, they're taking some random crappy scifi movie and shoe-horning some Tetris concept into it. Why? Because some jackasses will watch it just to see "the Tetris movie". It's the "Snakes on a Plane" brand of marketing. If you can't market your movie as being a good movie, market it as being a funny ironic bizarre movie.
This reminds me of the Golgafrinchans in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe. (Obviously some spoilers in there if you haven't read it)
You need contact/exchange of body fluids.
Right... *CONTACT*... this includes things like sweat, which can happen anywhere on the skin, so yes, it can be transmitted simply by touching someone who has it.