It needs to be more sophisticated than that.

For example, in the automotive industry, you DO NOT void your warranty (no matter what the dealer tries to pull on you) by installing a K&N air filter. But you DO void your warranty by reboring the cylinders and putting in oversized pistons. This is all regulated and the manufacturers don't get to just decide you void your warranty if you sneeze inside the car, the way computer industry manufacturers do.

What we need here is common sense regulatory involvement. Apple needs to be told to quite the ridiculous arms race and just let 0.01% of people run weird software on their hardware - just like GM needed to be told that bolt-on upgrades don't void the powertrain warranty.

You might as well ask why people read newspapers, when hardcover books have better typography.

Netflix streaming is as good or better than any other kind of streaming, but nobody ever claimed it would be as good as discs. If you want the highest possible quality, stick to Blu-Ray ... which Netflix also offers.

They have a script. Their decision to avoid CGI *and green screens* is pretty radical, considering that their script is interstellar space opera.

So what do you want to do about it? Deny them access to education so they don't get so uppity?

In theory, everyone is. States with a sales tax also have a use tax, which is a tax payable directly by the consumer to the state on items they purchase and do not pay sales tax on at the time of purchase.

It's just that nobody actually pays it.

Funny how none of the Ron Paulies seem to mind when the "partisan" Supreme Court comes out with decisions that favor their positions. If you don't like Roe vs Wade, just come out and say it - don't hide behind this farcical mask of constitutional respectability.

There is also a mechanism for determining the intent and interpretation of the Constitution: Get a decision from the Supreme Court. It really is that easy!

It isn't a straw man. It shows that the attitudes, beliefs, morals and values of the framers of the Constitution were not in line with what we now believe to be correct.

Why not just ask if they've stopped beating their wife? The way you ask the question allows for no reasonable answer. The correct answer is that the Constitution rightly endows the Supreme Court with the power to interpret and explain its provisions, that this power has been used since the dawn of the Republic, and that Ron Paul's reading of settled law as "unconstitutional" is simply a method of pandering to his supporters. And furthermore, that the US Constitution is itself a flawed document, containing provisions which are no longer supportable or even ethical in the modern age (most notably, the three-fifths of a man compromise).

I sure hope the linked article is just bad journalism, rather than a reflection of what anyone connected to the program actually said. A successful launch does not demonstrate that the vehicle is safe, any more than winning at roulette shows it to be a wise investment.

The program may be, and probably is, safe - but the proof is in the details of the quality program, not the mere fact that the rocket didn't blow up this time.