Most libertarians have no problem with drones - they're cheaper to operate than manned aerial vehicles, and have a lot more on-station time. Nobody will argue with drones being sent to find someone lost in the woods.

The problem arises when drones are "on patrol" with narrowband radar looking into houses on fishing expeditions. And so the question remains - what appropriate checks and balances exist search with court permission?

It's good, but a Halberd does 1-10 damage.

As far as the coolest name, the Bohemian Ear Spoon wins.

The would deprive us of watching another Darl McBride style train wreck!

Seriously, I learned a lot about the legal system from the "SCO Stupid" (sm). Other than that, I agree, common sense ... about something at last.

Really now, don't provoke "the man" unless you're willing to take it, and see it through to the end.

It's like wearing an offensive shirt elsewhere and getting called on it. Man up, or suck it up.

Some animals are more equal than others.

T420, gen 2 i5 processor, base model except for the high res screen. It's fast, quiet, and has long battery life. And it can be found for under $800 with 4 GB of RAM and a pretty fast 320 gb hdd.

Running Ubuntu 11.04 and now 11.10 on it, no issues at all. Battery life on the stock kernels is about 4 hours for just typing and surfing.

The version of X that shipped with 11.04 did have the intel GMA system hang issue, but it was rare, and could be reduced even further by setting i915.semaphores=1 on the kernel command line. 11.10 does not have an issue, with or without that setting though.

Never mind those silly details like due process and unreasonable search & seizure . We're talking terrorism here, so it's straight off to room 101 with you.

Well, I guess this had to happen. Full fail for street level cameras for billions, so the only option left is to go full retard.

One cannot even argue that this is a responsible use of public funds:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6082530/1000-CCTV-cameras-to-solve-just-one-crime-Met-Police-admits.html

Of course, tourist photos must be deleted though, you know, in the name of public safety. Where is the "shake my head in disbelief" animated icon again?

This sounds tongue-in-cheek, but is really a serious question. On one hand, you have the notion of ignorance is no excuse although there are precedents now stating if you're famous, that's okay. There are precedents for secret treatises for national security, like the withdrawal of missiles from Turkey at the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis. But how would the mechanics of enforcement work?

Will the FBI kick in your door, shoot your dog, and haul you off for breaking a secret law?

Would they need a secret warrant?

If you ever got your day in court, would that court be secret too, to protect that law?

----

Now for Canada: A judge last year tossed out a RIAA style copyright suit because the defendant had made CDs. As everyone knows, Canada has a special tax on blank media to reimburse the copyright holders for piracy that may or may not happen. Kind of like paying a partial speeding ticket before you get into your car each day. Since this implies guilt, the defendant was deemed to have been punished already, and was so exempt from being convicted again.

How would the secret treaty work in Canada? Change the laws secretly?

Positive for the toll-booth operators in CA, of course. More fines!

Yes, I do get the picture. YOU want to ban things YOU find offensive, because YOU know better than anyone else, comrade.

Driving cars with poor gas mileage, or more to the topic, with glass that's not the most efficient for air conditioning, is a societal problem?

Yikes, that's a scary precedent.

What else do you think is a serious societal problem?

Where do you stop meddling in my choices as to the products I buy? I can't buy it because you don't "approve"? Can I buy a pickup truck, or do I need to "prove" I am a farmer?

Or will you make me take transit?

The market will stop making things that people don't buy. The only cars I recall seeing with glass like that were the old lincolns with the orange windows that the old people drove.

As far as your nanny state retort: There are people who believe that people ought to be left to their own choices in life, good or bad. And there are people who believe that their choices must be made for them, because they know better than the person they're deciding for. You have made an argument for the latter.

Problems start when people who are under your control rightfully abrogate their responsibilities to you too - you see, when you can't decide, you shouldn't hold them responsible. So they sit on their butts, whine about benefits, and make babies in the meantime. Because they whine about not being responsible, they're making everyone else feel bad, so you repress them - speak your mind, fewer, or no benefits. Your money runs low anyways with that much drag on the system, so all you can make are Trabant cars with cardboard hoods. Until the money runs out. Now what?

I don't understand why he would, and he didn't, or else we'd have heard about it on CNN. It's probably facetious on your part, or you're ignorant about non-gangsta's with guns.

Law-abiding gun owners (and unless proven otherwise, he's still law-abiding) don't wave those things around, you know.