The American Revolution was really a war of secession, it didn't even attempt to take the war to London, overthrow Parliament or get rid of the King. Just get rid of the influence of London and create an independent country with its own government.
There has been quite a few successful wars of secession though many have ended up as authoritarian dictatorships, some such as India and Ireland have became democracies.

That's a crock if ever I've seen one.

Carter had it tough because he wasn't really up to the job and was a slow learner when dealing with the Soviets. Oddly enough Obama is reliving that with the Russians.

I would think that well-regulated would include "could reasonably be trusted to obey the chain of command and not just decide for themselves who to fight when, where, and how, and to not be as big a threat to the general populace as any invading army".

Which is why the Second doesn't start out "A bunch o' likkerd up good ol' boys with shootin' irons, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

There are man-portable WMD.

He probably would have been okay with it if the writing was on papyrus, and not on a tablet.

definitely not.

Yep, and you need a 30-100 MB app for pretty much every little task you do. A good OS, built the right way, provides a strong set of basic tools that can be used together to do almost anything the user wants. Personally, I *do* want a real OS on a tablet - because there are just way too many real-world tasks that tablets either can't do at all or can only do with ridiculous levels of complexity and frustration. Real filesystems are just the beginning. FWIW, I'd rank the usability of tablet OSes for real-world use as first, Full Windows, then WinRT closely followed by IOS, with Android bringing up the rear. If there were a Chrome tablet (and WHY ISN"T THERE?), it would likely fall between the two Windows versions, and Ubuntu could well grab the lead if they can find any good hardware to optimize for...

Mark Shuttleworth and the rest of the Ubuntu guys get this, and that's why they're plowing ahead no matter the naysayers. Also, "full-fat" doesn't necessarily mean actually fat - IIRC, the first Unix System 7 CAD workstation I used had 4 MB of RAM, a huge 40 MB hard disk, and a stunning 1 MIP 68K processor with an incredible 1280x1024 display. Today's mobile processors have compute power only found in supercomputers not many years ago. Look at Puppy to see how slim you can make a "full-fat" Linux OS, even with a modern kernel and apps...

BTW, no OS exists in today's tablet/GUI world to let you easily snap together your own tools from a rich set of components - that requires GUI integration of the stream/operator paradigm as implemented in UNIX (but with different syntax and semantics making the gozintas and gozouttas intuitive), transparently merged with the browser and able to leverage not only local, but also remote web assets and applications. Add touch and non-touch dynamic gestural interfaces, and you've really got something...

I think the accuracy of capacitive is inherently better. Plus, since the screen isn't inset behind a bevel, it's much easier to get at the edges of the screen.

it doesn't matter. your arguments are moot, because you can have nuclear weapons.

Sure it does. It's called bullying.

if you banned guns in the u.s. there would be a civil war, and millions would die.

I thought this was something we could use to exterminate all those smug bastards yakking on phones while driving or in line at Starbucks.

Actually that sounds about right for some targets.

firing the entire team and canceling this product and production of 770(with linux) probably were connected(770 was out only short few years after this. and by the way all the guys connected to 770 r&d early on for some friggin reason thought that all the phones would be running it's OS by 2007, completely failing to understand how s60 phones managed to be cheap).

because hey, it's Nokia. such politics were always the name of the game after 2000. it wasn't about which teams were best at producing code, ui's or whatever. it was just politics. and as a consequence they had thousands of developers but still politics had made it so that key developers were all subcontractors(for pumping money to people whos companies those subcons worked for. mind you, the actual workers weren't getting the fat slices)

They were afraid the computers would steal their souls through their tax returns.

Conservatives believe taxes alone do that. The computer would be redundant :-)

Australia death by violence may have declined, but in the U.S. it would mean civil war, and violent death would be everywhere.

The least they could have done was to pony up for some Google Glass.

At least the homeless could have pawned them for some spending money.

I wish folks would stop using Australia as an example. In the context of (dis)arming civilians, we Australians are a completely different culture. There was no big war with the natives (the British Empire pretty much rolled over them), there was no revolutionary war of independence, there was no civil war, and there was no second amendment. America's populace has always had far more firepower than Australia's ever did.

So it's very easy to claim comparatively huge percentage increases when the raw numbers are comparatively small. Basically, anyone who uses Australian crime statistics to push for arming or disarming Americans has drunk someone's kool-aid.

Current printing technology provides one the ability to print a lot of documents "easily and are far easier to use". So, yeah, it is a fair comparison. In fact, "the press" can spread false information far faster than any group could kill, though none of that matters. "Want" and "need" is of no business, and isn't applicable, when discussing any individual rights. Perhaps you don't know the actual definition of a "right", in the context discussed here.

If you make $80k and save 10% every year in your 401k, you'll easily be a millionaire in 30 years.

http://www.bloomberg.com/perso...

Furthermore, things don't magically get better with defined benefit plans; if you were to get a pension for the same amount, you effectively have to save up the same amount of money somewhere, except that other people likely will take a substantial chunk of it away.

Ya, now we are treated like metadata.

i don't know, how about sales of devices not needing a stylus vs those that do

26 million ipads vs approx 1.5 surface devices [need to guess as Apple is the only vendor who reports sales in a way that legal obliges them to not lie]

and that ignores the millions on Android devices that also don't use stylus.

How about you proving zillions of people want and/or prefer to use a stylus to interact with their tablet?

In what way? I have personally found that there is not much difference between the two since they are both Word processors. Of course if you want professional documents you could always go for LaTeX which is surprisingly easy to use since you only need a text editor or you can use a graphical interface as well, however there are commercial type setter software packages as well. It really depends what the user or organisation require (Note: I did not use the word "want", there is a huge difference) to get the job done.

Again how are these products bad? They both can do some quite amazing things with images since they are both image manipulation software.

I don't think it is a matter of "free open source software" (or FOSS) outdoing commercial software since it would be difficult for FOSS to match a commercial company in features and they also run the risk (especially in the US) of infringing software patents. However if a FOSS product will do everything that the user or organisation requires then why spend money on the commercial software,

As for poor UI's you should elaborate on that. If the UI does the job efficiently then what is the problem? What do you expect a "telepathic" or some other "magical" interface? :)

How language was used at the time any amendment(or law, for that matter) is ratified is the only "use of language" that matters. One will see such discussions occur during legal challenges(if the judge or judges actually care to do their job as required by their oath, and not applying personal political interest in their work) over how a word was used during the time a law or amendment was written/ratified. The wording could be clearer, sure; though, the wording is clear enough to discover the intent when the Second Amendment was written and ratified. The only people that claim the meaning of the Second Amendment isn't clear are either ignorant of how to utilize research, or are attempting to argue against the protections of the already existing Right(the Second Amendment, like all other such amendments, provides no new right, or rights; it only protects a right, or rights, that have always existed.).

I am not going to delve into the meaning of the Second Amendment, or any other legal discussions. I am not here to educate people that won't bother to do a slightest bit of research. There is a lot of information available, almost all of it is available online. It would do everyone well to read the available information, as it affects us all.