Well that's the problem, isn't it? X-raying some guy to check him for explosives doesn't guarantee you a safe flight.

If you want to guarantee a safe flight, don't let anyone on the plane. If you want to guarantee a safe world, kill off all the humans.

"I say we take off, and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

How about to fact-check the bullshit that the lawyers are spewing...?

Because the lunch meeting my congressman has with the lobbyist is more important to him than my letter and the donations that large companies make to political campaigns are greater than the amount I can donate to the EFF. Any better ideas?

"It's not my fault that Buttle's heart condition didn't appear on Tuttle's file!"

We have bigger problems. That's exactly what I am asserting here. Even if they act according to the law, the laws are not always themselves fair, so that's not even a good starting point.

That's a big presumption. You're also presuming that they act ethically, reasonably, and neutrally in their interpretations of the law. That certainly isn't always the case. Even if individuals are just doing their jobs properly, the system itself is built on laws written by lobbyists. The appropriate people to "take it up with" don't listen to anything but money. Money equals free speech in America and having more money than others means that you have more free speech than others.

This is a part of a series of extralegal actions by government agents with corporate representatives "advising" on the operations. Previous actions in this series have involved arrests and confiscations of property and violations of due process and, worst of all, the systemization of such actions with little opposition from the other branches of the government that supposedly serve to balance power and restrict abuses.

Feel free to quote the laws to which you're referring in which DHS is permitted to seize domains and also feel free to explain how the ICE are "the relevant authorities."

There's no cognitive dissonance in what you described. IP is not real property and copyright infringement is not theft. The DHS/ICE overstepping their authority and jurisdiction does not suddenly make IP real property or make copyright infringement theft. And while your characterization of the people with whom you disagree is a straw-man, they are perfectly justified in feeling outraged that the fundamental basis of the rule of law is being undermined for the sake of big companies with obsolete business models.

But this article is about tablets being used in business environments. You just negated the entire point of the article if you're claiming Android tablets are for business and iPads are for pleasure.

BTW, does your iPad not have spellcheck either?

30 months for DDOS attacks is unreasonable in comparison to less than 2 years with good behavior for shooting a handcuffed man in the back and killing him.

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/11/05/bart-cop-mehserle-ge.html

I may disagree with the veracity of your attribution, but I will defend to mild inconvenience your right to repeat a famous misquotation.

Voltaire didn't actually say that.

"The most oft-cited Voltaire quotation is apocryphal. He is incorrectly credited with writing, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” These were not his words, but rather those of Evelyn Beatrice Hall, written under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre in her 1906 biographical book The Friends of Voltaire."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire#cite_ref-18

Not that they should, but the textbook industry does add quite a bit of value to the academic experience if your instructors just teach from the text, use quizzes provided by the publisher, and only provide their own feedback when there are questions.

That being said, I'm all for instructors having to actually develop the material for their courses. The problem is that they can claim they don't have time to develop their courses alone because they're teaching so many students because enrollment is up and they don't want to turn anyone away if they don't have to. Though this will depend on the type of college.

The funny thing is to hear these instructors complain that distance learning is killing their jobs because it's really just exposing the fact that they're choosing to only be conduits of information rather than actual teachers who develop coursework.

Careful, your slippery slope is showing.

I'm not sure why you're a registered Republican based on the issues you mention. While both Democrats and Republicans seem typically interested in maintaining political power and supporting the interests of their corporate sponsors, the Republicans tend to have the worst record on the issues you're opposed to. They support the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, and big government when it suits them.

The alternative to being treated like wards of the government is being treated like slaves of the corporations. If you're opposed to either, then we need to play them off each other instead of letting them play us off of either of them.

If you vote Republican, you're voting against your own interests. Many Republicans already do that (for instance the Tea Party patriots who vote Republican and think that Glenn Beck is some kind of grass roots patriot and not a millionaire blowhard more akin to a televangelist).

I don't like the Democrats either, but they tend to be the lesser of two evils.

RTFA again. He said he would install it and they would remove it. While your point about how doing this could possibly get him fired still stands, he's talking about only having the students remove it.

No, it just means they're always biased and will use the truth to manipulate the legislative process to favor their interests. The most dangerous lies are 99% true.