Not yet. However, there was a company that would take your measurements and it would cut all the pieces of cloth needed to build you a suit. All that was needed was a seamstress or tailor to sew the suit together. I could foresee cottage industries where custom clothes are built while you wait.

No, not yet. But you will be able to build yourself a custom tablet cover to protect your shiny new iPad .. for less than what BestBuy is charging for their piece of crap versions.

Not yet, but soon.

Why? because you're an ass?

Sounds like people don't like consequences of their own decisions to me. If you don't want god, then don't blame him for your choices. ;)

The one thing that my faith gives me, that Atheism/Science cabal has nothing of, is my humanity.

Science/Atheism gives me no such compunction to behave morally. None. It is completely AMORAL by definition. Or it is even worse, a collection of "my morals are more superior to your morals" conflicting moral viewpoints that have no cohesive binding moral authority behind it.

Yes, there are "moral" atheists, but it isn't Atheism that makes them moral. In fact, if one is Atheist and isn't looking out for self, then one is violating the whole Darwinian laws of nature. Further, we should be killing the weak and deformed and preventing them from breeding if we are truly "moral" atheists, as the intelligent goal would be to make the strongest possible organism via natural selection possible. It is immoral to allow such people to breed, let alone live, from a pure secular / scientific approach.

The problem with science is that when we solve one problem, we often create a dozen more that need solving. We found out that we can get energy from Nuclear Fission and Fusion, however the consequences are worse than the problem we solved. We solved a problem with crops by inserting genes and changing seeds and now gain more food production, but are you going to eat corn with Pesticides built into the plant? You trust Monsanto's Science?

Science has improved our lives for sure. It has also had a ton of unintended consequences, some of which we do not completely understand. However, nobody blames science for the ills that knowledge has caused.

Yeah, that is an insult, that some women aspire to.

You realize, the original Apple Logo was symbolic of the Genesis Story of Adam, Eve and the Snake ... right?

Citation needed.

Stop projecting your own cowardice

It isn't enough to sequestrate the CO2. Part of the sequestration will include O2 needed for life. It would be much better to plant billions of trees which free up the O2 for humans and animals. Please, do it naturally, as man made attempts are often very short sighted.

Snowden

Yes, someone that works in the DOD does have more power to affect change than I do as a citizen. Patriots are called criminals until they are vindicated by history. My point, when good people do nothing in the face of evil, evil triumphs. Mostly good people DO NOT want to be disruptive, which is why they are generally "good" people. The problem is, good people NEED to be disruptive to evil, even when it is personally perilous, this is true patriotism. This is not the Fox News kind of flag waving patriotism.

Actually, I would only care about outrunning the next slowest runner; hence invention of the track shoe

Fixing Class Action lawsuits, and other similar torts would be easy.

1) All Punitive damages are given to the state, to set up a compensation fund for victims, or to the General Fund.
2) Lawyers fees are not generated by Punitive Damages, 100% of all Punitive damages goes to the Compensation or General Fund
3) Actual Damages goes to the victims. 100% of them.
4) Legal Damages/Fees goes to the lawyers. These can be based on either/both Actual Damages, or Punitive Damages, but shall not exceed a certain percentage (10% suggested) but could be less.

This would take the "profit" motive of huge awards away from victims, and their lawyers. It would allow for juries to award punitive damages, to actually punish those that cause damages, while not rewarding victims with ridiculous windfall sums of money. These simple changes would help prevent lawsuit abuses. Especially in torts such as IP lawsuits. In the case of IP lawsuits, the one suing would actually have to show actual monetary "harm". This means they would have to have a working product/service or licensing scheme for their product. Sitting on a Patent and not making anything violates the whole idea of patents;

When the system no longer "Promtes progress of science and useful arts" ... it is broken.

Good people allowing bad things to happen because they believe the lies that the bad things are actually good, allowing their consciences to be eased. If you saw one thing that was evil, and did nothing, you are as complicit as the evil people the rest of us believe are running those organizations.

Liberty takes eternal vigilance. Anything less, walks us slowly down the path of tyranny. We've walked down that path so long that people crying for liberty seem like the loons while those people who are usurping liberty look like our saviors.

And the tyrants always cloak their deeds in legality.

People like you, who did nothing, saw nothing, are the ones I hate the most. You allowed evil in the false premise that it was "good" . But I understand, you were just following orders.

We all know that Newspapers and even to some degree, TV and Radio are "Old School" news reporting. It is filtered and biased news sources now. People make fun of Fox News and MSNBC, and places like CNN, NYT and Washington Post for their bias, but that has always been the case, they are just getting caught more, in their lies and lies of omission. It is treating the public as infantile ignorant boobs, because that is how they view the public. Granted, a large portion of the populace is more interested in the latest misdeeds of Ms Cyrus than who is killing who in Syria.

Here is a great example of the bias in "traditional news media" http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/16/time-mag-hides-putins-success-from-u-s-voters/

While I'm aware that Time magazine often has different covers for different regions, this one is one that exposes the bias and the assumption that Americans care less about Putin (and Syria) than a sports story.

The problem is, many Americans, and people around the world, are bypassing the old guard simply because they aren't getting the "real" story, but rather one that has been massaged and twisted for easy consumption by the masses. These news organizations put forth "AR-15" during the recent shooting at the Naval Shipyard in DC, along with descriptions that were simply no accurate to who the shooter was, and are now ignoring the mental illness aspect of the story because none of that fits the narrative (bias) they want to portray.

It would be comical if it weren't so blatant. I do not trust anything that has been filtered, or run through the media machine. Things like Twitter and Blogs provide a mess of opinion and facts, but are pure and raw in a way that provides a better and more balanced view of the events as they unfold. The old guard media is still concerned with controlling the flow of information, in a world without any controls on that flow. They are going to lose.

"surveillance can identify you"

Indeed, that is my point. We live in a surveillance society. Everyone with their cell phones, security cameras everywhere. Short of wilderness, you are being watched, either intentionally or collaterally.

"The simple trick is to avoid traveling to Orwellian states where people still value their privacy"

You must mean third world nations. Most Western Countries are "surveillance societies", where you are under the ever watchful electronic eye. Here is a quick test, take out your smartphone (if you have one), make 100 photos today of every day items, and one video of something interesting, and try not to have any person in any of them. Which means, you've likely captured someone unwittingly.

I did not equate Freedom of Speech with Bombing. I equated being in public (Freedom of Speech) with being in public (Terrorist Bombing) using two different scenarios (mentioned), showing that being unidentified is not the same as being anonymous. Being in public isn't anonymous and you are not "Not Identifiable". Being in public you can only be "unidentified". Critical Thinking indeed.