Even if the government itself never actively published anything, it would still be censorship to prevent someone else. Hypocrisy, no; censorship, yes.

The basic idea is that the Constitution is like a default-deny firewall. The government has no powers whatsoever, except those granted to it by the Constitution.

The modern trend of doing things like "well we can attach a dollar value to nearly anything at all, and the economy means we are all interconnected in some manner, so clearly the Commerce Clause means we can do whatever the fuck we want at any time!" disturbs me. I do not believe this was intended at all.

What does it take, exactly, for a Supreme Court judge to say "you know, maybe the federal government is big enough and powerful enough as it is, so maybe just maybe my ruling should make the case that the latest $power_expansion technique is going too far"? Like I said before, it would seem like you have to really believe in the system to get to be a Supreme Court judge. I don't really place much faith in systems. What I do believe is that it is inherently in the nature of authority and power to be abused, which is why all proposals to expand it must be regarded with the most extreme suspicion, while all proposals to reduce it are assumed good until proven otherwise.

I sincerely believe that the system does work that way, or in some manner very much like it, dominated by the international bankers such as those who run the Federal Reserve and other similar private banks operating in every 1st-world nation on the planet. They don't care about distraction (passion-sink) issues like the whole abortion debate, or the flag-burning of yesteryear. But every American President who tried to institute government-issued interest-free currency has been assassinated: Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, and JFK. That's because controlling a nation's currency means you can bring it to its knees without ever firing a single shot. That's real power with little risk, unlike a king or czar who could be overthrown. I believe they actually arrange these events Manchurian Candidate-style, or in the case of Lee Harvey Oswald, they just blame a patsy and invent some ridiculous story.

It amazes me how you can tell someone that a mugger might hurt or even kill for the $50 in a wallet, but if you suggest that powerful men play for keeps and are willing to kill over trillions of dollars and lots of power, then you're some kind of tin foil-hat wearing conspiracy nut. It's as though the media conditions us not to ever seriously consider the possibility, which gets really interesting when you consider there are about five corporations who control everything Americans see on TV, hear on the radio, or read in magazines and newspapers.

I merely temper this belief of mine with the fact that I have no solid proof of it. It is proper for a certain humility and meekness to go with that which you won't see me demonstrate when I know I can prove something. Having said that, I do believe that anyone who seriously looks into the matter with an open mind will come to the same conclusion. Not only will they come to that conclusion, they will realize that it's obvious. The problem is that most people are weak-hearted, intellectually and spiritually timid, and so they only believe what they want to believe and are prepared to believe. That isn't exactly a courageous search for truth.

So no, to more briefly answer your post: I don't easily close my mind to anything. The longer I live, the more I see for myself that some of the most absurd and inconceivable things are actually more true than anything one would consider comfortable and obvious. I wouldn't presume to place artificial limitations on a possibly infinite Universe that no one has begun to understand. It is the height of arrogance to say something can't be true without the ability to soundly falsify it. The farthest one can reasonably go is to say "I really don't know."

With a nearly unlimited budget, no need to sell a product or make a profit, some of the best and brightest talent in the world (they especially like math majors), and the ability to spy on and thus learn from nearly anyone ... well, they'd be pretty damned incompetent if they somehow aren't ahead of the mainstream. Make no mistake, "national security" is a very high-stakes game, these are people who play to win, and "winning" means superiority.

That is a conspiracy theory? Usually those involve aliens or globalists bankers and such. This? This is two plus two type of material.

Perhaps this is where I'm unusual. I play games sometimes, but I've never desired to make a video of my gameplay.

If I ever did that, well since it hasn't happened yet, it would be such a rare event that maximum performance and minimal overhead wouldn't be a big concern at all. I'd rather have a smaller, leaner, less bloated (and potentially less buggy) driver myself. I mean, I have an nVidia card and I do appreciate the ability to tweak the features and performance that their drivers offer, but that's also why as an nVidia customer I find myself (in the minority of?) people who want a driver to stick to its core functions.

Besides, I'm using Linux so I wouldn't be using Fraps. That too probably makes my situation unusual.

Did anyone else read that and think, "this does not belong in a device driver"?

Maybe it's a great idea that many people will use and there is no other possible way to accomplish this task in userspace. I'm open to that idea, but right now I just don't see the merit.

This is why the Senators were originally appointed by their respective states, not elected. Changing that was a very bad idea.

What if each electron is actually an entire universe, and by using more than necessary to transmit two posts, you have destroyed trillions of trillions?

There are only up to six degrees of separation (you know someone who knows someone is two) between yourself and any other human being on the planet. A greasy lawyer could probably make the case that every American has some connection to some foreigner at some time.

I'm a little surprised there are still people who believe in the USA, who don't think it's too far gone, who are willing to risk ruining their own life in an attempt to turn the situation around rather than making an escape plan by deciding which foreign country they want to migrate to before leaving becomes too difficult.

The arguments allowing the government to expand its power by legitimizing what it was doing anyway are the ones most likely to succeed these days.

Abusing eminent domain not because you need the land for a legitimate public purpose, but because Wal-mart pays more taxes (not building a bridge or a school, but taking it from one private entity and giving it to another private entity)? Sure, the SCOTUS gives that a nice seal of approval. Police placing GPS tracking devices on vehicles without warrants and without even suspecting a specific crime? Hell, go ahead. Requiring citizens to buy a product/service from a private company or be hit with a fine? Yeah, we like that too. Applying no ceiling at all to the "limited" term of a copyright? Why not?

That's the Surpreme Court these days. It seems they've never seen a fascist or oppressive policy they didn't like. Government is always the good guys, never abuses its power, and always has our best interests at heart, right? Maybe you don't get to be a judge, let alone such a prestigious one, without first believing in the system so hard that everything it does must be good. Heh, maybe new Supreme Court judges are shown a video of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before (that's a joke - with props to Bill Hicks).

The "Congress shall make no law" part means that Congress shall make no law like that described by the rest of a given amendment. This is pretty basic.

But hey, when you're a miserable person with lots of spite to vent, any target will do, right? That's why you don't bother providing an example or even a general idea of why you think I am wrong and how my mistake could be corrected. A constructive response wouldn't give you that false sense of superiority you so obviously crave.

You'll never, ever fill that void in your life this way. No matter how hard you try. Yes, you are that transparent. Now then, if you wish to discuss the Constitution like two gentlemen I would be glad to do so.

The purpose of being a Constitutional lawyer is to perform mental gymnastics creating exceptions to clearly-stated language such as "shall not infringe" and "shall make no law".

Replying to them and making it twice as visible that the word was used, does not further your cause. It does, however, let you show us that you're so much better and holier than them.

I don't like or agree with every term that everyone uses all the time myself. I just don't bitch about it. I don't tell others how they should express themselves because that's worse than any word they could use, and because I am not their lord and master. The only person I want to control is myself.

That this particular term "sheeple" gets so deeply and visibly under the skin of so many tells me something. It tells me that this word has power, that it's significant, that it must in fact do a very good job of connecting an ugly tendency with an ugly word. "Follower", "lemming", "droid", "trendy", "mindless automaton" etc. all describe the same thing, but for some reason it is the word "sheeple" that so many I'm-better-than-you types fixate on. That's all the more reason to use it.

If you believe that censorship is fundamentally wrong then you have two choices: 1) Be a hypocrite and pretend it's different when you do it, or 2) don't censor content on your own Web site either. This KWin maintainer is choosing the first option. What he doesn't seem to appreciate is easy enough to understand: if the trolls can cause him to abandon one of his core beliefs and make a hypocrite of himself, then that's a victory for the trolls and a defeat for himself. It reminds me of how certain nations respond to terrorism by eliminating freedoms -- if the terrorists want to do as much lasting harm as possible, then they must be delighted by that.

This near-obsession with treating government as a special case even when the discussion is about abstract principles is why you were confused. Government is only a special case when the discussion is about censorship via the legal system, because government is the only entity legally allowed to use force or threat of force to achieve its goals. A Web site operator isn't going to arrest a troll and throw him in jail so that just doesn't apply here. Said operator might, however, delete certain posts or ban certain users to effect censorship.

I think our society in general is losing the ability to think in terms of abstract principles (part of why privacy is eroding). This is why we have to rehash the same old "but but .. government!" discussion every single time censorship is mentioned regardless of context. It's a nearly indestructible meme it would seem. You will probably be fired if you tell your boss to go fuck himself and that, too, is a form of censorship. Anyway, this is like a GPL vs. BSD license discussion -- check the Slashdot archives and you'll find that every conceivable point and counterpoint has already been debated ad nauseum.