Here's the problems with what you're saying: everything. First, you're asking one group to cover a service they really, really don't use for another group

Incorrect. They are covering a service for another group but for the purpose of getting that other group out from behind the wheel of a vehicle. In other words: they are increasing their own safety, and increasing the safety of all drivers and all people being driven by orders of magnitude, when ensuring that all drivers meet higher standards.

I am suggesting that driving be made a much more difficult privilege to get, so possibly the average person in society would be unable to get the privilege, in order to reduce the accident rate to a miniscule amount.

And in exchange, for becoming privileged those that are capable of getting the privilege, have to pay for in effect, everyone else to get a driver, to totally compensate for the inconvenience and privilege they are being denied, which benefits the drivers by getting these other people out from behind the wheel of a vehicle.

You do realize that impeachment must occur as a result of a violation of a specific law on the books, not some general "he has over stepped his bounds".

How about falsely swearing to an Oath?

Swearing to protect the constitution, and then intentionally taking actions which can be seen to be violations or infringements of it clear as day.

Such as infringements on the prohibition against restricting free speech, and infringements on the 4th amendment.

So, this man decided to take the law into his own hands and disclose an important Top Secret intelligence program on the basis of vigilante justice. So much for the rule of law.

I don't think you can speak to the rule of law, when by definition... the programs were created in a manner that bypasses the rule of law.

He says, "they have a spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent."

In China? Sure.... as long as your political dissent isn't in opposition to the Chinese government and their rules and standards.

You can have dissent from the opinions of other non-China govenrments

Obviously well armed civilians would lose to the military and police. But the civilian guns do offer a huge protection in my opinion, they force the military to actually kill the civilian.

Any battle in which the military is killing innocent American people, is a battle they are losing, because the public doesn't support this, and those responsible are probably going to be going to jail.

I which case tear gas, water cannons and eventually Apaches and Riot control tanks would smash the patriots to smithereens...

In other words, a US Tiananmen Square massacre?

Try well-armed patriots that are also well-armored with gas masks and full body armor... defenses against chemical and psychological weapons.

But at some point, someone needs to drill it in Linus's head that Linux isn't "his" anymore. Not solely anyway.

He's still leading the project. If you want to be a maintainer or contributor, you either follow his rules, or you fork the project and start your own.

for 50 years, the federal government has taxed nuclear fuel to build a permanent waste depository. where is it?

It's in Obamacare somewhere.

You understand what "release candidate" is right? A release candidate is not a time for adding new enhancements. It should be for streamlining and tightening the code for release.

That "streamlinin and tightening the code" is the problem; he wants only bugfixes for critical issues, not code cleanup and no minor bugfixes.

Actually; I suspect one of the issues, is the company has to be sure that they know exactly who will be bringing recording equipment in, and the company needs to make certain that they get a copy of every recording made, so that they can preserve that recording, as required under the law: to preserve all the recordings meeting proceedings.

The company has to keep the minutes, and proceedings, and provide that the records can be inspected by shareholders and others.

While we're at it... why don't they ban pacemakers at the meeting :)

(hint: recorders are breaking 4th amendment)

No... only the government is beholden to the 4th amendment.

And recording someone in a public place, where you would be able to observe them anyway, is not a search or seizure.

It is retaining/creating records that would not be created otherwise, about behavior and actions in public, visible to the observer, who would be able to see those things anyways.

That is... adding a recording doesn't change the observations in public, it just means, that a record is kept of the observations.

The employee and stockholder meetings often have newsworthy information which the attendees are prohibited, by contract or by regulation, from announcing before an actual company purchase occurs or before the planned announcement.

Do you really think they would announce something to the shareholders that attend the meeting, before the planned announcement?

Don't the shareholders that didn't attend the meeting, but sent an agent or proxy on their behalf instead... have an equal right to the information regarding the proceedings of that meeting, as the holders who actually attended the meeting?

(some rather big guy) Hey! Stop filming me! Its my right to do so, this is the street you know! I said STOP FILMING ME GLASSHOLE ! ! ! (guy is now approaching)

Guy pulls out a can of mace, tazer, and a cell phone, dials 911. Order big guy to stay put, while the cops arrive.

Presses charges against guy for assault, turns over footage to the cops of the guy approaching with obvious attempts to threaten and intimidate.

Big guy goes to jail for 2 years, after confessing and getting a lightened sentence, for assault charges, the end.

People really don't like the idea of being recorded all the time.

Google glass is not always recording.

It can take pictures, and short 20 second clips, which requires pushing a physical button on the device.

It is not always recording. BUT... you don't know at any particular moment if it is recording or not.

So there is a possibility, but not a certainty that you might appear in a recording, if you enter view of the camera of someone wearing Google glass.