Well, that and the fact that you couldn't get here from pretty much anywhere in any reasonable amount of time. Personally, I tend to think that's a bigger reason than any particular human behavior, but hey, whatever works for you.

Says the man who has never met a county building inspector. It doesn't matter if code explicitly states that something is permissible--if they don't personally understand it, it doesn't meet code. If they don't like the practice, it doesn't meet code. If they had a fight with their wife that morning, their kid hates them, and the dog just bit them, it doesn't meet code.

In a system designed such that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, how is there any difference between "innocent" and "not guilty?" It's not like juries have a box on their form that says "innocent," so even if it exists, exactly how is this special status you speak of supposed to attach?

Please explain how the above lines up with your idea that corporate entities cannot exercise rights? You've now agreed that some, in fact, can, but only certain ones. Who decides what constitutes "legitimate" press? And if we do something like that, does that mean that, say, a BP can go out and buy an outfit like the NYT and spout all the pro-BP propaganda they want to, since they're "the press" now, too? Can the Republican party buy Fox News and run thinly veiled political advertisements disguised as news? (I really, really want to make a joke here, but, sadly, the right one just isn't springing to mind).

Lastly, does that mean if I can't afford to buy the NYT, or Fox News, I simply don't have access to the press?

FWIW, I think smoking is a horrible habit and a downright idiotic thing to do, but personally, I do NOT support the ban on advertising that is becoming more and more pervasive as time goes by (it started with TV, it's spread to other media). I think that neo-nazis, KKK, and their ilk of other races who preach the same kind of hate are the scum of the earth, but I don't support muzzling them, either--hate speech is still speech. IOW, I disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

You're reaching on this one. Please note, I am NOT advocating the "corporations are people" line. I am advocating that people acting in groups have the same rights as the individuals that compose them. You don't get an extra vote because you incorporated, you have as many votes as you have members. I'm not going to dignify the "food stamps" thing with a response.

In the above scenario, the writers can say whatever the want, but the Times can be constrained from publishing it. So we're basically back to posting handbills, because every corporate owned press is off limits to whatever the powers that be find to be objectionable content.

You quite nicely dodged the question by going off on a tangent. I'll ask it again: "Is the New York Times protected by the freedom of the press?"

If your answer to that is "no" (I won't assume this, even though your position outlined above suggests that it must be) then Congress could, tomorrow, pass a law that says, "no corporate owned media may discuss any unapproved topics. Officially approved topics will be provided by the White House press secretary on a quarterly basis" and that would pass constitutional muster.

You can't have it both ways. Either "congress shall make no law" has teeth, or it doesn't.

I agree corporations need to be subject to limits--I, too, am tired of situations where a corporate entity commits what is basically a felony, and magically, this is settled by a token fine. But limiting constitutionally protected rights is NOT how we need to go about fixing the problem.

I agree with your post almost completely, but I have to disagree with you on Citizens United. I'll admit to NOT being conversant with the actual opinion(s) in the case, but in the broad sense, I think it's absurd to say that, for example, you and I acting together do not have the same rights as we would if acting separately.

To illustrate my point, I'll ask a simple question: Is the New York Times protected by the first amendment's protection of a free press?

If corporate entities are not entitled to the same protections as individuals, then how can the answer to this question be "yes?"

It's at best disingenuous to argue that a manufacturer's product is "a better bang for the buck" when they're not actually selling the product you're talking about. I understand now--your point was to lie with data, after all.

You do realize that your chart is heavily skewed toward CPUs which aren't current production, right? I mean, the top 11 SKUs on that chart range in price from $11 to $22 and can only be purchased from random 3rd parties on Amazon at fire sale prices. You have to get to the 12th SKU in order to find something available at retail (from New Egg)... and it's an Intel product. #13 is also an out of production unit, while #14 is another Intel product. #15 is an honest to god current production AMD chip, though.

While I won't accuse you of lying with data (I've done quick research that appeared to support my conclusion and ended up with egg on my face, as well) the point you're trying to make (other than that Celeron beats AMD in price/performance) is totally undermined by your supporting data.

Backup, admins, storage are going to be required no matter what you're running--even if you're only running postfix and courier. I'll grant the cost of the server license, but that too is fairly cheap (around $700 last I looked). Amortized it across a user base of any reasonable size, and it's at most a couple of bucks a user per year. If it's more than this, your userbase is so small that you should probably be looking at a hosted solution, anyway.

In either case, "horribly expensive" is a gross overstatement at best.

Exchange costs about $60-70 per user for a CAL. Even if you're constantly upgrading to the latest version of Exchange, that's a hair over $20 a year. You and I have different definitions of "horribly expensive." Compared to the cost of a full time employee, $20 is noise.

I find that to be an indefensible position. Just because Google has my data on their servers does NOT mean that the government has the right to access that data (or at least, according to a simple reading of the 4th amendment, SHOULD not mean so). Things are different if Google decides to give my data to the government--the government didn't violate my privacy, Google did, and my remedy here is limited to suing Google for breaching my privacy in this way.

The obvious next step down the slippery slope here is Google agreeing to supply all of my data to the government (in return for some consideration) but I would argue that, at this point, they are functioning as agents of the government, and the 4th amendment again applies.

I don't believe case law backs my interpretation--but then again, case law says that growing wheat and eating it is "interstate commerce" so YMMV...

I will be charitable, and assume you are misinformed. Otherwise, you're either talking out of your ass, or just plain knowingly lying.

The NRA was incorporated after the end of the Civil War by former Union general officers to improve the general level of marksmanship among the population--because, as Ambrose Burnside put it, "Out of ten soldiers who are perfect in drill and the manual of arms, only one knows the purpose of the sights on his gun or can hit the broad side of a barn." It's mission is TRAINING the same and effective use of firearms. Hunting had exactly nothing to do with the purpose of the organization--though, of course, the NRA DOES support hunting, since it is one of the shooting sports.

As for your comment about the 1986 ban on machine guns, the NRA most certainly did NOT help draft that legislation. The ban was attached to legislation that the NRA DID help draft, the Firearms Owners Protection Act, which undid some of the worst parts of the Gun Control Act of 1968. After the amendment was adopted, the thinking was that the ban on machine guns, while not desirable, was worth getting the rest of the bill enacted into law.

Sounds like short term thinking to me--EMC makes some short term cash, but now their brand is associated with low end NAS devices instead (or at least in addition to) top tier back end storage? This sounds like when Cisco bought Linksys, and rebranded some of the products, with rather predictable results. What idiot wants a low end product associated with a premium brand name?

I agree with you 100%, and am also disheartened by the lack of attention paid to the 9th and 10th amendments. I was merely being pedantic.