Oh fuck, that sounds awesome!

Hey, I like CCP's solution to this, in EVE, you can buy extra months of subscription, and sell them to other players, on the market, for Gold (ISK). I play the game for free, because I have enough isk to sell to folks who want more of it. Eve's economy actually works pretty decently, dudes get alot of use out of having extra isk, they can fly bigger ships, gamble more, pay folks for whatever they want. I always suggest to my friends that they buy three months of game time when they start playing, 1 month for themselves, and 2 months to sell to the market. Everyone gets on a nice, even playing field pretty quick that way, (and it's still cheaper than starting alot of MMO's). To ramble off topic for a while, market manipulation is incredibly easy in eve, I play for free because I spend about 3 hours a week looking over trades in three regional markets. I had to put in a bit of work to get enough money to afford it, but the cash I have is still chicken scratch (barely floating a billion isk, and most of it's tied up in one thing or another)

The count doesn't believe in hitting women, or in chairs. He knows they both exist tho, they are facts.

"So excluding this evidence probably would have only set a precedent that defendants would occasionally get off because of procedural screw-ups (similar to police forgetting to read a defendant his Miranda rights)," Actually, in Canada we have an interesting catch 22 of sorts. You're protections from the law are guaranteed only in such a way that will not bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Just because the police messed up and didn't obtain a warrent, if it was just an honest to goodness mistake (or issue of somewhat legitimate confusion) and not a systemic deliberate abuse of powers, then the judge is likely to allow the evidence, and warn the officers not to do it again. (In Canada, we value the spirit of the law more than it's technical protection, a little problematic at some times, but all in all, I like the provision. People rarely walk on technicalities here, because we trust our courts enough to make judgement calls.)

From TFA "Open government lawmakers such as Senators John McCain (R-Arizona) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vermont) have fought for years to make the reports public, with bills being introduced--and rejected--almost every year since 1998." So the better question to ask would by why the bills were rejected, but that would require more research into the situation. Government is never /that/ simple. As a side note, I love reading about pre 2008 McCain, he seems like such a reasonable dude.

That's right, you have absolute moral imperative to use force to defend your property. There is never any justification in making your objections known peacefully, and then perusing remedy under our system of laws. Because we live in an anarchistic state, your only recourse when your rights are impinged is violence. No reasonable person could deny that the sum total of upwards of 30-40 hours of your work demanded physical violence to prevent it's destruction, it's defence being paramount above all other considerations of law, order, or respect for the dignity and safety of other human beings. When you are absolutely certain that you are right, when the stakes are so high that such grievous damage would occur should you not act, you are not required to submit to a system of laws to validate your beliefs; you are free to enact violence to further your conception of the right.

Never tell me the odds.