It's the most open source friendly phone right now. Meego might become that when it's available in a big way....The phone is yours. Not Apple's or Motorola's or even Nokia's.
Unfortuntely, here in the U.S. it only works with one carrier, T-Mobile, whose coverage is a joke.
You read a LOT of Ayn Rand as a lonely, insecure teenager, didn't you?
Ha! I loathe Rand's work, and since I'm rather anti-capitalist, I'm sure she'd loathe me.
As for the Constitutionality of the Census, Article 1, Section 2. I'll wait while you look it up in your copy of the Constitution.What? You don't have a copy?
Article 1, Section 2 authorizes the Feds to conduct an enumeration. That's a count. I don't mind being counted. It does not authorize an investigation into lifestyle. That's why I decline to answer anything on the census form beyond how many people live in my house.
Diverse courts, up to SCOTUS, have affirmed that the Census can ask whatever questions it feels germane to its mission.
The illiteracy of the courts does not change the meaning of the document.
As for the 'toilet' question. Statistics. Watching trends over the decades are very useful.
Except that "statistics" is not an excuse for demanding, under penalty of fine or imprisonment, personally-identifiable answers to questions about my plumbing. Anonymous voluntary surveys can gather the info.
It's not that I think there might be some conspiracy to, ahem, flush out certain groups based on toilet info -- though I would be concerned about local governments, or worse yet private homeowner associations, trying to use the data for code enforcement; it's a matter of principle. If you stand up for the little infringements, you're in practice when a big one comes along; if you're in the habit of doing whatever those in Authority ask of you without analysis, you will do horrible things at the request of anyone who can put on the attitude of power.
So, the bottom line is, you just proved yourself to be one of those morons who got their Official Libertarian Panties in a wad over a legitimate question in the Census.
"But that data is protected by law!" you protest. It was protected before WWII also. Then the law changed. Anyone who doesn't think that it's at least possible that it could change again is woefully ignorant.
If there is no personally identifying information associated with any particular census form, how is it that you can seriously claim privacy invasion?
Census forms in the Great White North don't have the address on them? Here in the U.S., since the primary (and only Constitutional) purpose of the census is to draw up legislative districts, each form has the address on it.
If there is no personally identifying information on the form, how can it be mandatory? "You didn't turn in your form!" "Yes I did." "Oh. Sorry."
Really, you sound just like the morons 20 something years ago who were fulminating about the US census wanting to know how many toilets were in the home.
What business of the federal government is it how many toilets are in my home? And if it wants to know, if it asks nicely I might tell it; if it threatens me with legal sanction for failing to reply, my response is "fuck you, you have neither moral nor Constitutional authority to do so."
So when science says that fibrous asbestos causes cancer, we shouldn't do anything about it?
Science can tell you that asbestos causes cancer. It can tell you that abatement strategy A has such-and-such dangers and costs, strategy B has such-and-such dangers and costs, and leaving the situation along has such-and-such dangers and costs.
Science cannot tell you that saving 100 lives is or is not better than saving 1,000, or that spending $100 to get result X is or is not better than spending $1,000 for the same result. That's a value judgment, as much outside the realm of disciplined observation that is science as is the question of whether Bach's music is "better" than that of Brahms. It's the wrong tool for the job. I certainly think that saving 1,000 lives is better than saving 100, but this is not a scientific conclusion.
By filling it out you're allowing municipalities, counties, provinces, and Ottawa to make decisions on policy and resource deployment based on facts on the ground.
The information needed to set public policy can be obtained by voluntary anonymous surveys. There's no need for mandatory invasions of citizen's privacy.
In the 1800s, the world was focused on machinery: the industrial revolution. And when we looked at the human being, we saw a machine. Illness was a mechanical malfunction: fix it with surgery or other manual therapies -- massage and chiropractic also get going around this time. (Not an endorsement of chiropractic, just pointing out its the "the machine's out of whack!" ideology.)
In the 1900, the world became focused on chemistry -- it had little choice, as WWI, "the chemists war", forced awareness of it, and then we became aware of the pollution we were creating. "Mustard gas" and "DDT" became by-words. And when we looked at the human being, we saw a chemical reaction. Illness if a chemical imbalance: drugs! drugs! drugs! From antibiotics to antidepressants, drugs became the therapy of choice.
In the late 1900s and early 2000s, we've become focused on ecology. And now when we look at the human being, we start to see an ecology.
It's an interesting phenomenon, the way that how we see the world influences how we see ourselves. Classical Chinese medicine is based on a model of canals carrying nutrition between palaces and granaries -- the structure of the Chin empire. The ancient Greeks saw the classic four elements making up the world, and -- oddly enough -- found that the human being was composed of four corresponding humors.
If they care about hardware, why isn't it ok to only state compatibility with a kernel?
Oddly enough, the Free Software Foundation does not care about compatibility with some bit of software. They care about Freedom.
Many people in this thread seem to be confusing the "Respects Your Freedom" endorsement with some sort of Linux compatibility certification. It's not. Think of it more as something like an "American Made" or "No Child Labor" mark.
we'd be hardly better off with modern Western medicine than with homeopathy and prayer. Clearly, we are
Are we? What's the evidence?
Most of the improved health we enjoy has more to do with sanitation and nutrition than medicine -- remember to say thanks to your plumber, your garbage collector, your farmer, and your grocer for that. Of the fraction that medicine makes, most of it is due to a handful of advances like vaccination and effective antibiotics (which we are now losing, partly due to faming practices but partly due to bad medical practices).
For the rest, how much of a contribution does medicine actually make? (Especially when you consider the prevalence of iatrogenic illnesses and injury -- the open heart surgery my father had to undergo to replace his mitral valve was amazing, but might not have been needed were it not for the effects of Fen/Phen.) I don't know, and it's not a question that can be waved away by claiming "clearly, blah blah blah." It's not clear, and that's the point of TFA.
Exercise burns carbs and then fat. Trouble is, the carbs we take in our daily diet still outnumbers that which I burn from riding 10 miles each day.
Then you needed to eat fewer calories, and not just from carbs. Low carb diets work only when caloric intake decreases. (If you consume 3000 calories of fat and protein and burn 2000 calories, just what do you think happens to that other 1000 calories?)
In fact, people can lose weight on either low carb (preferable a vegetarian low carb, if one doesn't want to shorten one's lifespan, since a typical low carb/high protein diet has detrimental effects of coronary blood flow) or high carb diets. The problem is caloric intake, not the proportion of macronutrients in the diet. If carbs are to blame, why does Japan have one of the lowest obesity rates in the world and a diet still centered around rice? And why is that obesity rate increasing as the diet Westernizes and becomes less carb-centered? It's nothing to do with carbs versus protein or fats, it's serving size, sugar, and exercise patterns.
People seriously do not understand nutrition or how diet and exercise work.
Yes, and the belief in the effectiveness of low carb diets is just evidence of this.
Anyway, congratulations on decreasing your caloric intake and losing weight, even if it took belief in the effectiveness of pseudoscience to help you do it.
In this case, it's one party simply compiling what another person has made public (even if doing so unknowingly). The problem is the people, and what they're making public, not the company - or individual - who is compiling it.
No, the problem is very much the people compiling and selling this information.
I am the author of my life; the information these leeches are compiling about me is a derivative work. Commercial use of such data (outside of fair use considerations) is a violation of my Subjectright.
The fact that part of the performance of the artistic work that is my life takes place in public is irrelevant -- if I perform a song or poem in public, I do not thereby place it in the public domain.
Is it any different if a company takes a picture of the front of your house, than if someone stalking you does it? Or even just a random tourist walking by?
The appearance of the front of my house is a personal artistic expression. It should be understood to be covered by copyright. A random tourist taking a photo is fair use; someone taking a photo to use for commercial purposes, is not.
I really get sick of this notion that the government is there to save us from our own laziness and stupidity.
I get really sick of this notion that government regulation of (government-chartered) corporations to make them behave in a sane manner that's conducive to the public good is somehow an indication of laziness or stupidity.
A free market can only produce efficient solutions when buyers and sellers meet with equal power, full knowledge, and no externalized costs. Ensuring these conditions is part of the rightful purpose of government.
apparently for the time being attaching a tracking device to a person's car is legal.
It's a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment, and therefore illegal; the fact that some (perhaps most) judges are brain-damaged illiterates and permit the government to perform illegal acts, does not change their illegal status.
I actually like voting a universal obstructionist into office, especially at the local level.
No, you probably don't.
"We have a bill to fix the contacting process for fixing potholes, which used to be automatically awarded to the mayor's brother's company. This bill will greatly reduce our costs and improve the quality of our roads." "No! I'm a universal obstructionist!"
"We have a bill to remove an obsolete ban on interracial marriage from the books. It will finally bring out jurisdiction in line with the 20th century, and end a boycott that's been hampering our tourist industry." "No! I'm a universal obstructionist!"
"We have a bill to decriminalize all consensual crimes." "No! I'm a universal obstructionist!"
You may have missed my intent (I left out the "FTFY" part, thinking it was obvious) which was to point out that the situation was very similar in both cases, i.e., the "Law" forcing him to "decrypt his hard drive" and the "Law" forcing him to "unlock the door".
You seem to have missed my intent, which was to point out that in point of fact, the situation is not at all similar.
To further clarify, your suggestion that it would be a fourth amendment violation is flawed in that this was a Court mandate (he was, after all, convicted for failure to comply). Thus, there would be no fourth amendment problem - they clearly had a warrant (or whatever is the similar instrumentation in the UK, where this actually took place.
You are confused.
The "unlock the door" case you suggest would be a Fourth Amendment violation in the absence of a warrant.
The "testify against yourself" case is a Fifth Amendment violation regardless of any court order.
The "unlock the door" case you suggest is not at all like the "testify against yourself" case under discussion. The sovereignty of the state ends at my skin.
The details shall remain fuzzy as I don't subscribe to the "only offer as much force as is offered you" social idiocy; suffice it to say that it would be impossible for that event to repeat itself in the same fashion with the same characters.
So we are to infer that you crippled or killed people who were not threatening to cripple or kill you?
I have no problem with the legitimate use of force in self-defense -- hell, I teach people to do it -- but if you are using force out of proportion to the threat, you are not engaged in legitimate self-defense.
If that is the case, then you have only proved the point: you were incompetent and turned to force as your first option, misusing your martial arts training. A competent budoka turns to violence only after all other options have been exhausted, and only to the degree required to stop the attack. As the Old Fellow put it,
Weapons are tools of bad omen,
By gentlemen not to be used;
But when it cannot be avoided,
They use them with calm and restraint.
Even in victory's hour
These tools are unlovely to see;
For those who admire them truly
Are men who in murder delight.
As for those who delight to do murder,
It is certain they never can get
From the world what they sought when ambition
Urged them to power and rule.
A multitude slain!- and their death
Is a matter for grief and for tears;
The victory after a conflict
Is a theme for a funeral rite.
None of this, of course, has anything to do with the original Asimov quote, which you must turn on your geek card for not recognizing. You might try reading it in context, which was about war and politics, not individual self-defense.
There was a day, not all that long ago, where you could go to an unclaimed area, and say "this is mine, thanks."
Unclaimed land in North America "not all that long ago"? Do you perhaps mean "unclaimed by white people"?
In turn, if that someone doesn't pay their taxes to the government, the government will put their own claim on the land and anything which may remain on it. So, regardless if you're in a private home, driving on the street, or sitting in a lake in the middle of nowhere, you are on US Government property. You do not have the right to be there, you pay for the privilege of renting that land temporarily. Huh?
Not quote correct.
1) Any claims to own land are based on a government-issued land deed, often traceable back to a decree by some king or to land violently stolen by war or invasion in the first place.
2) The fact that some other party claims a lien on a piece of property if you default on some owed payment, does not make that party the owner of the land. I own my home, not the bank, even though if I stop paying the mortgage they will kick me out.
3) Land deeds are (generally) issued by state or local governments, not by the federal "U.S. Government".
As Kerry Thornley, my favorite paranoid schizophrenic Discordian-Society-founding JFK-conspiracy-theory pawn and political philosopher, put it:
The Seven Noble Natural Rights
There are at least seven natural rights, or the Tao of human activity in society possesses seven attributes, or people are like machines only in the respect that they don't work good if you neglect their maintenance requirements.
What are the maintenance requirements of the human being? Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and food, clothing, shelter and medical care.
Keeping us confused and divided against one another about these rights, the multinational power elite teaches us in America that only life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights. In socialist nations they promote the view that only food,clothing, shelter and medical care are rights.
We are further encouraged to argue about whether rights must be earned or whether it is the duty of the government to guarantee them. Everyone necessarily struggles for their rights, and no government can ever guarantee anything except death and taxes.
All that bickering begs the relevant question: What can we do in voluntary cooperation to see that our natural rights, our intimate functional needs, are respected? Without that much, human beings are incapable of behaving as constructively rational and loving members of any population.
Still - they should have the choice. It should never, ever, never be taken away from them. Freedom is too precious to be not free.
They should also have the freedom to change their choice, and should not suffer easily-correctable grievous loss for a minor mistake.
When they say "I'll pay anything!", put out the damn fire, charge them a whopping fee (say, $100 per hour per fire fighter on the scene, plus expenses -- which would be more that your $1500, but still in the same order of magnitude I think) afterward. This is humane, respects their freedom -- they can still say "No, let it burn"[*] -- and gives proper economic incentive.
[* I'm ignoring for the moment the fact that animals were killed here. If you have a dog or cat, you ought not to be allowed to withhold paying for their rescue, and firefighters who stand by and allow them to burn to death should be charged with animal cruelty.]
Do they require some kind of property insurance on cars? If so, that strikes me as a bit odd -- liability insurance at least has to do with protecting others, but property insurance is just about protecting one's own property value.
In Maryland, liability insurance is required to register a vehicle (i..e, put tags on it). You can't drive an unregistered vehicle; you can't even park one on the street.
You are not required to purchase property insurance (collision or comprehensive).
The policy generally will cover both you and other drivers in your household (you have to tell the insurer about them, so they know your 16-year-old leadfooted daughter is driving your heap), and (usually) others who might occasionally use your car -- e.g., I loan my station wagon to my neighbor for a trip to the lumber yard.
You are not required to purchase insurance to have a driver's license, but you can't drive a vehicle that doesn't have insurance. Thus, someone with a license but no car could drive a work vehicle, for example.
in the case of Obamacare requiring you to purchase health insurance, it is the FEDS trying to force you to do so...which likely is not one of their enumerated powers by the constitution.
PPACA -- the health care reform act (using the word "Obamacare" marks you as not to be taken seriously, BTW) -- does not "force" you to purchase anything. You have the option to pay a higher tax and not purchase insurance.
Congress most certainly has the Constitutional power to tax anything it pleases. That's not to say it is or isn't using the power wisely here, but if paying a tax penalty is "forcing" you to buy health insurance, then you are also being "forced" to have kids, buy a house with a mortgage, and run a business at a loss -- if you don't do any of these, your tax bill will be higher as a result.
I have no idea whether there really were decomposing corpses in the basement, but forcing him to unlock the door in order to check is mocking the intent of the fifth amendment.
That would actually be a mockery of the Fourth Amendment, and yes, it would be a mockery to force your way into someone's home without a warrant. (Indeed, a warrantless search is nothing but a home invasion, and we ought to recognize your right to shoot the invaders like you might any common armed thugs breaking into your home.)
Searching a location is not the same as forcing someone to divulge information. The fact that they're covered by different Amendments should be your hint that the analogy fails.
My password wants to be free? My social security number wants to be free?
Yes, your password and SSN want to be free, which is why you must keep them carefully cooped up and restrained.
"Information wants to be free" does not say whether it's good or bad that it gets free. My pit bull puppy wants to be free also -- free to roam the house, tearing up shoes and books and anything else he can his jaws on. So he is carefully restricted or supervised. But unlike my puppy, once information gets out, you can't put it back in the crate.
A vegan diet reduces the need to support non-human animal mass, but adds a requirement to be able to synthesize some vitamins and proteins.
No, it doesn't. Protein needs are easily met on a vegan diet; the only vitamin that can really be troublesome is B12, which is made by bacteria and so doesn't need to be synthesized.
The Constitution implicitly assumes the private ownership of warships (see 'letters of marque and reprisal'), so the idea that the founders would have been shocked by private ownership of crew-served weapons seems rather silly.
Assuming the existence of privately-owned warships is not the same as guaranteeing them as a right.
The relevant question is not "what would shock the founders" -- hell, a country where you can't keep slaves anymore would be a shock to many of them. The question is, what does "arms" in "right to keep and bear arms" refer?
My understanding is that there was at the time a well-understood difference between "arms" -- basically, as discussed above, what an individual soldier would carry onto battle -- and "cannon".
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortuntely, here in the U.S. it only works with one carrier, T-Mobile, whose coverage is a joke.
Ha! I loathe Rand's work, and since I'm rather anti-capitalist, I'm sure she'd loathe me.
I was hosting this on-line copy at an FTP site before the Web existed, thanks.
Article 1, Section 2 authorizes the Feds to conduct an enumeration. That's a count. I don't mind being counted. It does not authorize an investigation into lifestyle. That's why I decline to answer anything on the census form beyond how many people live in my house.
The illiteracy of the courts does not change the meaning of the document.
Except that "statistics" is not an excuse for demanding, under penalty of fine or imprisonment, personally-identifiable answers to questions about my plumbing. Anonymous voluntary surveys can gather the info.
It's not that I think there might be some conspiracy to, ahem, flush out certain groups based on toilet info -- though I would be concerned about local governments, or worse yet private homeowner associations, trying to use the data for code enforcement; it's a matter of principle. If you stand up for the little infringements, you're in practice when a big one comes along; if you're in the habit of doing whatever those in Authority ask of you without analysis, you will do horrible things at the request of anyone who can put on the attitude of power.
Considering that census data was, in the past, used to herd innocent Americans into concentration camps, anyone who doesn't have at least a tiny drop of concern about census data is woefully ignorant.
"But that data is protected by law!" you protest. It was protected before WWII also. Then the law changed. Anyone who doesn't think that it's at least possible that it could change again is woefully ignorant.
Census forms in the Great White North don't have the address on them? Here in the U.S., since the primary (and only Constitutional) purpose of the census is to draw up legislative districts, each form has the address on it.
If there is no personally identifying information on the form, how can it be mandatory? "You didn't turn in your form!" "Yes I did." "Oh. Sorry."
What business of the federal government is it how many toilets are in my home? And if it wants to know, if it asks nicely I might tell it; if it threatens me with legal sanction for failing to reply, my response is "fuck you, you have neither moral nor Constitutional authority to do so."
"I am endeavoring, ma'am, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit, using stone knives and bearskins." -- Spock, City on the Edge of Forever
Science can tell you that asbestos causes cancer. It can tell you that abatement strategy A has such-and-such dangers and costs, strategy B has such-and-such dangers and costs, and leaving the situation along has such-and-such dangers and costs.
Science cannot tell you that saving 100 lives is or is not better than saving 1,000, or that spending $100 to get result X is or is not better than spending $1,000 for the same result. That's a value judgment, as much outside the realm of disciplined observation that is science as is the question of whether Bach's music is "better" than that of Brahms. It's the wrong tool for the job. I certainly think that saving 1,000 lives is better than saving 100, but this is not a scientific conclusion.
The information needed to set public policy can be obtained by voluntary anonymous surveys. There's no need for mandatory invasions of citizen's privacy.
In the 1800s, the world was focused on machinery: the industrial revolution. And when we looked at the human being, we saw a machine. Illness was a mechanical malfunction: fix it with surgery or other manual therapies -- massage and chiropractic also get going around this time. (Not an endorsement of chiropractic, just pointing out its the "the machine's out of whack!" ideology.)
In the 1900, the world became focused on chemistry -- it had little choice, as WWI, "the chemists war", forced awareness of it, and then we became aware of the pollution we were creating. "Mustard gas" and "DDT" became by-words. And when we looked at the human being, we saw a chemical reaction. Illness if a chemical imbalance: drugs! drugs! drugs! From antibiotics to antidepressants, drugs became the therapy of choice.
In the late 1900s and early 2000s, we've become focused on ecology. And now when we look at the human being, we start to see an ecology.
It's an interesting phenomenon, the way that how we see the world influences how we see ourselves. Classical Chinese medicine is based on a model of canals carrying nutrition between palaces and granaries -- the structure of the Chin empire. The ancient Greeks saw the classic four elements making up the world, and -- oddly enough -- found that the human being was composed of four corresponding humors.
Oddly enough, the Free Software Foundation does not care about compatibility with some bit of software. They care about Freedom.
Many people in this thread seem to be confusing the "Respects Your Freedom" endorsement with some sort of Linux compatibility certification. It's not. Think of it more as something like an "American Made" or "No Child Labor" mark.
Are we? What's the evidence?
Most of the improved health we enjoy has more to do with sanitation and nutrition than medicine -- remember to say thanks to your plumber, your garbage collector, your farmer, and your grocer for that. Of the fraction that medicine makes, most of it is due to a handful of advances like vaccination and effective antibiotics (which we are now losing, partly due to faming practices but partly due to bad medical practices).
For the rest, how much of a contribution does medicine actually make? (Especially when you consider the prevalence of iatrogenic illnesses and injury -- the open heart surgery my father had to undergo to replace his mitral valve was amazing, but might not have been needed were it not for the effects of Fen/Phen.) I don't know, and it's not a question that can be waved away by claiming "clearly, blah blah blah." It's not clear, and that's the point of TFA.
Then you needed to eat fewer calories, and not just from carbs. Low carb diets work only when caloric intake decreases. (If you consume 3000 calories of fat and protein and burn 2000 calories, just what do you think happens to that other 1000 calories?)
In fact, people can lose weight on either low carb (preferable a vegetarian low carb, if one doesn't want to shorten one's lifespan, since a typical low carb/high protein diet has detrimental effects of coronary blood flow) or high carb diets. The problem is caloric intake, not the proportion of macronutrients in the diet. If carbs are to blame, why does Japan have one of the lowest obesity rates in the world and a diet still centered around rice? And why is that obesity rate increasing as the diet Westernizes and becomes less carb-centered? It's nothing to do with carbs versus protein or fats, it's serving size, sugar, and exercise patterns.
Yes, and the belief in the effectiveness of low carb diets is just evidence of this.
Anyway, congratulations on decreasing your caloric intake and losing weight, even if it took belief in the effectiveness of pseudoscience to help you do it.
No, the problem is very much the people compiling and selling this information.
I am the author of my life; the information these leeches are compiling about me is a derivative work. Commercial use of such data (outside of fair use considerations) is a violation of my Subjectright.
The fact that part of the performance of the artistic work that is my life takes place in public is irrelevant -- if I perform a song or poem in public, I do not thereby place it in the public domain.
The appearance of the front of my house is a personal artistic expression. It should be understood to be covered by copyright. A random tourist taking a photo is fair use; someone taking a photo to use for commercial purposes, is not.
I get really sick of this notion that government regulation of (government-chartered) corporations to make them behave in a sane manner that's conducive to the public good is somehow an indication of laziness or stupidity.
A free market can only produce efficient solutions when buyers and sellers meet with equal power, full knowledge, and no externalized costs. Ensuring these conditions is part of the rightful purpose of government.
It's a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment, and therefore illegal; the fact that some (perhaps most) judges are brain-damaged illiterates and permit the government to perform illegal acts, does not change their illegal status.
No, you probably don't.
"We have a bill to fix the contacting process for fixing potholes, which used to be automatically awarded to the mayor's brother's company. This bill will greatly reduce our costs and improve the quality of our roads." "No! I'm a universal obstructionist!"
"We have a bill to remove an obsolete ban on interracial marriage from the books. It will finally bring out jurisdiction in line with the 20th century, and end a boycott that's been hampering our tourist industry." "No! I'm a universal obstructionist!"
"We have a bill to decriminalize all consensual crimes." "No! I'm a universal obstructionist!"
You seem to have missed my intent, which was to point out that in point of fact, the situation is not at all similar.
You are confused.
The "unlock the door" case you suggest would be a Fourth Amendment violation in the absence of a warrant.
The "testify against yourself" case is a Fifth Amendment violation regardless of any court order.
The "unlock the door" case you suggest is not at all like the "testify against yourself" case under discussion. The sovereignty of the state ends at my skin.
So we are to infer that you crippled or killed people who were not threatening to cripple or kill you?
I have no problem with the legitimate use of force in self-defense -- hell, I teach people to do it -- but if you are using force out of proportion to the threat, you are not engaged in legitimate self-defense.
If that is the case, then you have only proved the point: you were incompetent and turned to force as your first option, misusing your martial arts training. A competent budoka turns to violence only after all other options have been exhausted, and only to the degree required to stop the attack. As the Old Fellow put it,
None of this, of course, has anything to do with the original Asimov quote, which you must turn on your geek card for not recognizing. You might try reading it in context, which was about war and politics, not individual self-defense.
Unclaimed land in North America "not all that long ago"? Do you perhaps mean "unclaimed by white people"?
Not quote correct.
1) Any claims to own land are based on a government-issued land deed, often traceable back to a decree by some king or to land violently stolen by war or invasion in the first place.
2) The fact that some other party claims a lien on a piece of property if you default on some owed payment, does not make that party the owner of the land. I own my home, not the bank, even though if I stop paying the mortgage they will kick me out.
3) Land deeds are (generally) issued by state or local governments, not by the federal "U.S. Government".
As Kerry Thornley, my favorite paranoid schizophrenic Discordian-Society-founding JFK-conspiracy-theory pawn and political philosopher, put it:
They should also have the freedom to change their choice, and should not suffer easily-correctable grievous loss for a minor mistake.
When they say "I'll pay anything!", put out the damn fire, charge them a whopping fee (say, $100 per hour per fire fighter on the scene, plus expenses -- which would be more that your $1500, but still in the same order of magnitude I think) afterward. This is humane, respects their freedom -- they can still say "No, let it burn"[*] -- and gives proper economic incentive.
[* I'm ignoring for the moment the fact that animals were killed here. If you have a dog or cat, you ought not to be allowed to withhold paying for their rescue, and firefighters who stand by and allow them to burn to death should be charged with animal cruelty.]
In Maryland, liability insurance is required to register a vehicle (i..e, put tags on it). You can't drive an unregistered vehicle; you can't even park one on the street.
You are not required to purchase property insurance (collision or comprehensive).
The policy generally will cover both you and other drivers in your household (you have to tell the insurer about them, so they know your 16-year-old leadfooted daughter is driving your heap), and (usually) others who might occasionally use your car -- e.g., I loan my station wagon to my neighbor for a trip to the lumber yard.
You are not required to purchase insurance to have a driver's license, but you can't drive a vehicle that doesn't have insurance. Thus, someone with a license but no car could drive a work vehicle, for example.
PPACA -- the health care reform act (using the word "Obamacare" marks you as not to be taken seriously, BTW) -- does not "force" you to purchase anything. You have the option to pay a higher tax and not purchase insurance.
Congress most certainly has the Constitutional power to tax anything it pleases. That's not to say it is or isn't using the power wisely here, but if paying a tax penalty is "forcing" you to buy health insurance, then you are also being "forced" to have kids, buy a house with a mortgage, and run a business at a loss -- if you don't do any of these, your tax bill will be higher as a result.
That would actually be a mockery of the Fourth Amendment, and yes, it would be a mockery to force your way into someone's home without a warrant. (Indeed, a warrantless search is nothing but a home invasion, and we ought to recognize your right to shoot the invaders like you might any common armed thugs breaking into your home.)
Searching a location is not the same as forcing someone to divulge information. The fact that they're covered by different Amendments should be your hint that the analogy fails.
Yes, your password and SSN want to be free, which is why you must keep them carefully cooped up and restrained.
"Information wants to be free" does not say whether it's good or bad that it gets free. My pit bull puppy wants to be free also -- free to roam the house, tearing up shoes and books and anything else he can his jaws on. So he is carefully restricted or supervised. But unlike my puppy, once information gets out, you can't put it back in the crate.
No, it doesn't. Protein needs are easily met on a vegan diet; the only vitamin that can really be troublesome is B12, which is made by bacteria and so doesn't need to be synthesized.
Assuming the existence of privately-owned warships is not the same as guaranteeing them as a right.
The relevant question is not "what would shock the founders" -- hell, a country where you can't keep slaves anymore would be a shock to many of them. The question is, what does "arms" in "right to keep and bear arms" refer?
My understanding is that there was at the time a well-understood difference between "arms" -- basically, as discussed above, what an individual soldier would carry onto battle -- and "cannon".
So what?
"Yes, your honor, I shot him, but in the long run he would have been dead anyway, so what's the harm?"