The corpses piled up in a society based on libertarian ideals would be infinitesimal compared to the mass slaughters perpetrated by governments. Even if you exclude wars, the governments of the 20th century murdered 170 million people, mostly their own citizens.

If there is no institutional power structure in place to confiscate wealth and coerce behavior, it's extremely difficult to fight a large scale war, engage in mass murder or even mass incarceration. Can you imagine a war of aggression in which all of the soldiers were unpaid volunteers furnishing their own weapons and equipment? How far would they be willing to travel and how long would they be willing to be away from their homes? Without a government, you wouldn't get people to travel from North America to Iraq or Vietnam to fight a war. Most people would rather maintain a peaceful existence and fight only in self defense.

Libertarianism does not mean "no rules", it just means "no ruleRs".

I get the gist of what you're saying, but cops can't just wander around ordering people to do things, arresting them if they refuse & getting them prosecuted for the crime of disobeying orders. All of the statutes about disobeying an officer cover only "lawful" orders. If they arrested you and roughed you up for disobeying what was clearly an unlawful order, you would have a legal case against them.

I'm agreeing that the First Amendment argument seems a little awkward. I'm saying that if recording the police is not violating any particular criminal statute, then cops ordering people to stop filming are issuing unlawful orders. Why couldn't the case be argued on that basis alone? It would establish the same precedent.

In this case, the court said that the cops could not be held liable for what they did to the people filming because of "qualified immunity". They stated that at the time of the incidents the right to record had not been "clearly established". Now that it has been established, you would have a legal case against any cop who arrested you for failing to follow the unlawful order to stop filming. They couldn't prosecute you for disobeying their unlawful order.

It makes no sense to me that the 1st Amendment had to be brought into it, but I believe that the ACLU lawyers know what they're doing, and it worked, so more power to them.

Right. The individual's subjective experience isn't the question. A person with a mental disorder like paranoid schizophrenia might be genuinely terrified in a particular situation, but that wouldn't necessarily justify use of force.
For citizens, a typical legal standard is to consider what a "reasonable person" would perceive in certain circumstances. This is often written explicitly in the statutes. Many of the so-called "stand your ground laws" state that use of force is justified in a situation where a "reasonable person" would fear death or serious bodily injury.
I'm not sure if cops are covered by the same standard.

The problem with public sector unions is that closing down the business and selling off the assets is not an option in the event of a strike. In the private sector, if the owners and the union reach an impasse, the company can always choose to go out of business and sell their assets. If public sector unions are going to be allowed to exist, they must not be allowed to go on strike.

Slaves? Yeah, I feel terrible for those poor abused government employees with their health insurance, their insane fixed benefit pension plans & wages higher than comparable private sector workers. I'd like to see them all try to market their skills in the private sector.

But unfortunately it did work.

The ruling affirmed the people's right to record, but it also used "qualified immunity" to say that the police officers in question could not be held liable for what they did to the people doing the recording. The court claimed that the right to record had not been "clearly established" when the incidents took place. Nothing happens to the cops and the victims can't sue for damages.
Look on the bright side though. Overturning that idiotic lower court ruling was a big win. Coming down on the cops would have been a bonus.

I don't understand why they had to make a First Amendment argument in the first place. If the government cannot point to a specific law which prohibits recording, the police have no authority to interfere. When We, The People are in a public place and government is spying on us, they assert that we have no "reasonable expectation of privacy". How can government employees claim that they are entitled to special rights when they're in public? I think the ruling should have affirmed the right to record on that basis. No law is being broken and police cannot interfere in lawful activity.

I'm not sure why we needed the First Amendment here, but I trust that the ACLU & their lawyers know what they're doing & I'm very pleased with the end result. For once, a ruling goes our way.

The enormous "grey area" in this oft-quoted unemployment rate is the definition and determination of the "work force". That number seems rather arbitrary and very difficult to estimate accurately. A person's unemployment benefits expire and they are suddenly no longer in the "work force"? Even though UE typically requires people to be actively looking for work? It doesn't make any sense. Unemployment goes down? Great. Does that mean the economy is getting better, or are we in a prolonged recession in which millions of people have been out of work for more than 6 months?

To me, the clearest measure of employment is found in the "A Tables" of the BLS report. This is the employment rate of the population. Simply the number of people employed as a fraction of the total. That number can't be fudged by arbitrarily throwing people in and out of the "work force". It's a clear indication of our economic health as well because the employment rate would not be trending upward during a prolonged recession.

To me, it also seems like the most relevant metric because everyone in our society is dependent on the working people. Sure, there are a few retired people living mostly off their own savings, but even they receive benefits from government and the entire government is funded by the working people. The other non-working people have to get their food, clothing & shelter from somewhere, so the employment rate of the population tells us the number of producers and the number of dependents in the economy. It's hard to spin that number.

"Of course this isn't really a vaccine in the traditional sense of the word,"

What makes you say that? A "vaccine" is something that triggers the immune system to recognize a certain strand of DNA(typically a virus) as an infection and develop the capability to attack it.

A tumor also has its own unique DNA. According to these papers, the immune system can also be stimulated to attack that specific DNA. Wouldn't that meet the definition of "vaccine"? The only difference being that something like the smallpox virus is the same no matter who it infects so one vaccine works for everybody. Unfortunately, tumors really are "unique"(recurrent tumors are apparently the same) which is why this particular vaccine needs to be individualized.

If you have to fear "consequences" for what you're saying, there is little practical difference whether the reprisal is carried out by government or by private citizens & corporations. The philosophy underlying the First Amendment is that people should be free to express unpopular or controversial thoughts free of consequences. It is enshrined in law, but it was supposed to be, and still should be, a societal principle. Disagree with what people are saying, but at the same time respect their right to say it.

"democracies debate."

Then the U.S.A. isn't a democracy. It's not a "debate" when I state my ideas, and your response is to punch me in the face. That's exactly what's happening in this country. There are people who are so convinced that theirs is the only correct world view that they have no desire to debate. Their goal is merely to stifle anyone who disagrees with them. They will even prevent a person from delivering a lecture and having a Q&A (a dialogue) with a willing audience. It's not a "debate" when one side isn't even allowed to present their arguments.

The only "consequences" for free speech should be having your ideas & opinions analyzed, questioned, criticized and ridiculed. There should be no reprisals against the individual.

"While the constitution does (guarantee) this right, his/her identity was never intended to be unknown."

I'm sure that the American revolutionaries were doing their best to remain anonymous while circulating pamphlets & putting up posters promoting their cause. Why? Because they knew that they would be punished for spreading those ideas. The Constitution was written so that people wouldn't feel the need to speak anonymously, because there would be no punishment.

"Slanderous content must be punished. Non-slanderous content should not matter."

In the USA, "slander" almost always involves someone making false statements.
You're right, other content should not matter, but it does matter. In the contemporary USA, you can be subjected to physical violence or other forms of reprisal for your speech even if nothing you said is false. Having a First Amendment that prohibits government from infringing on your speech is a wonderful thing. Unfortunately, there are now gangs of people who have appointed themselves as the thought police. They will use every conceivable means to attack anyone who dares express thoughts which run contrary to their politically correct world view.

"...the ability to accurately identify the poster seems appropriate. Let the posting entity beware!"

The fact that we have to "beware!" when stating facts and expressing personal opinions simply because they are unpopular is precisely why anonymous speech must be protected.

"immigration tends to create more jobs than are taken."

Yes, but that doesn't benefit the residents of the country receiving immigrants.

There are more jobs because immigrants suppress wages. It's supply and demand. If you have people who are willing to supply their labor at a lower price, demand for labor increases. But the rest of us laborers are stuck on the same supply curve as the immigrants.

We already have relatively small pressurized water reactors. It seems like a reactor that could power a submarine would be the right size for a small colony of people. Is that still too physically large, or would the problem be the quantity of water/coolant required for operation? Maybe they could figure out a way to include the human waste processing function in the reactor system? i.e. cool the reactor by peeing on it.

Such a perspective would imply that everyone in the world with the basic ability to communicate has "freedom of speech". Clearly that's not the case. Would you argue that people in Thailand have "freedom of speech"? Even though using their supposed "freedom" in a way that is insulting to the monarchy can have the consequences of a 15 year prison sentence?

Freedom from consequences is the foundation of freedom of speech. Nobody can actually suppress speech by preventing certain words and ideas from ever being spoken(or typed) in the first place. The only way to stifle free speech is by imposing "consequences" on people. You obviously can't speak "freely" if you are guarding your words to avoid punishment. If you have to fear consequences, other than someone criticizing your ideas & opinions, then you do not have "freedom of speech".

Are you able to get all of your games running under WINE?

I'm looking to retire my current gaming PC. When I built it, I had a retail copy of Windows I got as a Christmas present from a friend at MS. At the time, I'd heard about a lot of problems running games under WINE, so I made the system dual boot Windows/Debian.

I'm guessing that the 43% of respondents who build their own systems don't run out and buy a retail copy of Windows. How good is WINE these days? I want to play "Dawn of War 3" when it comes out and I was thinking of just biting the bullet and buying a gaming system with OEM Windows. If you're all having good luck with WINE, I'll reconsider.

Even the NRA now joining in ... They get a cut of gun sales. Ka-chink!

FALSE

The NRA has a fundraising program in partnership with firearms retailers. Customers are asked to round their purchase up to the nearest dollar with the pocket change going to the NRA.
The NRA does not "get a cut" of gun sales. Buyers are solicited for donations at the point of sale.