Slashdot Mirror

Unfortunately we, as a society, are too civilized to simply say "no" when they come begging for a cure when they got the disease that the vaccine could have prevented.

Even if we put all the anti-vaxxers in one of the shitty states and built a wall around it, it would still benefit us to reduce illness in that neighboring area because walls don't work, and they would still be able to spread illness into our land.

How about California, with it's endemic typhoid?

Typhus Epidemic Worsens in Los Angeles

Yep - typhus is endemic in California:

In California, flea-borne typhus is considered endemic (always present) in areas of Los Angeles and Orange counties, but cases sometimes are also reported from other parts of California.

What a fucking shitty state.

Wildfires happen regularly in nature. The article is nonsense about their rarity. Wildfires of this size occur only if there is an abundance of fuel. Naturally, that requires a drought after a couple decades of being too wet to burn. Thanks to California fire departments, all the small wildfires that would've cleaned out the accumulating fuel were extinguished before they could consume much dead wood.

"We knew that for at least 30 years, and California is so environmentally conscious, they MUST have stopped that policy years ago right?" NO THEY'RE STILL DOING THAT. I guess I shouldn't wonder if the Bay area is prepared for the inevitable "Big One"...

Earthquakes of significance are unchanged. Despite panic that small rock-settling after fracking would result in new faultlines exploding (or whatever nonsense those stories got to).

The jury is still out on that one. In places with no fault lines, sure, it seems unlikely fracking will cause earthquakes, but in Oklahoma, it's possible.

Your system is wrong as it is enables special advantageous treatment which by definition is not democratic. Only compulsory voting achieves maximum representation, and that is required to ensure minimum oppression.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the system in the United States was set up by the Founding Fathers. The primary objective was to maximize liberty, not representation. Compulsory anything infringes on personal liberty. Over the centuries, there have been some trade-offs as to which liberties are curtailed in order to achieve safety, stability, or whatever. The idea that you want to "ensure minimum oppression" seems to completely ignore who is doing the oppression in the first place: the government. Forcing people to vote in order to justify the bureaucracy is antithetical to the foundation of principles of the United States.

If you really wanted to maximize representation in the US, only tax-payers would be allowed to vote.

Compulsory voting is the only solution that actually embodies the foundations of democracy as a representative government.

Voluntary association is one of the foundations of a representative democracy. I prefer to stay away from the government, and prefer them to stay away from me (inasmuch as that's possible). Forcing me to vote will make me quite cross, as it takes away my choice to stay out of it and makes me pick sides.

In all seriousness, the idea that voting will "fix" your perceived societal problems is inherently incorrect. The only real solution is to go work on the problem yourself.

While somewhat of an orthogonal issue, I'd like to point out that even if you did force everybody to vote, it may not change anything. The "oppression" you refer to is often a side-effect from concentrations of institutionalized power. You could vote out everybody in Congress (Senate and House) and not much would change because of the laws which dictate what decisions are made over the lives of the citizenry. "Zero tolerance" and/or the "three strikes" policy are good examples of this in practice. When a judge or administrator has their hands bound by the laws and policies which remove reason, you end up with people going to prison for 13 years because they stole a loaf of bread.

The founders chose their form of government because they were tired of the tyranny of man and instead opted for rule of law. With the way things are now, we are very close to tyranny of law, and trying to force everybody to vote (upon penalty of a fine, jail time, death, 48-hours of Justin Bieber, or whatever) will have little to no effect on reversing our situation. I believe it would make things worse.

First, as recently as a week ago, CALISO (the folks who run the grid in CA) was issuing a "Flex Alert" to urge people in SoCal to conserve electricity because there was not enough to go around. If, in response to a "Flex Alert" people do not conserve enough, our energy rationing masters begin switching off power to businesses who have traded lower rates for the inconvienence or remort control over their usage. If the managed rationing fails to save enough, rolling blackouts happen (as happened a few years back).

Second, California becomes huge sucking hole into which energy must be pulled when the sun goes down. Solar power is only a solution for total grid power like a unicorn is a transortation solution - no matter how much solar you generate, you must still have and maintain full coal/oil/nuke/natgas capacity and have it ready at a moment-by-moment basis to fill-in for the unreliable solar panels (and wind farms) whose genrating capacity is completely out of human control.

"Green" propagandists are continually playing on the ignorance of dim-witted college kids and distracted would-be do-gooders with these sorts of misleading and incomplete headlines and articles. Sadly for the greenines, there are still too many of us who know who things actually work in the REAL WORLD, and do not thinks everything can be fixed with fairy dust and positive mental energy.

And this, boys and girls, is what you get when you don't have a constitution that guarantees free speech. The lefties in the US are trying for the same thing by equating speech they don't like to assault and then rioting http://www.foxnews.com/politic... and beating people in the head with bike locks to shut down speech they disagree with. http://www.nbclosangeles.com/n... Every fascist leftie, piss ant bureaucrat and judge becomes their own little dictator who can shit on you from on high. The only thing stopping this crap in the US is our constitution and enforcement of the rule of law (which apparently doesn't happen in Berkeley, CA...

In that sense, so is Oregon (Portland, Salem, Bend), California (SanFran Metro, LA Metro, San Diego Metro), Washington (SeaTac and maybe one other metro area), and likely lots of other states just like it. :)

Not quite, but certainly the perception of California, Washington, and Oregon as total Commie-Pinko Hippie territory is wrong. Reagan was elected governor of California. Reagan. The idea that the state is a far leftist fring? A lie.

But here's a shocker, so is the perception of the country as a Sea of Red. It's a lie. A damnable one.

Troll alert. This is apples and rotten oranges...

These body cameras are intrusive and over the top when it comes to personal privacy, but if you believe the news reports coming out of police departments, cops actually like them after having to wear them for a while. No more BS, "he said/she said" issues; And I'm sure that cops love not having to deal with paperwork over unfounded cop complaints.

OTOH, red light cameras (and speed cameras) were put in place as a "sin tax" revenue grab by government officials/councilmen/legislators that usually had personal vendettas against rude/aggressive drivers. Those naive officials were easy prey for the real bandits - companies like ATS and Redflex, whose CEO was bribing city officials to get the revenue generators installed in as many places as possible.

Body cameras: Enormous drop in police complaints, and both sides like the extra clarity they provide to litigious and/or life or death situations. Red light cameras: mixed safety results, bogged-down municipal courts, confusion, outright corruption, and even murder generation.

Of course these days, who cares about facts. Perception is reality...

First, there are plenty of other thriving democracies that have far more restrictive gun control than the US.

Says such thriving democratic institutions as Russia, North Korea, Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina.

Guns are demonstrably not required to protect your civil rights.

What will protect your right to self-defense when you're elderly or handicapped? A lot of good a court will do affirming your "right" after you're dead, or the offending party is not caught.

Furthermore the most successful civil rights movement in the US during the last century was largely a pacifist one

Which is just as relevant an example as WW2 was for defending American civil rights.

Guns would were mostly counter productive in securing and retaining civil rights.

Gun ownership are not directly for the purpose of securing and retaining individual civil rights. Gun ownership is symbolic of a citizen's "right" to self defense even when disadvantaged. Having a mob of rabid, well armed American citizens is a check against government overreach.

Right now, the legal system is claiming its perfectly legitimate for the federal gov't to spy and warehouse information on American citizens, that black men choked to death by local law enforcement is not a crime, and that LEOs can seize any large sums of cash upon your person or property without observing due process "rights". Right now, my PotUS choice is between Hillary Clinton, who didn't have the common sense to decline having a "private" email server, and Donald Trump. And you're telling me I can count on these people to protect my rights????

You don't need it to protect your rights from the government.

Firearm ownership is the MAD doctrine between government and its citizens. It is not necessary in a nation which will zealously defend its citizens' rights, but when is the last time we've seen government legislators and bureaucrats meet this standard?

You aren't going to protect your family or property from real or imagined criminals.

This one did. And there are many, many other examples.

You don't need a semi-automatic or full automatic gun for any practical purpose.

Probably not. But you don't have a need for a right to peaceably assemble. Those Dallas cops wouldn't have been shot if those people weren't protesting for their rights. What good did those public demonstrations do to prevent/end the Iraq invasion/occupation? What good did the "Occupy Wall Street" protests do towards the SEC and DOJ filing prosecutions against bankers? How did it encourage the Federal Reserve to stop consolidating banks into huge conglomerates which don't adequately serve small business and individual borrowers? And giving individuals to right to vote for their gov't representatives? Look what good it did in the UK.

What you fail to understand is that a Constitutionally recognized human right is not a privilege bestowed by the federal gov't. Rights are not meant to be taken away by an elected gov't when the majority deems them to be counter-productive or irrelevant. The right to own tools to shoot and maim many other people, is the same right to express a desire to invade other countries to feel "safer", or the right to not self-incriminate oneself, even if they are a drug kingpin or banker, ad nauseum. If one allows the gov't to arbitrarily take away any right, no right is safe from the mob (or elite).

You own a gun because you like to shoot and/or hunt. Occasionally people need one for pest control.

Nope. I own a gun to put a hole in anyone breaking into my house that can present a threat to the well being of my residents. I re

Bernie supporters don't "hate" Hillary, we just think Bernie is a better choice.

Every time someone says something about Bernie people show up acting sane and claiming that they're really the legit Bernie supporters. Of course, Trump is defined by the worst of his supporters while Bernie is supposed to be defined by the best of his. See the double standard?

These people are Bernie supporters:

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/n...

Both sides want to keep men out of women's bathrooms

Only one side has a clear definition of what "man" means. The other side does not have one, but is demonstrably intolerant of and outright hateful towards the side, which does. Only one of them is bigoted.

Personally, I would prefer people that look like men to you my restroom than my daughter's restroom

If she does not have a penis, she is neither danger, nor particular discomfort to your daughter. But if he does, then he is. You may disagree, but it is no "bigotry" to think otherwise.

Because it never happens?

If you have a dick, use the men's toilet.

I thought Libs were all for science. Where is the science in pretending a dude, with a dick and male chromosomes, is a woman?

Not quite certain what your point is, Your supposed liberal result of allowing transgenders in womens room is a pervy male, who identifies as male, Not a transgender.

Pervy males have done this kind of pervy stuff for years and years.

http://wkrn.com/2016/03/10/pol...

http://www.marshfieldnewsheral...

http://komonews.com/archive/po...

Here's a good one - a man hiding in a septic tank so he could watch women do their thing. Jeebuz! http://kfor.com/2013/07/08/man...

Point is you are using the conept of people only going into restrooms to have sex. Stop that! A transgender woman is almost certainly just going into the restroom, and just using it. And if she is going into the bathroom to look to have sex - what of lesbians? They are probably more interested in the other people's lady parts.

And if you check out the dates, these perv guys were dressing as women to work their pervy magic a while back, before even supreme court rulings on gay marriage or gender equity. Anyhow, would you force this person to use a mens room? http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-... http://www4.pictures.zimbio.co...

And she's probably going to just do her business and leave. If she wanted to engage in sexy time in a bathroom (yuk) she'd probably go in the men's room.

psst - I think she likes guys.

Because it never happens?

If you have a dick, use the men's toilet.

I thought Libs were all for science. Where is the science in pretending a dude, with a dick and male chromosomes, is a woman?

Actually, no. No he can not.

What's there to stop him?

And yes, it is a myth

Congratulations, you've defeated a strawman. Your link explains, how improbable (though not impossible) it is to be attacked in a bathroom by a transgendered. But that's not, what I was talking about. Which was the treat posed by a heterosexual man pretending to be a woman in order to get into and stay in women's bathroom. And that has happened...

Am I insane because I identify as a woman?

Yes, one's elevator does not reach all the way to the top, if he considers himself a woman. But, as I wrote once before, we really ought to define terms before continuing. I am now asking you once again to post your definitions for the terms "man" and "woman". Further responses missing this information will be returned unopened. Thank you.

The chances are pretty good actually. And that's just the first page of Google hits (ignore the one fake video).

The near misses are happening frequently enough that there will eventually be a hit, likely several. Do you really want to stick your head in the sand and pretend there's no problem until there's loss of life? Aviation regulatory agencies like the FAA are frequently criticized for being too reactionary - not addressing problems until after there's been loss of life. They are attempting to be proactive in this case, and they're getting criticized for that too.

If they refuse to play by the same rules,

Uber is doing background checks on drivers - at least as well as cab companies. Probably better because who can say how many cab drivers make it in via political favors?

That's what they claim but the facts don't support that. If anyone is making it by political favors, it's Uber. In California, Colorado and Illinois, they got themselves exempted from the taxi background checks by hiring lobbying firms and lobbying legislators.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12...
Uber’s System for Screening Drivers Draws Scrutiny
By MIKE ISAAC
DEC. 9, 2014
Uber uses Hirease, a private company that says it has an average turnaround time of “less than 36 hours.”
Both services do drug and alcohol testing, but neither does fingerprint testing. And they rely primarily on publicly available information.
Although state background checks for taxi drivers vary by jurisdiction, lawmakers say they are generally more rigorous than either of these services. They usually include searches of private databases like F.B.I. records, gaining consent from prospective drivers for those searches,
In California, those drivers must undergo checks by the state’s Justice Department, including fingerprint scanning, drug and alcohol testing, and searches of private databases. A check can take as little as three days, but as long as eight weeks.
(Uber defeated bills to require the same checks, including fingerprints, required for taxi and limousine drivers, in California, Colorado, and Illinois.)

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/n...
Risky Ride: Who's Behind the Wheel of Uber Cars?
How safe is Uber? The NBC4 ITeam investigates.
By Joel Grover and Keith Esparros
Friday, May 2, 2014
Beverly Locke did. Working with the NBC4 I-Team, Locke filled out all the necessary documentation needed to become an Uber driver....
On her first day "on the job," she received a request from Paolo, a frequent UberX user, who was looking for a ride from his Hollywood apartment. He is an Uber fan.
"I use cabs a lot," said Paolo. "And, it's almost half the fare in Uber than for a taxi driver."
His phone lit up with a picture of Locke, and a message that said Beverly will pick him up in three minutes.
What he didn't know is that Beverly was an ex-con with a violent past. Her 20-year rap sheet includes burglary, cocaine possession, and making criminal threats with the intent to cause death or bodily injury.
"I pulled a girl out of a car and almost beat her to death," said Locke, who described herself as a reformed criminal with a good job and a desire to make up for her past. "I do not do criminal things anymore."
NBC4 asked Locke to cancel the ride, so the former convict never actually carried a passenger. But the NBC4 I-Team found several examples in which drivers with a criminal past have picked up Uber passengers.
Tadeusz Szczechowicz drove the streets of Chicago for a year, despite five prior arrests and two convictions for burglary and disorderly conduct.
Syed Muzzafar had a prior conviction for reckless driving, but he cleared the Uber background check and was behind the wheel New Year's Eve when he was arrested for hitting and killing a 6-year-old girl in San Francisco.
And, Jigneshkumar Patel was arrested for battery of an UberX passenger, a charge he said is "rubbish." Still, the UberX driver had a 2012 conviction for DUI.
Uber declined to talk to NBC4 directly, but did send emails describing corporate policy on background checks. A message said Uber "leads the industry" with its "best-in-class background checks for drivers."
Uber also said it has a "zero tolerance" policy for drug and alcohol offenses, and said it carefully screens applicants and immediately disqualif

Not just India. Do a Google search for "uber driver criminal"

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12...
Uber’s System for Screening Drivers Draws Scrutiny
By MIKE ISAAC
DEC. 9, 2014

Uber uses Hirease, a private company that says it has an average turnaround time of “less than 36 hours.”
Both services do drug and alcohol testing, but neither does fingerprint testing. And they rely primarily on publicly available information.

Although state background checks for taxi drivers vary by jurisdiction, lawmakers say they are generally more rigorous than either of these services. They usually include searches of private databases like F.B.I. records, gaining consent from prospective drivers for those searches,

In California, those drivers must undergo checks by the state’s Justice Department, including fingerprint scanning, drug and alcohol testing, and searches of private databases. A check can take as little as three days, but as long as eight weeks.

(Uber defeated bills to require the same checks, including fingerprints, required for taxi and limousine drivers, in California, Colorado, and Illinois.)

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/n...
Risky Ride: Who's Behind the Wheel of Uber Cars?
How safe is Uber? The NBC4 ITeam investigates.
By Joel Grover and Keith Esparros
Friday, May 2, 2014

UberX, where anyone with a car and the inclination can apply to be a driver.

Maps: Uber Regulations in the U.S. | Uber Timeline

That's exactly what Beverly Locke did. Working with the NBC4 I-Team, Locke filled out all the necessary documentation needed to become an Uber driver. She proved she was a licensed driver with a safe car, and agreed to submit to a background check.

Four weeks later, she received an e-mail indicating her background check had cleared.

On her first day "on the job," she received a request from Paolo, a frequent UberX user, who was looking for a ride from his Hollywood apartment. He is an Uber fan.

"I use cabs a lot," said Paolo. "And, it's almost half the fare in Uber than for a taxi driver."

Who's Watching Uber?

His phone lit up with a picture of Locke, and a message that said Beverly will pick him up in three minutes.

What he didn't know is that Beverly was an ex-con with a violent past. Her 20-year rap sheet includes burglary, cocaine possession, and making criminal threats with the intent to cause death or bodily injury.

"I pulled a girl out of a car and almost beat her to death," said Locke, who described herself as a reformed criminal with a good job and a desire to make up for her past. "I do not do criminal things anymore."

NBC4 asked Locke to cancel the ride, so the former convict never actually carried a passenger. But the NBC4 I-Team found several examples in which drivers with a criminal past have picked up Uber passengers.

Tadeusz Szczechowicz drove the streets of Chicago for a year, despite five prior arrests and two convictions for burglary and disorderly conduct.

Syed Muzzafar had a prior conviction for reckless driving, but he cleared the Uber background check and was behind the wheel New Year's Eve when he was arrested for hitting and killing a 6-year-old girl in San Francisco.

And, Jigneshkumar Patel was arrested for battery of an UberX passenger, a charge he said is "rubbish." Still, the UberX driver had a 2012 conviction for DUI.

Uber declined to talk to NBC4 directly, but did send emails describing corporate policy on background checks. A message said Uber "leads the industry" with its "best-in-class background checks for drivers."

Uber also said it has a "zero tolerance" policy for drug and alcohol offenses, and said it carefully screens applicants and immedia

[Citations Needed]

These "projects" you mention. Care to give examples of each? I know, coming up with actual facts is much too difficult. Especially hen those pesky facts interfere with your biases. Poor baby!

Girl launches discrimination suit to join boys only wrestling team
http://www.takepart.com/articl...

Girl files discrimination suit to join boy scouts
http://www.bsa-discrimination....

Strip Club sued because it didn't want women patrons.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/n...

Want more?

Cute.

I live on this planet:

http://losangeles.urbdezine.co...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.co...

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/n...

http://articles.latimes.com/20...

http://articles.latimes.com/20...

This is my planet. Glad you can make a cute statement and run away without any effort to back it up.

If TWC doesn't perform to my satisfaction, I go to ATT. If ATT botches it, I can jump to a number of cellular or satellite solutions. And if it's REALLY bad, I can make sure next time I move I'm in a better area with better coverage.

If you want YOUR local government to take over more stuff, bully for you. Don't even THINK about making it manditory. This is an effing HUGE country with countless different needs and functions. My town has "again and again to cost-cutting in the interest of short-term profits, the neglect of upkeep, and the failure to maintain sufficient overcapacity in order to deal with surges and failures" while private services and businesses who wish to survive need to keep up with client needs -- or at least be better then their competition.

Correction: It's dumb to make a proprietary mobile data transceiver for a car. Witness an entire generation of ONSTAR-equipped vehicles from just a few years ago that are now completely nonfunctional now that the analog cell network is decommissioned.

My next car will have a mobile data connection - I want the live traffic updates integrated with GPS without having to jury-rig a cellphone on the dash or have it lying loose in the car. Instead, I'll use the iDrive joystick to operate the GPS. The one thing I wish the car will have that none of them do is a standard mobile radio similar to the mini-PCIe interface in laptops, where if the wireless data standard is phased out, I could just upgrade the radio.

Contrary to what some are implying, mobile and embedded data and processor technology are showing NO signs of stabilizing - quite the opposite in fact, they are rapidly accelerating so it would be a tremendous breakthrough if automakers would standardize at least some components and software APIs.

On the software side, SAAB under Spyker was reputedly making huge strides in this arena, where they were going to roll out Android-equipped infotainment systems in the 9-3 and 9-5, and it would have had tremendous potential. Imagine not only being able to install Torque and create custom gauge themes, but going a step further and run something similar to the T8Suite, enabling you to create custom tune profiles, and then select between customized economy and aggressive tune profiles on the fly. A nice high PSI, high fuel rate and advanced ignition to take advantage of a turbocharger upgrade, then a very low boost profile (similar to their old LPT models) with a lean-burn mixture and retarded timing and adaptive shift points (or a shift light for us manual drivers) to maximize fuel economy without having to give up on-demand performance. Some might view the CAN/OBD integration as a security hole, but it's like having physical access to a Linux box - once you have physical access to the car (OBD port or software or otherwise) it's game over as far as security goes, so I'd consider it a feature. As far as direct control over the fuel, ignition, active suspension, ABS, etc. I don't think we'll ever be away from the individual embedded systems running those, with their being fed only values from lookup tables from the BCM (and a tune aside from engine component changes and hard hacks to an ECM and sensors really only modifies those lookup tables anyhow and if there is a fault the modules revert to an open-loop "limp mode" with default lookup values)

Besides, it's no less secure than electronic keys, which have been compromised on at least some makes.

. . .blame fasting.
If Michael Hastings hadn't been fasting so much down that street, he wouldn't have gone up in an obese fireball, now would he?
Prosecution rests.

Can't get the 2nd FA to load, slashdotted and/or Sandy-related issues? Here's a dupe - I guess - Apple Delays iTunes Update | NBC Southern California

Have been a Foobar2000 stalwart for years myself. Only use iTunes for managing iPods and only want one added feature - to be able to delete an item from a playlist and have that file deleted from the iPod too. You'd think that would be no big deal. CopyTransManager stands in for iTunes and has this feature but it's very sluggish.

Also, shouldn't criminals who have served their entire sentence (including parole) be removed from this database?

Hell and blood, the police often have trouble knocking down the right door when they have an address:

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Ex-Miss-Nevada-Sues-LA-Sheriffs-Deputies-Over-Raid-164060136.html

How are they going to behave when this system wrongly identifies an innocent person?

At least they didn't break a colostomy bag seal.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/politics/TSA_chief_apologizes_to_traveler_with_ostomy-109990494.html

I know what you mean, I've been trapped in too many inescapable situations with somebody who couldn't simply ask people to talk quieter instead resorting to passive-aggressive jackassery like jamming a cell phone signal.

This may come as a surprise to you but many people don't actively try to be assholes, nor are they always aware they're inconveniencing someone else with their actions. If something someone is doing bothers you try politely talking to the person to give them a chance to work with you, improve the world a little instead of deliberately being an asshole just because you feel a stranger slighted you.

Many != all.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/Moviegoer-Tells-Woman-to-Stop-Talking-On-Cell-Phone-Gets-Stabbed-in-the-Neck-87144462.html

Fortunately in this case the victim survived, and the assailant was eventually arrested and convicted of attempted murder. My point is that despite our desires to believe in the goodness of everyone in society, there are people who don't belong in society, and yet they still exist in it. Some helpfully identify themselves as anti-social through publicly identifiable clothing choices. But others may be disguised.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/weird/Las-Vegas-Vdara-Hotel-Death-Ray-104041383.html http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/10/can-a-building-be-a-sun-death-ray/

RFID is attackable. Just swipe a little reader over some guy's ass when he isn't looking, or play like Chris Paget and add a little power. Pipe the card's output through a register with the amount you want to take as a "purchase" parameter, and the person won't have any clue their wallet was picked until they get their bank statement or a transaction is declined, whichever comes first.

I'm sure you're all very surprised to learn that a nigger was just involved in a stabbing:

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/Moviegoer-Tells-Woman-to-Stop-Talking-On-Cell-Phone-Gets-Stabbed-in-the-Neck-87144462.html

Here's a PERFECT example of why weapons control laws are useless. This nigger didn't have a gun - he was packing a fucking MEAT THERMOMETER! Are liberals going to try to outlaw meat thermometers?

... accusing people of being gay.

That's an increasingly dangerous pastime of late... Freedom of speech is not what it used to be now that the fighters for tolerance are increasingly intolerant and opponents of hate overwhelmingly hateful. Even speaking out against gay "marriage" will cost you...

The old sentiment of "I disagree with your opinion, but I shall fight for your right to express it," — is long gone... Consider, for example, the opening sentence of this highly moderated posting.

Lithium is found naturally in some spring water.

Given the state of modern living, you could also say that antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones are found "naturally" in our drinking water.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Jury-Reaches-Verdict-in-Spector-Case.html

BARACK OBAMA ROCKS!!! LOL!