Slashdot Mirror

e-bikes are not classified "motorized vehicles" in 31 states and DC, including the nation's two largest states by population. It is you that hasn't "read the laws" which isn't surprising considering your intolerant potty mouth.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/t...

Uninsured numbers weren't cut in half, and premiums increased at the same rate as prior to Obamacare.

You also conveniently ignore that President Obama had complete control for a good chunk of the first two years of his Presidency (Chuck Schumer was Senate Leader, and Nancy Pelosi was Speaker).

Despite being given $350 billion by President Bush (as then-President Elect Obama requested) to stimulate the economy, the economy was starting to slink back to recession when President Trump was elected, with GDP plunging back down. Thankfully that's been arrested, and interest rates (which were at 0% for most of the Obama Administration) have started to come back up (which will strengthen the economy long-term). All while racking up more debt than pretty much all previous Presidents combined. He even got Congress to amend President Bush's 2009 budget by adding another $900 billion to it - and his supporters love to pin that $900 billion back on President Bush (which is completely disingenuous).

Now, you forgot things like his own self-described "worst mistake" of Libya, failures in Syria, drove world opinion of the USA down (thankfully it's rebounding back up), assassinated US citizens without due process, knowingly illegally selling guns to Mexican drug gangs (one of which was used to kill a US border patrol officer), and many, many more things which could be considered abject, Administration-destroying failures.

The law says a Driver must be in control of a vehicle at ALL TIMES. Waymo’s vehicles and inherently illegal.

It's really too bad that laws cannot be amended. Oh wait. They can be. And they have been:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/t...

Nice theory but where I live the law says otherwise. Pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way.

No, that's not what the law says. It's just that milions of ignoramuses believe that that's what it says because multiple generations of driving instructors have been misleading them. Go look through the traffic laws; you won't find anything like that.

I found a reference that summarizes the various laws by state. Some states are more restrictive than others. http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-crossing-50-state-summary.aspx

The people are getting to choose their top two candidates from the jungle primary.

Oh so those states with gerrymandered districts don't have primaries and none of them have primaries where anyone can vote ? /Sarcasm

Actually, you already did promote gerrymandering. Foolishly and falsely claiming it did something it does not.

Don't fault me because you don't understand the process or the court rulings that govern it's use.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/r...

It looks like this is currently handled on a statewide basis. Some states have no law regarding voting machine tampering, some punish it with a fine, some classify it as a misdemeanor, and some as a felony.

  http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/state-statutes-prohibiting-tampering-with-voting-systems.aspx

It would help if there were a federal law with substantial criminal penalties. No need really to invoke "computers" at all.

Those leaked emails have been what's caused voter Id to be thrown out where ever it's been tried.

I'm not sure if you genuinely believe that statement, are intentionally lying, or are misrepresenting the truth. A majority of states have laws that require either photo or non-photo ID to vote. The main difference between those states is where the voter will have to take any steps after casting their provisional ballot after presenting ID. Ten states require the voter to present a valid ID after casting the ballot for it to be counted. The remainder will do additional cross checks or have other means to avoid requiring the ID.

Voter ID Laws

Gay youth make up something like 40% of the homeless children.

Actually, estimates are 20 to 40 percent. Probably difficult to get them to answer surveys, on account of the being homeless thing.

We only get the adult-type bums in my neck of the woods, and they certainly don't seem to be friends of Mary.

Here they lament the legal status of government issued identification to a criminal alien.
It also handily lists many of the services the ID gives criminal aliens access to.
The IDs Were Meant to Protect Immigrants. Are They a Liability?
This lists the states that issue criminal aliens a drivers license
STATES OFFERING DRIVER’S LICENSES TO IMMIGRANTS

I'm pretty sure every State which requires ID already has either a free ID or an alternate method for having your vote counted (usually a provisional ballot or an affidavit).

But feel free to verify that for yourself.

> If they come down with the flu, they won't be able to leave until they've tested negative for the virus for two days. So what if they decide to leave? Is this merely a civil breach of contract, or is it an indenture? Will they be bought back in chains by men in hazmat suits?

Well, TFA uses the word Quarantine, so perhaps you should read up on what that means? Even though influenza is naturally occuring and relatively common, it doesn't mean that health authorities are going to want to create and release new sources of infection.

Depending upon how rigorously they construct their protocol, it's cute that you think that a participant would need to be brought back. Most hospitals have a "secure wing" where they can treat people who don't want to be there -- prisoners and people on psychological holds -- and neither simply handcuff people to their beds nor rely upon a pinky-swear. "Deciding to leave" may be more theory than practice.

Not in California, it isn't. You're required to yield to the pedestrian and drive in a manner that avoids putting the pedestrian in danger. You are NOT required to wait until the pedestrian is safely on the opposite curb. Laws requiring that are exceptionally rare in the U.S.:

• Minnesota is the only state with such a law that applies in all circumstances.
• Washington D.C., Georgia, Maryland, Nebraska, and Oregon require you to stop if they're in your lane or an adjacent lane. For a two-lane road, that's effectively the same thing as requiring you to stop until the pedestrian has fully crossed.
• New Jersey requires you to stop if they're in your lane or an adjacent lane, but only for marked crosswalks.
• Tennessee has such a law, but it applies only in school zones when the warning lights are flashing.

Source: NCSL

Notice that California isn't on that list. California law just requires you to yield.

Or not. http://www.ncsl.org/research/t... in Arizona "Pedestrians must yield the right-of-way to vehicles when crossing outside of a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection."

50 states - at least 50 sets of laws.
Even in states that treat bicycles differently from pedestrians, the penalty for pedestrian / bicyclist miss behavior is a traffic ticket. Drivers are at a minimum are required to exercise reasonable care to not hit bicycles and pedestrians, just like they are not allowed to road rage and impact a driver for running a red light.

I wounder if the safety driver will be considered to be the "driver in fact" and what his liability will be vs his employer's..

Just one of *many* similar sites which also correct your misinformation...

http://www.ncsl.org/research/t...

Essentially- pedestrians have right of way in crosswalks. In many states, they are at fault when jaywalking. Not just don't have right of way- they will be the one found at fault if there is an accident and they are outside of a cross walk.

For Arizona in particular,
Arizona: Vehicles must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians within a crosswalk that are in the same half of the roadway as the vehicle or when a pedestrian is approaching closely enough from the opposite side of the roadway to constitute a danger. Pedestrians may not suddenly leave the curb and enter a crosswalk into the path of a moving vehicle that is so close the vehicle is unable to yield. Pedestrians must yield the right-of-way to vehicles when crossing outside of a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. Where traffic control devices are in operation, pedestrians may only cross between two adjacent intersections in a marked crosswalk.

Additionally, as I've been taught in every driver's safety course. You can be 100% right and still end up100% dead.

You need to decide if enforcing your right of way on that 18 wheeler loaded with steel piping is worth your life.

Well, because it's settled Supreme Court precedence, you would probably need a constitutional amendment, and that takes a 2/3 majority in both chambers of Congress, plus ratification by 2/3 of the states. That won't happen.

It needs no such thing. All that is needed is 5 justices agreeing with a state law that life begins at conception, or some point very soon thereafter.

There already are such laws: http://www.ncsl.org/research/h...
The difference between fetal homicide and abortion is very arbitrary.

Costs seem to be increasing from ~7% of income to 10.1% of income, after the ACA passed.

And of course the ACA was a handout to the insurance companies. You are compelled under threat of penalties to give money to a private corporation, whether you want to or not. If you choose not to, then the Government would forcibly take the money from you and hand it over. You were forced to buy a product whether you intended to use it or not. Yes, people talk about car insurance - but you do not need to own or drive a car. If you choose to not purchase or use health insurance (for whatever reason) - you have to pay for it no matter what.

As far as your friend goes, here's another anecdote. I was paying $112 per month for a catastrophic plan, back in 2008. 40-something, fair health. I have a $12,000 HSA I had built up - and my insurance plan was $10,000 deductible (I cover everything up to that point) and 100% coverage above that level. However, the ACA essentially banned that plan, and the next lowest cost I could get was $455 per month. With a $6500 deductible. Now? Well, I used to have Blue Cross of CA - but they no longer offer plans to self-employed people, so I had to switch to Blue Shield and my premiums are now at $590 per month. Again, for something I do not use because I am in good health. Would love to have kept the catastrophic plan ("If you like your plan you can keep it") but since it was deemed unacceptable, I have paid about $30,000 more in insurance costs than I should have, over the last 8 years...

Pedestrians have right of way in all 50 states.

Actually, according to this http://www.ncsl.org/research/financial-services-and-commerce/credit-or-debit-card-surcharges-statutes.aspx there are several states that do have laws against it. True that there is no federal law.

According to this overview of unmanned aircraft law, drone use is largely being regulated by the states. Aside from the FAA's widely anticipated and vetted operational rules, there really isn't much more that can be done at the Federal level. The FAA can add restrictions to operators. It cannot prevent states from putting on additional reasonable restrictions, which many have.

So I'm not exactly sure what Trump imagines he is going to do to "help" these companies.

But I'm sure he will. After all, it's not like he already has a reputation for making grandiose promises that he has no intention of keeping, or bullshitting about things he is laughably ignorant about. Nope. Never seen that happen.

It looks like the laws used to prosecute phishing at the federal level are:

18 U.S.C. 1029 (access device fraud)
18 U.S.C. 1028 (fraud in connection with identification documents and authentication features)
18 U.S.C. 1028A (aggravated identity theft)
18 U.S.C. 1343 (wire fraud)
18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(4) (accessing a computer to defraud and obtain something of value)
18 U.S.C. 1001 (making false statements in any matter within the jurisdiction of the government)

There are a number of state laws that handle it, too.

Not a wise move on their part.

Are you claiming that phishing isn't illegal?

On a federal level it seems to be prosecuted mostly under wire fraud and identity theft laws, but there are other laws that also apply. There are also various state laws that deal with it. Here is a little information on the state laws that apply. Here is a Justice Dept discussion of federal computer crimes that mentions phishing.

The law mostly used to prosecute phishing seems to be 18 U.S.C. 1029(e)(1). "Penalties for violations of section 1029 range from a maximum of 10 or 15 years of imprisonment depending on the subsection violated."

Phishing is not legal and it was not a great idea to publicly confess to attempting a phishing campaign against the US government.

If you're leaving a state that has high unemployment and a ridiculously high cost of living, amd high taxes, going to a state with low costs, high pay, amd low taxes, recognize that those conditions were created by policies.

Well, turns outs out California is doing great. Unemployment is only 4.9%, lower than Texas at 5%. What a huge difference!

Of course, Texas has a history of poverty and failing schools as well as a dangerous obsession with bathroom inspections.

Even Texas's own governor admits that the state has a problem when it comes to transportation and congestion. And in fact, the California High-Speed Rail project is not light rail, but like the Houston-Dallas link a inter-city connection.

Furthermore, no, Trumpcare does not grant states more freedom. Of course, it turns out, somebody who voted for it admitted they didn't read it.

Maybe that's your problem? You didn't read it, so you couldn't find out what was in it?

How can anyone with any intelligence protest voter ID laws?

Because people with intelligence realize that oppressive manifestations of even the most genuine and benign laws exist.

If you weren't a dishonest liar, you're realize that, and account for it, instead of trying to disingenuously dismiss any challenges at all.

Voting is a PRIVILEGE in the USA reserved only for citizens.

Technically no, there are many cases where residents or property owners are allowed to vote. Regardless of citizenship.

California allowing anyone obtaining a driver's license to register to vote without verification of eligibility could, in theory, allow non-citizens (including illegals, since they don't check that when issuing a driver's license either) to register to vote.

We need stricter voter ID laws.

Nope. You need some regard for the truth, as what you're saying about California is a malicious lie.

Really, what is the purpose of making such easily disproven lies?

Why do you repeat such things? Are you a mindless shill, or are you intent on making Republicans look bad? Which is it?

Semantics.

It's illegal in the US:

Unauthorized access" entails approaching, trespassing within, communicating with, storing data in, retrieving data from, or otherwise intercepting and changing computer resources without consent.

In other words, it actually is not illegal. Because I got consent. The printer gave it to me. I asked the printer "hey, print this document" and the printer said "ok!".

It's like if you give a house key to the person you are dating, later break up with them, but forget to change your locks. It isn't my fault if your ex hosts your place on AirBnB while you are out of town.

Semantics.

It's illegal in the US:

Unauthorized access" entails approaching, trespassing within, communicating with, storing data in, retrieving data from, or otherwise intercepting and changing computer resources without consent.

Moron, the ACA is more than just subsidizing insurance for not-quite-poor people. Much of the impact has been due to Medicaid expansion. Yes, the subsidized insurance programs have been less than successful. No, the entire program isn't a waste.

For the last few years, medicare expansion is basically sending subsidy money directly to medicare (and eventually the doctor) rather than to the insurance company (and eventually the doctor). It is the same "subsidy" except we use a different middle man (an insurance company bureaucracy vs a government bureaucracy).

Under the ACA, the federal government paid 100% for medicaid expansion from 2014 to 2016. Eventually by 2020, the states have to kick in 10% for medicaid expansion. Some "voodoo" economics math predicts that this might be close to break even for the state (the 90% contributed by the feds will be of course spent by medicare health providers in the state generating some tax revenues to offset the 10% cost), but if states eventually need to increase marginal tax rates to come up with some of the 10%, it will tend to impact the not-quite-poor people that they were trying to help, so it's unclear if this will actually be any better than any other subsidized insurance in the long term.

Of course it gets them insured now by medicaid (rather than waiting for a sub-bronze insurance market to develop), so in that sense it isn't a waste, but it may not be any more affordable than subsidized insurance in the long term. Medicaid expansion is mostly just a ploy for getting more people into the single-payer pool (presumably that is the end-game that the ACA proponents were after in the long term anyhow).

Moron, the ACA is more than just subsidizing insurance for not-quite-poor people. Much of the impact has been due to Medicaid expansion. Yes, the subsidized insurance programs have been less than successful. No, the entire program isn't a waste.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

when I go in I show my ID and they look at their list to make sure I'm at the right place. You can't just walk in and cast a ballot.

Not all states require ID. Some require a photo ID, most do not. Many do not require ID. I found a source that shows the different requirements by state. Here in Virginia, where I work as an Election Officer, you must show a photo ID to vote. It's a good system, in spite of the many criticisms. It has survived all court challenges, primarily because we provide many various ways for a vote to obtain a photo ID without cost or onerous requirements. The registrar's office can even issue their own "for voting purposes only" photo ID, and voters are sometimes issued ID with very little documentation. The registrar has enough information from various state agencies to ensure that the person requesting the ID is legitimate just by asking a few questions and cross-referencing a few state databases. It's a really good system, and there have been folks that came into my polling station to vote that clearly should not be there. They never press the issue or cause problems, probably because they know they are not supposed to be there.

We do need to strengthen the entire process.

Yes, I totally agree with this. It was kind of my original point. Not that there are millions of non-citizens voting, but because it's so difficult to find out how many non-citizens are voting.

I find it hard to believe that the government wouldn't know who its citizens are, at some level in some department.

There have been efforts. eVerify is the primary one. It's not too bad, but there have been legitimate criticisms of it, because there is about a 10% false negative (that is, about 10% of eligible workers are reported as non-eligible to work in the US). The system was designed to verify workers are eligible for employment. That's WAY too high. So the planned mandates for employers never happened. We need to be better at this.

I get what you're saying about the local police and access to federal information. Personal encounters with law enforcement at any level can be fraught with complexities, and I don't want to see any increase in police action at that level. Just the opposite, as far as LEO access to data is concerned. I think this is where we have a fundamental disagreement in principle. I want a weaker Federal government that defers to states on many more issues. Cultures and values of people living in Vermont diverge significantly from the cultures and values of people living in Oklahoma. We should acknowledge that and reduce the role of the Federal government in those diverse issues. It would cause a lot less angst when a president is elected that wins most of the states but loses the popular vote in the densely populated coastal states.

Those instructions have weight on the federal level and thus no bearing on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the EC vote. If TX considers you an outlaw, that's no skin off my back. I don't live in TX. If you're a big fan of "citizens of states first, union second" sort of thing, you really can't expect the rest of the union to instantly recognize your own state's pet ideas about what is and isn't legal.

Besides, twenty-one states have no restrictions whatsoever, which is probably enough to swing it. I'm not going to look it up and add it all up just to confirm for some random slashdotter because, like I said, this is an exercise in intellectual honesty and snowflake-proclivity, i.e. if you're going to insist "rules are rules and we're a union of states and not individuals" do you ACTUALLY mean that?

Don't worry, mi is a known liar, fraud, and all-around fuckwad. But I already have done the work for the electoral college.

First, you want a reference to tell you the states with pledges.

Of those, Trump won Alabama (9) Nebraska (5) Alaska (3) North Carolina (15) Oklahoma (7) Ohio (18) Florida (29) South Carolina (9) Tennessee (11) Maine (1) Utah (6) Michigan (16) Mississippi (6) Wisconsin (10) Montana (3) Wyoming (3).

That's 151 pledged votes for him. Easily short of 270. Of course, I could have done it just by pointing out that Texas, does not have pledged electors, and it alone has 38 votes, enough to swing it. since he has 306, and well, that's obviously higher. Posted anonymously so you don't have to credit me each time you point out the numbers.

Not that this matters, the question as to whether the states can rescind an electoral vote is still up in the air, and not all of those do that. They penalize them, but Congress still counts them.

Ahh, but you are wrong. Virtually all jurisdictions in the western world recognize the baby as a person when it dies as the result of the actions of anyone not wearing a lab coat.

Actually, you are somewhat in error. Just take the United States.. 38 out of 50 is not virtually all. And there's a lot of discussion across the world over this issue. It isn't quite as you think.

Have you considered listening to what the big bad Democrats are saying,

Yes, I have. They are liars and cheaters, and I don't believe anything they say, unless it is proven true. Same for Republicans.

In that case, one wonders at your ability to honestly listen to what they are saying, let alone represent it accurately.

1. Minority voters are disproportionately unlikely to have an existing photo ID (say, a driver's license.)

This is fucking racist. There is absolutely no evidence that this exists.

Except, you know, the actual evidence.

And that is not the argument when "free government issued ID" is included in the Voter ID laws. There is NO ability loss just because skin color. The fact that you're making excuses as to why skin color actually matters in getting a photo ID (often Free, low cost), when so many other government services and purchasing things like alcohol, opening a bank account, getting welfare, having a job ... all requires a photo ID. You're basically saying that skin color matters in ABILITY (and without proof, I might add) .. which is patently racist at face value. You are so blinded you can't even see how your view of Race is remarkably ... sad.

Oh my, are you confused, and think that it's individual ability that matters? You should know by now that it's about the purpose of the Voter ID law. Which is to restrict voter's to those desired by Republicans.

2. Once enacted, states with Voter ID laws have a habit of erecting roadblocks to make it harder to get them if you live in areas with high minority populations. For example, closing offices that issue driver's licenses.

Strawman and slippery slope fallacy. And Racist. You're making the case that Government is racist (I wouldn't disagree), is an excuse to continue racism in other forms.

Oh no, you're the one making that excuse, since you want to perpetuate these voter ID laws.

And You have no facts to actually back up this claim, because there are no Voter ID laws that are actually valid, since "black people are not capable of getting IDs to vote" (See racist point #1)

That is what this judicial ruling said. Because as already noted, it is illegal to impose a disparate burden.

3. If you've never had ID, it can be - depending on your situation - difficult to meet the criteria for obtaining ID, requiring the gathering of paperwork that most people don't actually keep, and in some cases is - in practice - impossible to obtain.

Bullshit. And fucking Racist. It is so easy to get Voter approved ID, that Illegal immigrants without any form of ID can get Driver's Licenses in many many states. You're saying that a Hispanic person ("undocumented worker") is more capable of getting ID than a black person, do you realize how fucking racist that is?

The fact is, you're making excuses for people based solely upon the color of their skin, and don't even realize how fucking racist that actually comes across when someone actually questions your motivations.

Oh no, you'll find that states which issue such licenses do not correlate with the Voter ID states very well. But even then, as you can see, they also require documentation. Just not for citizenship.

Yes, I believe you're unintentionally racist because you think your

Just same examples here and here since like so many here you don't understand what professional adult obligations are. I'm tired of idiots grandstanding without knowing such basic things.

Try both here and here you fucking idiot.

Pedestrians only have the right of way:

by almost, if not all laws written, 1: in a marked cross walk ( convenient how this is left off in the quote all the time, no? ) and 2: only when it is safe for them to cross.

Sigh. No. The law is much more complicated than you think it is. You could look it up if you cared and wanted to be correct. Here is the really meaty paragraph:

Nine states and the District of Columbia require motorists to stop when approaching a pedestrian in an uncontrolled crosswalk. Minnesota mandates that a motorist stop when a pedestrian is in any portion of the roadway. Six states and D.C. require a motorist to stop when a pedestrian is upon the same half of the roadway or within one lane of the lane that the motorist is traveling upon, and two states require a motorist to stop when a pedestrian is upon the same half of the roadway or approaching closely enough from the opposite side of the roadway to constitute a danger.

It's really pathetic to see so many of you know so little about traffic laws, and yet presumably are driving anyway. I bet you get intersections wrong, too. Just yesterday I found myself at the intersection in front of the CHP office in Kelseyville and I had a woman make a left turn in front of me while I was making a right turn... note the lack of protected turns at this intersection. And I honked at her, and she gave me the finger. And now that I know you are totally ignorant of pedestrian crossing laws, I will conflate you with her.

The public school system has no monopoly, whose lies have you been listening to, fool?

It is a monopoly, because everybody must pay them. That they don't have to provide service to some of these captive "customers" in return for their money, only makes it worse.

Private schools exist ... Home schooling

Yes, you can choose different education for your children, but you still must pay for the public schools. This is, what makes it a monopoly.

They simply can't compete

They can, and do — but the system is rigged. Customers, who wish to use the competition, must still give money to the public schools — that's what makes the competition unaffordable to most families.

Imagine yourself choosing, from where to order pizza — and then finding out, that even if you order from joint B, you still have to give $10 to the joint A... That's what the current state of "competition" is in the primary education market — and that is why pizza joint A would've had a monopoly, if the same principle were applied to restaurants.

The immediate solution to that is something called school vouchers — which would give parents a proper choice. Of course, the idea is being fought tooth-and-nail by the teaching establishment, who would be threatened by competition...

Dunno... let's ask them. 'cause women had little part in producing this cheap-ass, smoke-screen, dog-whistle law (women make up only 22% of the NC legislature, sponsors Dan Bishop and Paul Stam are men, and, of course, the governor is a dick). In fact, this law pre-empts a local Charlotte law that was passed by that city's elected officials... so it looks like all that GOP noise about respectin' the people's will is a load of shite when a state politician sees a tax-free chance to get himself some TV time and name-recognition.

help Quebec's lottery service fight against illegal gaming sites

I do not mind the lottery's continuing existence as a tax on people bad in Math. But I do resent the government monopoly on this particular business. Those "gaming sites" are not inherently evil — they are only illegal, because they compete with the state's offering...

And while the private casino slot machines pay back between 82% and 98% of the money wagered by players, the state lotteries pay back from 49.5% to 73.6% (sorry, can't find a similar table for Canada)... If I ran such a racket, I'd try to smother the competition too, I suppose...

Fee was $5 in 1966.

It's still $5.

Not if you're anywhere in the U.S.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/t...

Healthcare costs increase are mainly due to a lack of universal coverage

If this were the reason, we would've seen sharp increases before WW2 as well. We did not. Fail.

Working with the government is much simpler, which saves time, which saves money

That may be, because the government has unlimited pockets — if they run short, they can always take more money from taxpayers.

I've not only learned this in class

Ah, so you are still under the influence of the Illiberalism — college professors are overwhelmingly Left and getting worse. Themselves overwhelmingly paid by the government, their solutions to most problems are inevitably Statist as well. It will take you years to shake off their influence — until then discussions of such topics with you aren't going to be productive...

Our complicated private insurance healthcare system is extremely wasteful.

Because it is not really "private" — the heavy regulations, mandates, and the government-enforced absence of competition is keeping it inefficient. The health-care market in general — and the insurance market in particular — aren't really free: the barrier to entry is enormous — an Alabama insurer, for example, can not sell policies to Tennessee residents. Instead of using the Commerce-clause to force States to open-up their markets for health-insurance, the Federal government is looking the other way — since 1945... Any corporation will get slow and inefficient in the absence of competition — it may, indeed, become worse than government in that case.

My issue is the double standard that the legal system places on Fetuses. On one side abortion is legal since they are not yet a legal entity. On the other side killing a fetus is considered Fetal Homicide in 38 states:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/h...

Legally I think it should be one way or the other...

The double legal standard just clouds the issue even further...

Not copyright specific, but I found this interesting item: http://www.ncsl.org/research/t... Varies by state, but in those states that have addressed the issue, it belongs to the vehicle owner although there are some exceptions.

Huh, that's funny. I'm now spending 140% on healthcare insurance than I was doing just 4 years ago. I seem to remember this president proposing something and oh yeah has his name on it.

That's funny indeed, because that works out to about a 10% rate increase per year. Where have I heard that number before? Oh yeah:

Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, from 2008 to 2010, premiums grew an average 10 percent or more per year in state individual insurance markets.

So by your own admission, your insurance rates increased at exactly the same rate as everyone else's did before the ACA was passed. But what about after it was passed, like last year?

... nationwide, marketplace premiums did not increase at all from 2014 to 2015

Fucking Obamacare, gouging my sides with 0% rate increases! THANKS, OBAMA!

So it's okay to put up a sign in a bar that says "no blacks or hispanics?"

There is the gun range which has a sign saying, "Muslim Free Zone" and so far they're able to get away with it.

or for a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription because the person is a Muslim?

No, but we do have pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control because it might offend their religion.

Not to mention there are those bakeries and photographers who refuse to cater to gay people who want to get married.

While the courts have ruled against the above practices, the owners can simply be more selective in who their clients are, thus getting around the issue. This is the same thing businesses do when interviewing. They see someone's great resume but when they come in they realize the person is over 40 and disqualify them.

The reason they can give is simply, "We found someone more aligned with our requirements" even though they are discriminating by age.

Perhaps not federally, but there are plenty of state laws:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/f...

This indicates that cash discounts are legal under all agreements:

http://fso.cpasitesolutions.co...

In "right to work" states, you can fire someone for "no reason at all", but there are things you can not fire people for even in "right to work" states, retaliation is one of them.

You may want to research that a bit further: http://www.ncsl.org/research/l...

That would require "legally proper, necessary, or desirable activities". Fire someone for unionizing and you have retaliation. Fire someone for suing over discrimination and you have retaliation. Firing someone for misuse of your company clout? That seems to fall well within valid firing. Even firing someone because they got someone to come complain about them and it annoyed you... that's usually fair game in an at-will state. (your mileage may vary)

I researched a bit and discovered the court case referenced in the article you linked does not appear to be based on American jurisprudence.
I further discovered that the child pornography definition in New York v. Ferber allowed the government to restrict speech that involved depictions of children in sexual acts. The Child Pornography Prevention Law of 1996 added two definitions of child pornography, both of which required sexually explicit conduct. No case I have come across has held that display of one's breasts are sexually explicit conduct. On the other hand, forty-six states and DC have laws on the books which allow women to breast feed in public. Lots of evidence that breasts aren't sexually explicit and no evidence against it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
http://www.ncsl.org/research/h...

Your concern is noted but baseless.

Not in Ohio it doesn't, we have statewide franchises, and according to this almost half the states have state wide franchises. This is mostly because Verizon and AT&T wanted to make their lives easier when rolling out FIOS/U-Verse, but for the most part they'd apply to anyone willing to put in the paperwork.

... or diagnosed as suffering from mental illness ...

It isn't just 'diagnosed with a mental illness', the proper term is 'adjudicated'. Meaning, you go before a judge and they decide you are unfit to possess a firearm. The other method the mentally ill are barred is following (and during) a stay in a mental health institution. Of course, these rules seem to be decided by the states, but most include similar language that does not include simple 'diagnosis'.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/c...

Are they following the required procedures in each jurisdiction?

http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/security-breach-notification-laws.aspx

These laws seem both plentiful, varied and complex. I hope their coporate legal department wasn't planning on sleep for a few months.