Come on... This is so unhandy. These pouches are also quite large and uncomfortable to carry. Why can't they at least make like a normal phone case? Just have the discipline to leave the phone in your pocket...
Or leave it in your car?
The pouches are for those who simply MUST have their phone on them. If you are not on call or need to answer he emergency call from the babysitter, leave the phone in the car. Problem solved.
Like trying to enforce something on the "Honor System" seems to be working... There are too many "It's about ME!" people out there who don't care and throwing out all these folks is a logistical and legal nightmare.
As draconian as these rules are, If you don't like them, don't buy a ticket and stay home or go to some other show that doesn't do this.
If I'm paying to see a performance, I'll decide how I spend my time during that performance. I'll take pictures if I want to or won't if I don't want to. That's not for anyone else to decide. You can keep your show and I'll go to a show where I'm free to make my own decisions.
All the Federal actions you point to are part of it's valid function of enforcing the bill of rights.. However, the bill of rights has little to do with the bulk of the Federal government.
How do you justify "The Department of Energy" or "Department of Education" and how they meddle with what the states can and cannot do? The EPA has grown WAY beyond any kind of constitutionally limited part of the Federal government. How is the Federal government even involved in things like welfare and Medicaid from a constitutional perspective?
My point isn't that ALL power rests with the states, only that the majority of what the Federal government does today with the exception of defense, measured both by dollars and people is really outside the constitution's frame work our founders provided us. We've allowed expediency to drive us towards a government which is too big, too expensive and too involved in things best left to the states.
Also, Capitalism is enabled by smaller government and I have news for you about the numbers. When you remove oppressive regulations, the economy grows. Don't believe me? What's the last 9 months mean to you? Anti-Federalism seems to be working great for Trump's administration.
Let's just be honest, simply LIVING emits carbon, so are they not really saying people will have to die? They want us to go back to the amount of carbon we emitted in the 1700's, which is going to pretty much require that a large percentage of us die to save the planet.
Well the problem is that I'm not willing to do that and THEY are apparently not wiling to do so either, so counting the CO2 emissions of a sandwich is pretty much meaningless.
So I ask the obvious question... Are YOU serious about this? Yes? Then prove it...
A Trump administration committee is advancing the interests of industry over the public. Who would ever have guessed?
How is this industry interest over public interest?
Seriously... Exactly how is this what you describe? Could it possibly be that deregulating this industry will have the same effect that deregulating the airlines had? Where prices fell and seat availably climbed? In this case relaxing regulations worked out in both industry's and the public's interests.
I'll bet you didn't say anything.... Nobody in power did, including the democrats who widely make the claims you do. They saw the same evidence. Who among them raised their hand and said, 'I don't think so." Nobody."The evidence is thin" is entirely different from "the evidence is made up" and armed with your hindsight bias and partisanship you make that into something it's not. You simply assume a lot and make your case w/o regard to what was commonly known and believed at the time.
Yea, you knew it all along.... Unless you have proof of that claim, let's call your claim unsubstantiated so it's not valid evidence....
You have no evidence Bush knew the evidence he had was false, you are making that part up. All the intelligence reports we have from the time clearly show WMD's where expected in Iraq, and our intelligence community wasn't the only organization with the same perspective.
Bush had no ability to force the intelligence community from other countries to agree with anything. Certainly there where more than a few who would have relished the ability to call Bush's bluff at the UN when all this went before the Security Council. Surely SOMEBODY knew the truth other than Iraq? Who knew differently and didn't speak up? Nobody. At the time, it was universally held that Iraq had WMD's, nobody said differently here or abroad. Everybody, including democrats in congress who where getting the SAME intelligence information believed this to be true. Surely you can see the obvioius...
BUT NO.. From your partisan perspective, with the benefit of hindsight and rewriting history, you have invented a story to bash your political opponents unfairly. You cannot prove Bush new differently or that he manipulated the evidence either directly or by applying political pressure, yet you persist in making that claim. He didn't do this. That's the kind of thing Democrats usually do. (Can you say "Russian Collusion" narrative was obviously invented?).
AND, you assume that Bush MADE UP the pretense to invade Iraq and knowingly lied about it....
Words mean things.. Lying is willfully misleading somebody. Bush didn't do that. He was using information given to him by the intelligence community, which pretty much everybody agreed was true at the time. Turns out they where wrong..
The question is why the Intel community got the WMD in Iraq question so wrong. But you persist with the "Bush Lied" narrative.
So can we stop this now or do you want to keep beating around Bush for nothing?
LOL... China has no "equivalent" in orbit and I seriously doubt they can afford anything approaching the abilities of the ISS, even if they had the technology to do it.
Some would say this is a display of media bias... Or as Trump says "FAKE NEWS". In this case, he may have a point.
The Reality is that NASA's plans included ending the ISS in 2025, before the thing became a death trap. So the idea that Trump somehow is axing the budget for the ISS is not exactly true. My guess is that the president's budget is just matching NASA's funding request for the ISS and doesn't represent the President actively terminating the program.
So what is this story really about? It's an attempt to keep the program alive by appealing to the public, in this case targeted towards the left who are pre-loaded to dislike anything Trump does, good or bad. Where I don't like the method being used, I think funding the ISS past 2025 might be a good thing. However, we all need to realize that the ISS is rapidly exceeding it's design life and the dangers a life threatening malfunction in the harsh environment of low earth orbit are rising rapidly. We don't want to kill anybody here, so it might be time to pull the plug.
This funding "cut" was exactly the plan put forth by NASA.. When I read the ISS long term plans, 2025 was considered the end of the ISS's probable service life and the point where it was going to be time to start replacing a large portion of it for safety reasons.
Of course, we could leave it up there and let it degrade into a death trap like Mir did before the Russians even admitted it was time to move on.
The only thing I would change here is that before we leave, we take the parts of the station we paid for and deorbit them... Or if the Russians want to cough up some rubbles, we could sell some stuff to them and use the proceeds to work on the next project.
Bush lied.... Or Cheney duped him? Way to go with the sound bite over substance and personal attacks over truth...
How about this.. I'll drink my color, you yours and call this done. I've had arguments with your type before and it doesn't accomplish anything...
I don't agree with your version of events, I have actual evidence and a valid argument, but you are not interested in hearing it and I'm not interested in wasting my time sifting though all your inaccurate statements about something that happened more than a decade ago now.
My point is, the argument from your side remains the same and nauseatingly so... And you keep recycling the same things....Which is clear from that last post of yours..
Ah, so I take it you think an all powerful central government is just the ticket then?
I see your views as an attack on our founding principles as well as our founder's wisdom in their choices for how our government was designed to work. I strongly disagree with your conclusion that our form of government is somehow old fashioned and thus ineffective.
I believe that the actual problems of government haven't really changed in thousands of years and as such the most effective form of government remains the same. I don't think mankind has changed or the things we need government for are any different. As such, I think the founders recognized this truth and designed a system of government that addresses the real problems we need government for. They invented a solution that isn't about the means of government (the laws and functions of it) but a system of government that allows the control of the means to be by the people. We have abandoned this principle because of thoughts like yours, and we do so at our peril.
I suggest you read the debates about all this in the Federalist papers. This was well debated and our system well thought out and quite brilliant when you understand the actual reasons for things, information sorely lacking in most civics classes these days.
And what was that war about in the 1860's? The counting of slaves verses freemen in the north and south?
We've gone far away from our founding design and I believe this is not a good thing. Where the Federal government is properly charged with enforcing the constitution and civil rights within our borders, we've long ago left ideal of limited government where the power is left to the states and the people.
If your view is political power and controlling everything, then I can see someone thinking like you do.
The problem though is many republicans are not enamored with obtaining political power for the federal government and fully understand what that means to their ability to control everything. When we preach "states rights" we mean it. If California wants to be a liberal wasteland of failed utopian policies and high taxes, so be it. IF Texas wants low taxes and conservative government, so be that too.
For example. Remember that Trump sad about abortion and Roe/Wade? He said it was bad law and should be overturned, right? Then they asked him how that would effect the country and he said (and I paraphrase) "Then the decision about abortion would be left to the states to decide."
This is the way it was designed to be done and the framers had a reason for this. We've subverted it by ignoring the designed in limits on Federal power and are paying the price for our error. Republicans recognize this, and are indeed pushing for a form of government that gives them less power. You should welcome this..
Life is really going to suck when you retire on Social Security alone... Trust me. If you think it's bad now, that will be worse.
Also, I'm not sure I believe you. Unless you are really unskilled and incapable of acquiring working skills, all you need to do is keep showing up to work and I can almost guarantee you won't be paid minimum wage for long. If you are willing to work, show up and are capable of acquiring new skills, minimum wage won't be forever. If your employer simply won't pay more and you have been there awhile, find another job...
This "I only make minimum wage" forever thing is a myth.. Even Wal-Mart pays more than that for folks stocking shelves, and that doesn't take much in the way of special training or skills. Nobody who wants to work needs to be stuck in a minimum wage job unless you just don't have the mental capacity to learn... What I find is that most folks who ARE stuck in such jobs, are not willing to work.
I don't agree. I think the framers did a masterful job with their design and it would work fine today if people understood how this worked and let it happen. The federal government was supposed to be limited in size and scope and focused on things like national defense, international treaties and the like but we have let it grow into an all powerful unifying entity that directly impacts state and local government operations though "grants" and attached regulations which has blown it all out of proportion to its original design. This is not how it's supposed to work. It's supposed to be limited, in scope and size, leaving the bulk of the regulation to the state and local governments who are closer to the people and the things they are regulating. The framers where right.
However, if you don't like it this way, you are going to need to get the constitution modified to account for your perceived issues. What would be your proposed amendment?
People sue, and win against, the federal government in the US on a regular basis. Sovereign immunity isn't absolute.
But it does, as the original poster points out, require the government to agree to be sued. Yes, there are a series of things you can sue the government over enshrined in law, but this amounts to prior agreement to wave immunity in the cases covered by the laws.
In my view of the US constitution... This is EXACTLY how it should work....
As I recall the 10th amendment is pretty clear about this. States need to take back their power and tell the Fed where to get off with all their locally applied regulations....
Not that I'm defending NY's decision here. I think they are being stupid... I'm just agreeing that they have the right to do this if that's what their voters want.
"The problem with comments on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity. Also, I am against Net Neutrality."
~ Abraham Lincoln
Well Mr. Lincoln, I didn't know they had internet at the cemetery in Springfield Il, or that you were provide an internet enabled device before you where encased in concrete, but We will look into this some time soon....
Soon means maybe 5 moths from now, give or take a couple of days for a government shutdown or two..
Slashdot Mirror
Come on... This is so unhandy. These pouches are also quite large and uncomfortable to carry. Why can't they at least make like a normal phone case? Just have the discipline to leave the phone in your pocket...
Or leave it in your car?
The pouches are for those who simply MUST have their phone on them. If you are not on call or need to answer he emergency call from the babysitter, leave the phone in the car. Problem solved.
Like trying to enforce something on the "Honor System" seems to be working... There are too many "It's about ME!" people out there who don't care and throwing out all these folks is a logistical and legal nightmare.
As draconian as these rules are, If you don't like them, don't buy a ticket and stay home or go to some other show that doesn't do this.
If I'm paying to see a performance, I'll decide how I spend my time during that performance. I'll take pictures if I want to or won't if I don't want to. That's not for anyone else to decide. You can keep your show and I'll go to a show where I'm free to make my own decisions.
Ah.. So you are staying home then? OK..
All the Federal actions you point to are part of it's valid function of enforcing the bill of rights.. However, the bill of rights has little to do with the bulk of the Federal government.
How do you justify "The Department of Energy" or "Department of Education" and how they meddle with what the states can and cannot do? The EPA has grown WAY beyond any kind of constitutionally limited part of the Federal government. How is the Federal government even involved in things like welfare and Medicaid from a constitutional perspective?
My point isn't that ALL power rests with the states, only that the majority of what the Federal government does today with the exception of defense, measured both by dollars and people is really outside the constitution's frame work our founders provided us. We've allowed expediency to drive us towards a government which is too big, too expensive and too involved in things best left to the states.
Also, Capitalism is enabled by smaller government and I have news for you about the numbers. When you remove oppressive regulations, the economy grows. Don't believe me? What's the last 9 months mean to you? Anti-Federalism seems to be working great for Trump's administration.
Wrapping it in plastic? Aluminum foil?
Seriously, the Carbon impact of my sandwich?
Let's just be honest, simply LIVING emits carbon, so are they not really saying people will have to die? They want us to go back to the amount of carbon we emitted in the 1700's, which is going to pretty much require that a large percentage of us die to save the planet.
Well the problem is that I'm not willing to do that and THEY are apparently not wiling to do so either, so counting the CO2 emissions of a sandwich is pretty much meaningless.
So I ask the obvious question... Are YOU serious about this? Yes? Then prove it...
Good... No more beating around Bush on this.. ;)
A Trump administration committee is advancing the interests of industry over the public. Who would ever have guessed?
How is this industry interest over public interest?
Seriously... Exactly how is this what you describe? Could it possibly be that deregulating this industry will have the same effect that deregulating the airlines had? Where prices fell and seat availably climbed? In this case relaxing regulations worked out in both industry's and the public's interests.
Everything bad is automatically Trump's fault.
Trump appointed this guy so he owns what he does. However in this case, I wonder exactly how this is bad....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias
I'll bet you didn't say anything.... Nobody in power did, including the democrats who widely make the claims you do. They saw the same evidence. Who among them raised their hand and said, 'I don't think so." Nobody."The evidence is thin" is entirely different from "the evidence is made up" and armed with your hindsight bias and partisanship you make that into something it's not. You simply assume a lot and make your case w/o regard to what was commonly known and believed at the time.
Yea, you knew it all along.... Unless you have proof of that claim, let's call your claim unsubstantiated so it's not valid evidence....
You have no evidence Bush knew the evidence he had was false, you are making that part up. All the intelligence reports we have from the time clearly show WMD's where expected in Iraq, and our intelligence community wasn't the only organization with the same perspective.
Bush had no ability to force the intelligence community from other countries to agree with anything. Certainly there where more than a few who would have relished the ability to call Bush's bluff at the UN when all this went before the Security Council. Surely SOMEBODY knew the truth other than Iraq? Who knew differently and didn't speak up? Nobody. At the time, it was universally held that Iraq had WMD's, nobody said differently here or abroad. Everybody, including democrats in congress who where getting the SAME intelligence information believed this to be true. Surely you can see the obvioius...
BUT NO.. From your partisan perspective, with the benefit of hindsight and rewriting history, you have invented a story to bash your political opponents unfairly. You cannot prove Bush new differently or that he manipulated the evidence either directly or by applying political pressure, yet you persist in making that claim. He didn't do this. That's the kind of thing Democrats usually do. (Can you say "Russian Collusion" narrative was obviously invented?).
AND, you assume that Bush MADE UP the pretense to invade Iraq and knowingly lied about it....
Words mean things.. Lying is willfully misleading somebody. Bush didn't do that. He was using information given to him by the intelligence community, which pretty much everybody agreed was true at the time. Turns out they where wrong..
The question is why the Intel community got the WMD in Iraq question so wrong. But you persist with the "Bush Lied" narrative.
So can we stop this now or do you want to keep beating around Bush for nothing?
LOL... China has no "equivalent" in orbit and I seriously doubt they can afford anything approaching the abilities of the ISS, even if they had the technology to do it.
Some would say this is a display of media bias... Or as Trump says "FAKE NEWS". In this case, he may have a point.
The Reality is that NASA's plans included ending the ISS in 2025, before the thing became a death trap. So the idea that Trump somehow is axing the budget for the ISS is not exactly true. My guess is that the president's budget is just matching NASA's funding request for the ISS and doesn't represent the President actively terminating the program.
So what is this story really about? It's an attempt to keep the program alive by appealing to the public, in this case targeted towards the left who are pre-loaded to dislike anything Trump does, good or bad. Where I don't like the method being used, I think funding the ISS past 2025 might be a good thing. However, we all need to realize that the ISS is rapidly exceeding it's design life and the dangers a life threatening malfunction in the harsh environment of low earth orbit are rising rapidly. We don't want to kill anybody here, so it might be time to pull the plug.
This funding "cut" was exactly the plan put forth by NASA.. When I read the ISS long term plans, 2025 was considered the end of the ISS's probable service life and the point where it was going to be time to start replacing a large portion of it for safety reasons.
Of course, we could leave it up there and let it degrade into a death trap like Mir did before the Russians even admitted it was time to move on.
The only thing I would change here is that before we leave, we take the parts of the station we paid for and deorbit them... Or if the Russians want to cough up some rubbles, we could sell some stuff to them and use the proceeds to work on the next project.
So... you're saying that you prefer Trump cutting the program that you admit is less stupid?
Cutting the program? No, following the funding plan for the ISS. This was the sunset date for the ISS set YEARS ago.
Yea that blue Cool-Aid runs deep with this one...
Bush lied.... Or Cheney duped him? Way to go with the sound bite over substance and personal attacks over truth...
How about this.. I'll drink my color, you yours and call this done. I've had arguments with your type before and it doesn't accomplish anything...
I don't agree with your version of events, I have actual evidence and a valid argument, but you are not interested in hearing it and I'm not interested in wasting my time sifting though all your inaccurate statements about something that happened more than a decade ago now.
My point is, the argument from your side remains the same and nauseatingly so... And you keep recycling the same things....Which is clear from that last post of yours..
Ah, so I take it you think an all powerful central government is just the ticket then?
I see your views as an attack on our founding principles as well as our founder's wisdom in their choices for how our government was designed to work. I strongly disagree with your conclusion that our form of government is somehow old fashioned and thus ineffective.
I believe that the actual problems of government haven't really changed in thousands of years and as such the most effective form of government remains the same. I don't think mankind has changed or the things we need government for are any different. As such, I think the founders recognized this truth and designed a system of government that addresses the real problems we need government for. They invented a solution that isn't about the means of government (the laws and functions of it) but a system of government that allows the control of the means to be by the people. We have abandoned this principle because of thoughts like yours, and we do so at our peril.
I suggest you read the debates about all this in the Federalist papers. This was well debated and our system well thought out and quite brilliant when you understand the actual reasons for things, information sorely lacking in most civics classes these days.
And what was that war about in the 1860's? The counting of slaves verses freemen in the north and south?
We've gone far away from our founding design and I believe this is not a good thing. Where the Federal government is properly charged with enforcing the constitution and civil rights within our borders, we've long ago left ideal of limited government where the power is left to the states and the people.
If your view is political power and controlling everything, then I can see someone thinking like you do.
The problem though is many republicans are not enamored with obtaining political power for the federal government and fully understand what that means to their ability to control everything. When we preach "states rights" we mean it. If California wants to be a liberal wasteland of failed utopian policies and high taxes, so be it. IF Texas wants low taxes and conservative government, so be that too.
For example. Remember that Trump sad about abortion and Roe/Wade? He said it was bad law and should be overturned, right? Then they asked him how that would effect the country and he said (and I paraphrase) "Then the decision about abortion would be left to the states to decide."
This is the way it was designed to be done and the framers had a reason for this. We've subverted it by ignoring the designed in limits on Federal power and are paying the price for our error. Republicans recognize this, and are indeed pushing for a form of government that gives them less power. You should welcome this..
Life is really going to suck when you retire on Social Security alone... Trust me. If you think it's bad now, that will be worse.
Also, I'm not sure I believe you. Unless you are really unskilled and incapable of acquiring working skills, all you need to do is keep showing up to work and I can almost guarantee you won't be paid minimum wage for long. If you are willing to work, show up and are capable of acquiring new skills, minimum wage won't be forever. If your employer simply won't pay more and you have been there awhile, find another job...
This "I only make minimum wage" forever thing is a myth.. Even Wal-Mart pays more than that for folks stocking shelves, and that doesn't take much in the way of special training or skills. Nobody who wants to work needs to be stuck in a minimum wage job unless you just don't have the mental capacity to learn... What I find is that most folks who ARE stuck in such jobs, are not willing to work.
I don't agree. I think the framers did a masterful job with their design and it would work fine today if people understood how this worked and let it happen. The federal government was supposed to be limited in size and scope and focused on things like national defense, international treaties and the like but we have let it grow into an all powerful unifying entity that directly impacts state and local government operations though "grants" and attached regulations which has blown it all out of proportion to its original design. This is not how it's supposed to work. It's supposed to be limited, in scope and size, leaving the bulk of the regulation to the state and local governments who are closer to the people and the things they are regulating. The framers where right.
However, if you don't like it this way, you are going to need to get the constitution modified to account for your perceived issues. What would be your proposed amendment?
People sue, and win against, the federal government in the US on a regular basis. Sovereign immunity isn't absolute.
But it does, as the original poster points out, require the government to agree to be sued. Yes, there are a series of things you can sue the government over enshrined in law, but this amounts to prior agreement to wave immunity in the cases covered by the laws.
In my view of the US constitution... This is EXACTLY how it should work....
As I recall the 10th amendment is pretty clear about this. States need to take back their power and tell the Fed where to get off with all their locally applied regulations....
Not that I'm defending NY's decision here. I think they are being stupid... I'm just agreeing that they have the right to do this if that's what their voters want.
LOL, Clever sir....
"The problem with comments on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity. Also, I am against Net Neutrality." ~ Abraham Lincoln
Well Mr. Lincoln, I didn't know they had internet at the cemetery in Springfield Il, or that you were provide an internet enabled device before you where encased in concrete, but We will look into this some time soon....
Soon means maybe 5 moths from now, give or take a couple of days for a government shutdown or two..