In your scenario, a politician is arguing with a judge about a law the politician is supposedly *going to* introduce as a bill, and the judge is objecting that he, personally, will never allow that? Then the politician finds a judge to sign off on this bill approved by the head of the FDA (not even submitted to the legislature at that point), and boom, it's a law?
You've made a total hash of how the U.S. political and legal system work, and your scenario makes no sense at all. How in the world did this get modded insightful?
Just to clarify; Politician writes bill. Politician may look for co-sponsors to strengthen the bill's chances. Politician proposes bill, or attaches it as an amendment to some other bill. Legislature debates bill and passes it or not. Bill becomes law. FDA, private citizens, or other interested parties may choose to sue to overturn the law. THEN the judiciary gets involved.
You misquoted me. You snipped off the first part of my sentence, and added a period to it. What I actually wrote was, "Funny that the people he duped to obtain some of the information are being relieved of their jobs (though not their lives, presumably), but the people participating in the overreach won't suffer any consequences."
My point was obviously the contrast between what is happening to people who made serious mistakes, and the reprehensible nature of the spying approved by the decision makers. I didn't say those people who gave up their passwords should not suffer consequences, I asserted that the spying program is wrong.
I'm not sure what to make of what you did, distorting what I wrote to make a straw man argument. I guess you're okay with it, but if you were in any way responsible for what you wrote (say, as a reporter), that's the kind of thing that would get you fired.
Walk up to a New Jerseyite whose beach house on LBI was flattened by Sandy and tell him it wasn't a natural disaster, it was "corruption and negligence" (not poverty, those houses aren't cheap). Go ahead, tell him that. Then report back your findings.
Exactly. But Obama's even trickier than that... he hides his bias against guns by cleverly signing bills to increase places people can take them. National parks and Amtrak. Diabolical!
And 60's NYC was bad how? I lived there, it totally ruled! It got even more fun in the 70's. Now Times Square is an antiseptic hell hole of Disney and other plastic megacorps.
...though his revelations of the intelligence gathering practices of the NSA are a gift that just keeps on giving.
Funny that the people he duped to obtain some of the information are being relieved of their jobs (though not their lives, presumably), but the people participating in the overreach won't suffer any consequences.
I'm not sure you're correct about the implication, but even if you are, the store offers to associate the software with the Apple ID, it doesn't force one to do it. And if that lets Apple track users, well, that's part of their walled garden ecosystem, I imagine most Apple customers are used to it.
But as for tracking *me*, no, they're not, because I do not buy Apple products.
My comment was about the smart move to bring wayward users into the fold, instead of shunning them or going after them with lawsuits. Surely you think a voluntary non-lawsuit option is better than a lawsuit, no?
No - like I said in my very brief post, converting people into legitimate customers, who are more likely to start, or keep buying is what makes a good company.
Comcast is just one highly visible example. However, I didn't find any reports that the unions sued anyone. The city board of licensing and inspection did vote on whether to approve the building, and the union probably complained to them to request a ruling requiring the pipes. The building developer's spokesperson did say, "It was always our intention to run the additional pipes." Do you have any link that mentions lawsuits?
The urinals in my building are waterless, but each one has a capped water supply pipe sticking out of the wall above them. NJ Strong, indeed.
Good job, Apple. This will likely increase revenue from some of those whom you make legit, and will warm the hearts of some who, like me, despise all things Apple. Well, a little less today.
Drivers are really clueless. Once, riding on Locust in Philly, some douchebag pulled up to the red light I was waiting at, and asked me, could I please get my bike off the road? Because it's really inconveniencing drivers, and bicycles belong on the sidewalk.
He wasn't kidding; he really didn't know that bicycles are actually required to use the streets, and riders have the same rights and responsibilities as drivers. And he didn't even have the "excuse" that I had impeded his car; he just picked me out to lecture me that I was being discourteous by riding a bicycle on the street.
msauve is correct; the response to badly designed streets is to get off the damn bike and push it, safely and legally, through the couple of blocks to where you can legally ride again. Like the terrific park in Rittenhouse Square, which cuts off Locust for a couple of blocks on one of my favorite rides in Philly (South St. near the river out to Valley Forge and back). I coast up to the curb, dismount, take off my helmet, and walk my bike through the park. Then wait for the light, cross back over to Locust and continue my ride.
If you want to live someplace totally hip like DUMBO (I don't get it, but fine), then YOU can be totally hip by respecting both your fellow citizens and the law. Most of the comments on that link you posted were anti-salmoning, by the way.
Maybe a PSA spot from some dude wearing plaid and a hipster fedora could declaim, "Only SQUARES break the law!"
Reminds me of the lyrics to "Good Times" theme song;
Temporary lay offs. - Good Times.
Easy credit rip offs. - Good Times.
Scratchin’ and surviving. - Good Times.
Hangin in a chow line - Good Times.
Ain’t we lucky we got ‘em - Good Times.
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations, you win today's prize for gratuitous mention of the ACA.
/. today.
Really, it's just a random drawing of the 34,547 posts by twits on
I got there on the Clipper Adventurer. Nice little boat. Looked like a toy next to luxury cruise ships when we went back to Ushuaia.
Google map it. That would have taken less time than your post.
You didn't engage your brain while reading... or before posting.
The point was, the system doesn't work remotely like he described it.
He didn't oversimplify it. He got it completely wrong.
Were you sleeping in high school civics class too?
Rush, is that you?
Your sig... but what about for moderate purposes, or relaxed purposes, is "whom" a word then?
Did I just fall for your troll?
In your scenario, a politician is arguing with a judge about a law the politician is supposedly *going to* introduce as a bill, and the judge is objecting that he, personally, will never allow that? Then the politician finds a judge to sign off on this bill approved by the head of the FDA (not even submitted to the legislature at that point), and boom, it's a law?
You've made a total hash of how the U.S. political and legal system work, and your scenario makes no sense at all. How in the world did this get modded insightful?
Just to clarify;
Politician writes bill.
Politician may look for co-sponsors to strengthen the bill's chances.
Politician proposes bill, or attaches it as an amendment to some other bill.
Legislature debates bill and passes it or not.
Bill becomes law.
FDA, private citizens, or other interested parties may choose to sue to overturn the law.
THEN the judiciary gets involved.
Sure, they can get away with it in Alabama, but they don't dare try that in a region with some teeth... so to speak.
Parse me harder! (smack!)
Yeah, you nailed it. Although I would have guessed a grammasochist was someone who gets turned on when their parents' mothers hit them.
Sorry if I missed any fetiches.
Nope, you got them all, including mine - grammar and spelling.
You misquoted me. You snipped off the first part of my sentence, and added a period to it. What I actually wrote was, "Funny that the people he duped to obtain some of the information are being relieved of their jobs (though not their lives, presumably), but the people participating in the overreach won't suffer any consequences."
My point was obviously the contrast between what is happening to people who made serious mistakes, and the reprehensible nature of the spying approved by the decision makers. I didn't say those people who gave up their passwords should not suffer consequences, I asserted that the spying program is wrong.
I'm not sure what to make of what you did, distorting what I wrote to make a straw man argument. I guess you're okay with it, but if you were in any way responsible for what you wrote (say, as a reporter), that's the kind of thing that would get you fired.
Walk up to a New Jerseyite whose beach house on LBI was flattened by Sandy and tell him it wasn't a natural disaster, it was "corruption and negligence" (not poverty, those houses aren't cheap). Go ahead, tell him that. Then report back your findings.
Exactly. But Obama's even trickier than that... he hides his bias against guns by cleverly signing bills to increase places people can take them. National parks and Amtrak. Diabolical!
And 60's NYC was bad how? I lived there, it totally ruled! It got even more fun in the 70's. Now Times Square is an antiseptic hell hole of Disney and other plastic megacorps.
...though his revelations of the intelligence gathering practices of the NSA are a gift that just keeps on giving.
Funny that the people he duped to obtain some of the information are being relieved of their jobs (though not their lives, presumably), but the people participating in the overreach won't suffer any consequences.
I'm not sure you're correct about the implication, but even if you are, the store offers to associate the software with the Apple ID, it doesn't force one to do it. And if that lets Apple track users, well, that's part of their walled garden ecosystem, I imagine most Apple customers are used to it.
But as for tracking *me*, no, they're not, because I do not buy Apple products.
My comment was about the smart move to bring wayward users into the fold, instead of shunning them or going after them with lawsuits. Surely you think a voluntary non-lawsuit option is better than a lawsuit, no?
No - like I said in my very brief post, converting people into legitimate customers, who are more likely to start, or keep buying is what makes a good company.
Reading comprehension!
Comcast is just one highly visible example. However, I didn't find any reports that the unions sued anyone. The city board of licensing and inspection did vote on whether to approve the building, and the union probably complained to them to request a ruling requiring the pipes. The building developer's spokesperson did say, "It was always our intention to run the additional pipes." Do you have any link that mentions lawsuits?
The urinals in my building are waterless, but each one has a capped water supply pipe sticking out of the wall above them. NJ Strong, indeed.
Good job, Apple. This will likely increase revenue from some of those whom you make legit, and will warm the hearts of some who, like me, despise all things Apple. Well, a little less today.
I'm just more cautious than you. :-)
Bayside! The first /. reference I've seen to my hometown... er, home portion of borough!
It's very nice and most of it feels like suburbs, but it's not really wealthy, just in a few places.
Drivers are really clueless. Once, riding on Locust in Philly, some douchebag pulled up to the red light I was waiting at, and asked me, could I please get my bike off the road? Because it's really inconveniencing drivers, and bicycles belong on the sidewalk.
He wasn't kidding; he really didn't know that bicycles are actually required to use the streets, and riders have the same rights and responsibilities as drivers. And he didn't even have the "excuse" that I had impeded his car; he just picked me out to lecture me that I was being discourteous by riding a bicycle on the street.
msauve is correct; the response to badly designed streets is to get off the damn bike and push it, safely and legally, through the couple of blocks to where you can legally ride again. Like the terrific park in Rittenhouse Square, which cuts off Locust for a couple of blocks on one of my favorite rides in Philly (South St. near the river out to Valley Forge and back). I coast up to the curb, dismount, take off my helmet, and walk my bike through the park. Then wait for the light, cross back over to Locust and continue my ride.
If you want to live someplace totally hip like DUMBO (I don't get it, but fine), then YOU can be totally hip by respecting both your fellow citizens and the law. Most of the comments on that link you posted were anti-salmoning, by the way.
Maybe a PSA spot from some dude wearing plaid and a hipster fedora could declaim, "Only SQUARES break the law!"
Reminds me of the lyrics to "Good Times" theme song;
Temporary lay offs. - Good Times.
Easy credit rip offs. - Good Times.
Scratchin’ and surviving. - Good Times.
Hangin in a chow line - Good Times.
Ain’t we lucky we got ‘em - Good Times.