(The purpose is simply to dilute the über-sweet Stevia powder so you can use reasonable amounts.)
Marketing Exec 1: Hey, we've got this great replacement for sugar called "stevia". It'll be a great seller because of all the people who don't want to use processed sugar or are on low carb diets!
Marketing Exec 2: Uhh, but it's so powerful that you only use a tiny bit. A one pound box would last for years. We can't make a profit on that.
Marketing Exec 1: Oh, yeah, I know, let's dilute it so that people have to put in more. Then a box will last only a month.
Marketing Exec 2: Great idea. What do we dilute it with that won't cut down the sweetness?
Marketing Exec 1: I know. Let's dilute it with sugar. It's FDA/EU approved, relatively cheap and is sweet, too.
Marketing Exec 2: But won't that be bad for the people who are buying our Stevia because they want no sugar or carbs?
Marketing Exec 1: Don't call it "sugar" and nobody will notice.
Here, you can prove me wrong right now in just a couple weeks.
Using a TARDIS or properly-equipped Delorean?
You realize that this "experiment" has been done again and again and time again, right?
"Strict calorie count" is nearly impossible, and "standard formula" calorie burn is just as hard to get right. Yes, the "experiment" has been done over and over, and the metabolism of the subject plays a significant role in the results.
There was a rousing ITV, or BBC, I don't remember, documentary on a woman who was a rabid anti-fat activist, spreading the word about how all it takes is eating less and how all the fatties are just lazy bastards who don't want to succeed. She spent some time gaining 30 pounds (I think it was) eating crap, then went on a low calorie diet AND exercised more, and she still couldn't get the weight off. And HER metabolism was based on being a runner prior to the test.
She even talked a couple of her "friends" into joining her "support group" and trying to lose weight, and while they did, it was clear they didn't lose as much as she wanted them to and they, too, were lazy bastards who must have been cheating. All I know is if she was a "friend", I'd not need enemies.
So no, it's not just "eat less", especially if your body goes into starvation mode and starts conserving energy for better times.
So you look at one product that contains stevia and draws some general conclusion from that?!?
No, I took a look at ALL the boxes that claimed to BE stevia. Not just supposed to contain it, but are supposed to be Stevia itself. Yes, when I looked at all the "Stevia" products on the shelves and saw that they all contain sugar as the main ingredient, I made a rash judgement that they all contained more sugar than stevia.
Just buy a product that doesn't contain a sugar instead.
Good idea. Sadly, there wasn't one. And the link I provided shows other products that, while sugar is not the main ingredient instead of stevia, have sugar alcohols instead.
Seems like the standard uninformed and skewed bullshit so common of sites like that,
Well, the information there is what I observed on the shelves of my local stores. I have yet to see a "stevia" that doesn't have something else as the main ingredient, and that something else is either sugar itself or a sugar alcohol (which drives my blood sugar levels just as nuts as pure sugar.)
Typically, these contracts are of the sort where Disney says if Verizon wants to carry the Disney channel, they must also carry all the ESPN channels @ a certain rate etc...
I know. It's called "bundling". Verizon agreed to it.
I also don't see your analogy as being the same.
Analogies are typically NOT the same. That's why they are analogies and not identities. The concept is the same, however. If you support Verizon for breaking a contract they accepted when it was profitable for them, then you should also support them if they break another contract that was profitable when they agreed to it.
You're correct in that it's a contract dispute between Verizon and Disney, but w/o actually seeing the contract we don't actually know who's in the right. My guess is that Verizon found a loophole and Disney isn't happy about it.
My guess is that Verizon THINKS they found a loophole, OR that they THINK the public will support them breaking the contract and ESPN will back down, but I KNOW they think it will be more profitable for them to break the contract, including the legal costs. Just as it is more profitable for them to break contracts with their customers instead of honoring them.
These contracts have been in place for quite some time, so it would be amazing if a lawyer just now found a loophole and it wasn't a changing economic landscape that rebalanced the equation.
You are talking about release of insulin, which is a major player on the metabolic system.
The taste buds are prior to ingestion,
They are prior to swallowing, but they are in the mouth, and the tongue has a wonderful blood supply which happily absorbs things that the taste buds taste. Kinda hard to keep it from being absorbed.
it is part of the system that helps prevent us from ingesting bad stuff.
I took a look at buying Stevia in the store awhile back. I am also a reader of contents labels, so I put it back on the shelf really fast. The first ingredient listed: dextrose. That may not shock you until you remember that the FDA requires ingredients to be listed in order from most to least. More dextrose in stevia than stevia. And who remembers from BioChem 327: dextrose is... two glucoses.
Translation: And force people to pay for stuff they don't want.
Neither ESPN nor Verizon can force you to pay for things you don't want. Verizon can force you to pay the rate they set for the packages they sell, but they can't force you to buy one. And ESPN has even less control over what you buy or don't buy.
Personally, I've *never* (ever) watched any of the ESPN channels and am annoyed at having to pay for them.
Ok. There are channels I never watch, too.
But keep in mind that this is a contract dispute between Verizon and ESPN. Verizon entered this contract with ESPN to be able to sell ESPN content and has made quite a bit of money by doing so. You appear to be on the side of Verizon, who is breaking the contract by not selling ESPN because it has found people who will buy other things but not ESPN. Now keep in mind that if you are a Verizon customer, you have a contract for service with them, too. Would you be as supportive of Verizon if they were breaking the terms of their contract with you? Say, you had a plan with 50Gbps down speeds and they decided you would only get 5?
So until there is a study that shows that a given substance on the planet falls at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2 the logic would be faulty to say that a given substance falls at that speed?
Were the effects of gravity based on what the substance was, yes, it would be fallacious to claim that any specific substance felt a specific gravitational effect until it had been tested. Human metabolism depends heavily on the substances subject to it, and therefore testing a specific substance before claiming as a fact that it reacts a certain way is required.
As for this "before ingestion" reaction to aspartame, what, the body releases insulin by just looking at a diet drink? I don't think so. Once it hits the bloodstream, metabolism deals with it.
I can't speak for why your area has only one DSL choice, but in my small town we have eight DSL providers, only one of which is the telco. "Used to be" is "is" for a very large number of people.
Because the corporations who started off using these call centers got exemptions to be able to spoof it,
Corporations who run telemarketing call centers didn't have to get an exemption to spoof calling number id services, they simply used the existing mechanisms available to all users of bulk phone services.
Corporations who have their own PBXs have always had a need to be able to specify the calling number ID of their outgoing calls. Those who have multiple outgoing lines often want to have a unified, common outgoing caller id sent that points to their main incoming number.
As for Facebook being able to help out, that's only for people who have told Facebook their phone number. If you're stupid enough to do that, you deserve to have all your data sent to anyone you call. The solution is simple: don't call people you don't want to know who is calling.
And here's another tidbit: you think you suppress your caller id when you call a business, but if you call their toll-free number they get it anyway. They're paying for the call, they get the data.
Two features of the law of euthanasia sit very uneasily with each other. One is that
euthanasia is murder;
Cite the law that makes putting an old ailing pet to sleep "murder". The law says nothing of the kind.
the other is that only a light punishment (if any) should be imposed in
cases of euthanasia.
Exactly what punishment is there in the law is there for euthanizing a pet? And then explain why there are so many public and private pet shelters who do this kind of thing on a regular basis. You do realize that many, if not most, shelters kill (not murder) the pets they cannot place because they just don't have room or resources to do otherwise. Where is the law pounding on their doors for committing murder, if the law is as you pretend?
This is slashdot, and FTFY is a common technique, to illustrate a point.
I know what FTFY is, and it isn't used to change the context of a comment and then use the comment to accuse someone of committing murder. You changed the context from the chimps that are in court to someone else's dogs, and then claimed I was murdering them. You changed my statement about "the chimps in question" to "the dogs I murdered", which is so far outside the pale of FTFY that it an insult that you pretend that's what you did. That is a deliberate misquote. You tried putting words in my mouth and I called you on it.
You're euphemizing murder by calling it euthanasia,
The misquote you produced was originally about the CHIMPS, not dogs. That comment had nothing to do with euthanasia, it was talking about releasing them alive and well. I did not mention euthanasia, so don't tell me I'm euphemizing anything.
and I'm calling you out on it,
No, you are misquoting me so you can make some ridiculous claim about murder.
I don't expect an apology for your claim that I am murdering dogs because you are too much of a looney with an agenda to ever admit that you never saw me say that I was doing anything to dogs, much less murdering them. You think your deliberate misquote was appropriate, so you aren't worth discussing this with further.
Don't put words in my mouth. I've murdered no dogs. And the comment you misquoted was specifically about the chimps that are the topic of the overall discussion, not about any mythical dogs you want to accuse me of murdering.
It is generally considered unethical and dishonest to misquote someone like you did, especially under the pretense of "fixing" things for them by changing the subject of the sentence and then accusing someone of murder.
Legal for now, but you might think twice before euthanizing more dogs.
Yes, it is much better to let them hobble around, if they can, on arthritic joints running into doors because they're going blind.
As for the chimps in question here, of course they are persons. I say drive them to the nearest bus stop, hand them a twenty dollar bill, and bid them a happy life. Freedom! And keep the change!
Sure there is. I used to work for an ISP which had a monopoly in the town I lived because the town enforced that only said ISP could provide service to the town.
What town? Do you have a link to the ordinance that created that monopoly? What is the ISP? How in God's name did they get away with such a vast overstepping of their authority? How did they stop other companies from providing service?
If what you say is true, that would be the first and only such place I've ever heard of.
So? Your point is?
That there is no government-granted or enforced monopoly for ISP service. In that list of 25 providers are a large number of cellular services that exist nationwide. Those ISPs are why I question your story about a monopoly for your ISP.
... the only reason Google Fiber can come to KC is that we don't have municipal enforced monopoly on Internet service.
Nobody has a municipal-enforced monopoly on Internet service. There is a municipal monopoly for wired telephone service, but not for Internet OR cable TV. At least there are no municipal-enforced cable monopolies anyone has been able to cite. Every one that someone has tried claiming is a government monopoly wasn't when you actually look at the franchise ordinances.
Even before Google, we could choose between AT&T, Time Warner, and Comcast.
This site says there are 25 providers, although it appears that they are listing different modes of delivery as different providers (U-Verse as both DSL and fiber, e.g.), so the number of different companies is less.
I think it's weird that you think that "touching someone" is assault and battery.
Picking someone up in a fireman-carry and carrying them outside the building is what the law would consider assault and battery. It's much more than "touching" them.
When I see a Club on a steering wheel, i feel sorry for the owner. When i see security escort employees out like this, i feel sorry for the employer. They have lost their humanity.
That you think someone who has tried to make his car a bit less likely to be stolen has "lost his humanity" is ridiculous. I would feel a lot sorrier for the people who weren't protected against a disgruntled ex-employee because the employer wanted to be "humane" to the killer instead of the people he employes.
Get over it. Security is there to keep anything from happening, not because they expect you specifically to go ballistic and start a rampage. They're there to meet a legal responsibility of due care that the employer has towards his employees.
Heck, it's not even a Government address, it's BHO's campaign organization's address.
It's not even that. It's a community activist site that uses Barry's name because of his "legacy" and inspiration. They admit they have no connection "in any way" with the US or any other government.
You seem really desperate to see him as public enemy #1.
Stop making things up. I said exactly what I meant. He was looking for this response and he got it. He threatened to hack into aircraft safety systems and he got detained and questioned. I said nothing about him being public enemy number one.
Certainly the absence of anything happening and their apparent inability to get a warrant hasn't convinced you.
The absence of anything happening is irrelevant to making a threat to do something, and we have no idea where they are in the process of getting a warrant.
If law enforcement walked past you, stopped, then turned and looked right at you,
I wouldn't know it because I wouldn't see them. I don't have eyes in the back of my head, and neither does this guy.
you're saying you are too clueless to guess you are of interest to them?
I guess you are incapable of trying to make any point without being personally insulting.
To be treated with total lack of dignity at such a moment leaves an indelible impression; I know because it happened to me once.
How security treats you is a different issue than having them there to prevent trouble. This may sound like a 'zero-tolerance' afraid of your shadow approach, but since we already have a term for such reactions ("going postal") I think the precedent for trouble clearly exists and appropriate caution is justified. (We didn't have security at the place I worked, the task fell to a coworker, so it's happened to me, too.)
Once you can understand that, then thinking that the use of security is because they don't trust you specifically can be dealt with. You don't think that someone who locks the doors on their house is scared you are going to come rob them, do you?
It isn't about you. It's about the people who still work there who the company has some responsibility to protect.
I think there is a defining question here: were one of your fellow workers fired and the company allowed them to wander around the building, and they "went postal" and killed a couple of your friends, would you join in the lawsuit against your employer for failing to provide adequate workplace security? Would you think "Bob had a right to be in the building and the company isn't responsible in any way for allowing his rampage to happen", or would it be "they should have escorted him out"? If the people who Bob killed couldn't determine Bob was a danger (and stay away from him after he got fired), why do you expect an HR manager who doesn't know him very well to be better at guessing right?
Quite the contrary. He sent them a message a full hour in advance, saying that they should expect him.
And who was "them" that he sent the message to? "info@barackobama.com". If you didn't know, and didn't bother to look up, that domain is used by "Organizing for Action", a "grassroots" "community organizing" group. It has "barackobama" in the name, so the President must be involved, right? He got the message the postman delivered, right?
According to the FAQ in their website asking about the group's connection to Barack Obama:
The President's legacy as a grassroots organizer helped inspire a movement of millions. OFA was founded in January 2013 to make progress on the agenda the American people voted for. From fighting climate change to working toward economic opportunity for all, OFA's mission is rooted in making real, lasting change.
In other words, they have no connection to Barack Obama at all. They were inspired by his community activism. Period.
So, the miscreant postman told some political activism website about his mission, but nobody directly connected to the US government. By email to a role address that may or may not be read for days. And what TFA calls "a time-delayed email", so delivery wasn't even attempted until after he took off.
So while it might have been "literally" under the radar, it wasn't figuratively under the radar. The White House knew he was coming and expected him.
What utter and complete bullshit. He wasn't going to the Whitehouse, he was going to the Capitol, so I guess Barry was sitting on the portico with a beer and a cigar waiting for someone else. But barackobama.com has no connection to Barry or to the US government. As they admit when asked "is OFA affiliated in any way with the federal or any other government", the answer is "NO". So how an email to barackobama.com would make it to the Prez is a mystery, and how it could be seen by ATC prior to his entry to the airspace so they would know he was coming is even more of a mystery.
Trying to defend him on the basis that he told the appropriate government officials he was coming, and the the President was looking forward to his visit, is just pathetic nonsense.
We need a car analogy. I know... I lock my car doors every time I park. It's not about you. It's about the criminal who would walk off with some of my stuff that I have in the back seat if I didn't. And "The Club" on the steering wheel? Also not about you.
Unless you're a crook. Then it is about you, just like having security escort you out is about you if you tend to go postal on your coworkers.
So it's better for them to do it in the parking lot?
Assuming they're going to do it, yes. In a parking lot it is easier for people to run away, and it won't cost the company millions of dollars and put everyone else's job or life at risk.
It's an MBA type policy by a bunch of asshats that don't give two shits about their employees.
The company has a responsibility to the remaining employees, too. Once the disgruntled employee is off the premises the company can do nothing to stop his rampage, but while he is on-site they can -- which is to have security escort him off-site.
Since it is hard to tell who is going to be disgruntled enough to do something like that, and the result of getting it wrong for one who is is very serious, it's better to err on the side of caution.
If your employer does it you should find another job...
You're free to make your employment decisions based on whatever criteria you choose. The 80% of employees stuck in a building with one or more potential knife-wielding nuts shouldn't have to suffer from your freedom.
I'm saying that they didn't feel that the "threat" was serious enough to divert the plane.
You're saying that you think they didn't think his threat was worth dealing with because they didn't have the plane diverted. That's different. They obviously didn't think the threat was worth diverting the flight, but that doesn't mean they didn't think it was serious. And you don't know when the FBI became aware of the threat. Perhaps Syracuse was the most appropriate "diversion" airport by the time they knew. IIRC, it left Chicago, so it's only an hour and a half flight or so. It's a pretty large airport with good services, or was at the time I lived in the area. It's got (had) an Air Guard unit with F16s, so emergency response is capable there.
After, the lack of anything happening at all is a pretty good clue (for the cluefull) that the "threat" which could have been a bit of dark humor was, in fact, a bit of dark humor.
No, all that proves, for the clueful, is that he didn't do what he talked about. You can make a deadly serious plan to kill someone and then change your mind at the last minute. That doesn't turn the plan into just "dark humor".
As for the rest, I'm guessing that the combination of the feds looking right at him and an IQ above 60 told him who they were there for to at least 90% certainty.
The feds walked past him. How did he know they were looking for him? A guilty mind. He expected to be detained and he got what he was looking for. Fifteen minutes of fame.
This kind of idiocy is exactly what gets innocent people killed by cops.
Except he wasn't innocent, and he makes no claims that he is. Has he denied making the tweet, and has he denied that he would be able to do it?
You avoided the first question I asked you. You said because it was on Twitter the threat wasn't serious. It was "just a tweet". Do you really believe that, and are there ANY social media sites where threats should not be ignored?
Slashdot Mirror
(The purpose is simply to dilute the über-sweet Stevia powder so you can use reasonable amounts.)
Marketing Exec 1: Hey, we've got this great replacement for sugar called "stevia". It'll be a great seller because of all the people who don't want to use processed sugar or are on low carb diets!
Marketing Exec 2: Uhh, but it's so powerful that you only use a tiny bit. A one pound box would last for years. We can't make a profit on that.
Marketing Exec 1: Oh, yeah, I know, let's dilute it so that people have to put in more. Then a box will last only a month.
Marketing Exec 2: Great idea. What do we dilute it with that won't cut down the sweetness?
Marketing Exec 1: I know. Let's dilute it with sugar. It's FDA/EU approved, relatively cheap and is sweet, too.
Marketing Exec 2: But won't that be bad for the people who are buying our Stevia because they want no sugar or carbs?
Marketing Exec 1: Don't call it "sugar" and nobody will notice.
Here, you can prove me wrong right now in just a couple weeks.
Using a TARDIS or properly-equipped Delorean?
You realize that this "experiment" has been done again and again and time again, right?
"Strict calorie count" is nearly impossible, and "standard formula" calorie burn is just as hard to get right. Yes, the "experiment" has been done over and over, and the metabolism of the subject plays a significant role in the results.
There was a rousing ITV, or BBC, I don't remember, documentary on a woman who was a rabid anti-fat activist, spreading the word about how all it takes is eating less and how all the fatties are just lazy bastards who don't want to succeed. She spent some time gaining 30 pounds (I think it was) eating crap, then went on a low calorie diet AND exercised more, and she still couldn't get the weight off. And HER metabolism was based on being a runner prior to the test.
She even talked a couple of her "friends" into joining her "support group" and trying to lose weight, and while they did, it was clear they didn't lose as much as she wanted them to and they, too, were lazy bastards who must have been cheating. All I know is if she was a "friend", I'd not need enemies.
So no, it's not just "eat less", especially if your body goes into starvation mode and starts conserving energy for better times.
So you look at one product that contains stevia and draws some general conclusion from that?!?
No, I took a look at ALL the boxes that claimed to BE stevia. Not just supposed to contain it, but are supposed to be Stevia itself. Yes, when I looked at all the "Stevia" products on the shelves and saw that they all contain sugar as the main ingredient, I made a rash judgement that they all contained more sugar than stevia.
Just buy a product that doesn't contain a sugar instead.
Good idea. Sadly, there wasn't one. And the link I provided shows other products that, while sugar is not the main ingredient instead of stevia, have sugar alcohols instead.
Seems like the standard uninformed and skewed bullshit so common of sites like that,
Well, the information there is what I observed on the shelves of my local stores. I have yet to see a "stevia" that doesn't have something else as the main ingredient, and that something else is either sugar itself or a sugar alcohol (which drives my blood sugar levels just as nuts as pure sugar.)
Typically, these contracts are of the sort where Disney says if Verizon wants to carry the Disney channel, they must also carry all the ESPN channels @ a certain rate etc ...
I know. It's called "bundling". Verizon agreed to it.
I also don't see your analogy as being the same.
Analogies are typically NOT the same. That's why they are analogies and not identities. The concept is the same, however. If you support Verizon for breaking a contract they accepted when it was profitable for them, then you should also support them if they break another contract that was profitable when they agreed to it.
You're correct in that it's a contract dispute between Verizon and Disney, but w/o actually seeing the contract we don't actually know who's in the right. My guess is that Verizon found a loophole and Disney isn't happy about it.
My guess is that Verizon THINKS they found a loophole, OR that they THINK the public will support them breaking the contract and ESPN will back down, but I KNOW they think it will be more profitable for them to break the contract, including the legal costs. Just as it is more profitable for them to break contracts with their customers instead of honoring them.
These contracts have been in place for quite some time, so it would be amazing if a lawyer just now found a loophole and it wasn't a changing economic landscape that rebalanced the equation.
We are not talking about the metabolism.
You are talking about release of insulin, which is a major player on the metabolic system.
The taste buds are prior to ingestion,
They are prior to swallowing, but they are in the mouth, and the tongue has a wonderful blood supply which happily absorbs things that the taste buds taste. Kinda hard to keep it from being absorbed.
it is part of the system that helps prevent us from ingesting bad stuff.
Like aspartame? Two amino acids?
I'd be interested in Stevia,
I took a look at buying Stevia in the store awhile back. I am also a reader of contents labels, so I put it back on the shelf really fast. The first ingredient listed: dextrose. That may not shock you until you remember that the FDA requires ingredients to be listed in order from most to least. More dextrose in stevia than stevia. And who remembers from BioChem 327: dextrose is ... two glucoses.
More fun facts about stevia here.
Translation: And force people to pay for stuff they don't want.
Neither ESPN nor Verizon can force you to pay for things you don't want. Verizon can force you to pay the rate they set for the packages they sell, but they can't force you to buy one. And ESPN has even less control over what you buy or don't buy.
Personally, I've *never* (ever) watched any of the ESPN channels and am annoyed at having to pay for them.
Ok. There are channels I never watch, too.
But keep in mind that this is a contract dispute between Verizon and ESPN. Verizon entered this contract with ESPN to be able to sell ESPN content and has made quite a bit of money by doing so. You appear to be on the side of Verizon, who is breaking the contract by not selling ESPN because it has found people who will buy other things but not ESPN. Now keep in mind that if you are a Verizon customer, you have a contract for service with them, too. Would you be as supportive of Verizon if they were breaking the terms of their contract with you? Say, you had a plan with 50Gbps down speeds and they decided you would only get 5?
So until there is a study that shows that a given substance on the planet falls at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2 the logic would be faulty to say that a given substance falls at that speed?
Were the effects of gravity based on what the substance was, yes, it would be fallacious to claim that any specific substance felt a specific gravitational effect until it had been tested. Human metabolism depends heavily on the substances subject to it, and therefore testing a specific substance before claiming as a fact that it reacts a certain way is required.
As for this "before ingestion" reaction to aspartame, what, the body releases insulin by just looking at a diet drink? I don't think so. Once it hits the bloodstream, metabolism deals with it.
I can't speak for why your area has only one DSL choice, but in my small town we have eight DSL providers, only one of which is the telco. "Used to be" is "is" for a very large number of people.
Because the corporations who started off using these call centers got exemptions to be able to spoof it,
Corporations who run telemarketing call centers didn't have to get an exemption to spoof calling number id services, they simply used the existing mechanisms available to all users of bulk phone services.
Corporations who have their own PBXs have always had a need to be able to specify the calling number ID of their outgoing calls. Those who have multiple outgoing lines often want to have a unified, common outgoing caller id sent that points to their main incoming number.
As for Facebook being able to help out, that's only for people who have told Facebook their phone number. If you're stupid enough to do that, you deserve to have all your data sent to anyone you call. The solution is simple: don't call people you don't want to know who is calling.
And here's another tidbit: you think you suppress your caller id when you call a business, but if you call their toll-free number they get it anyway. They're paying for the call, they get the data.
Two features of the law of euthanasia sit very uneasily with each other. One is that euthanasia is murder;
Cite the law that makes putting an old ailing pet to sleep "murder". The law says nothing of the kind.
the other is that only a light punishment (if any) should be imposed in cases of euthanasia.
Exactly what punishment is there in the law is there for euthanizing a pet? And then explain why there are so many public and private pet shelters who do this kind of thing on a regular basis. You do realize that many, if not most, shelters kill (not murder) the pets they cannot place because they just don't have room or resources to do otherwise. Where is the law pounding on their doors for committing murder, if the law is as you pretend?
This is slashdot, and FTFY is a common technique, to illustrate a point.
I know what FTFY is, and it isn't used to change the context of a comment and then use the comment to accuse someone of committing murder. You changed the context from the chimps that are in court to someone else's dogs, and then claimed I was murdering them. You changed my statement about "the chimps in question" to "the dogs I murdered", which is so far outside the pale of FTFY that it an insult that you pretend that's what you did. That is a deliberate misquote. You tried putting words in my mouth and I called you on it.
You're euphemizing murder by calling it euthanasia,
The misquote you produced was originally about the CHIMPS, not dogs. That comment had nothing to do with euthanasia, it was talking about releasing them alive and well. I did not mention euthanasia, so don't tell me I'm euphemizing anything.
and I'm calling you out on it,
No, you are misquoting me so you can make some ridiculous claim about murder. I don't expect an apology for your claim that I am murdering dogs because you are too much of a looney with an agenda to ever admit that you never saw me say that I was doing anything to dogs, much less murdering them. You think your deliberate misquote was appropriate, so you aren't worth discussing this with further.
As for the dogs I murdered,
Don't put words in my mouth. I've murdered no dogs. And the comment you misquoted was specifically about the chimps that are the topic of the overall discussion, not about any mythical dogs you want to accuse me of murdering.
It is generally considered unethical and dishonest to misquote someone like you did, especially under the pretense of "fixing" things for them by changing the subject of the sentence and then accusing someone of murder.
Legal for now, but you might think twice before euthanizing more dogs.
Yes, it is much better to let them hobble around, if they can, on arthritic joints running into doors because they're going blind.
As for the chimps in question here, of course they are persons. I say drive them to the nearest bus stop, hand them a twenty dollar bill, and bid them a happy life. Freedom! And keep the change!
Sure there is. I used to work for an ISP which had a monopoly in the town I lived because the town enforced that only said ISP could provide service to the town.
What town? Do you have a link to the ordinance that created that monopoly? What is the ISP? How in God's name did they get away with such a vast overstepping of their authority? How did they stop other companies from providing service?
If what you say is true, that would be the first and only such place I've ever heard of.
So? Your point is?
That there is no government-granted or enforced monopoly for ISP service. In that list of 25 providers are a large number of cellular services that exist nationwide. Those ISPs are why I question your story about a monopoly for your ISP.
... the only reason Google Fiber can come to KC is that we don't have municipal enforced monopoly on Internet service.
Nobody has a municipal-enforced monopoly on Internet service. There is a municipal monopoly for wired telephone service, but not for Internet OR cable TV. At least there are no municipal-enforced cable monopolies anyone has been able to cite. Every one that someone has tried claiming is a government monopoly wasn't when you actually look at the franchise ordinances.
Even before Google, we could choose between AT&T, Time Warner, and Comcast.
This site says there are 25 providers, although it appears that they are listing different modes of delivery as different providers (U-Verse as both DSL and fiber, e.g.), so the number of different companies is less.
I think it's weird that you think that "touching someone" is assault and battery.
Picking someone up in a fireman-carry and carrying them outside the building is what the law would consider assault and battery. It's much more than "touching" them.
When I see a Club on a steering wheel, i feel sorry for the owner. When i see security escort employees out like this, i feel sorry for the employer. They have lost their humanity.
That you think someone who has tried to make his car a bit less likely to be stolen has "lost his humanity" is ridiculous. I would feel a lot sorrier for the people who weren't protected against a disgruntled ex-employee because the employer wanted to be "humane" to the killer instead of the people he employes.
Get over it. Security is there to keep anything from happening, not because they expect you specifically to go ballistic and start a rampage. They're there to meet a legal responsibility of due care that the employer has towards his employees.
Heck, it's not even a Government address, it's BHO's campaign organization's address.
It's not even that. It's a community activist site that uses Barry's name because of his "legacy" and inspiration. They admit they have no connection "in any way" with the US or any other government.
You seem really desperate to see him as public enemy #1.
Stop making things up. I said exactly what I meant. He was looking for this response and he got it. He threatened to hack into aircraft safety systems and he got detained and questioned. I said nothing about him being public enemy number one.
Certainly the absence of anything happening and their apparent inability to get a warrant hasn't convinced you.
The absence of anything happening is irrelevant to making a threat to do something, and we have no idea where they are in the process of getting a warrant.
If law enforcement walked past you, stopped, then turned and looked right at you,
I wouldn't know it because I wouldn't see them. I don't have eyes in the back of my head, and neither does this guy.
you're saying you are too clueless to guess you are of interest to them?
I guess you are incapable of trying to make any point without being personally insulting.
To be treated with total lack of dignity at such a moment leaves an indelible impression; I know because it happened to me once.
How security treats you is a different issue than having them there to prevent trouble. This may sound like a 'zero-tolerance' afraid of your shadow approach, but since we already have a term for such reactions ("going postal") I think the precedent for trouble clearly exists and appropriate caution is justified. (We didn't have security at the place I worked, the task fell to a coworker, so it's happened to me, too.)
Once you can understand that, then thinking that the use of security is because they don't trust you specifically can be dealt with. You don't think that someone who locks the doors on their house is scared you are going to come rob them, do you?
It isn't about you. It's about the people who still work there who the company has some responsibility to protect.
I think there is a defining question here: were one of your fellow workers fired and the company allowed them to wander around the building, and they "went postal" and killed a couple of your friends, would you join in the lawsuit against your employer for failing to provide adequate workplace security? Would you think "Bob had a right to be in the building and the company isn't responsible in any way for allowing his rampage to happen", or would it be "they should have escorted him out"? If the people who Bob killed couldn't determine Bob was a danger (and stay away from him after he got fired), why do you expect an HR manager who doesn't know him very well to be better at guessing right?
Quite the contrary. He sent them a message a full hour in advance, saying that they should expect him.
And who was "them" that he sent the message to? "info@barackobama.com". If you didn't know, and didn't bother to look up, that domain is used by "Organizing for Action", a "grassroots" "community organizing" group. It has "barackobama" in the name, so the President must be involved, right? He got the message the postman delivered, right?
According to the FAQ in their website asking about the group's connection to Barack Obama:
In other words, they have no connection to Barack Obama at all. They were inspired by his community activism. Period.
So, the miscreant postman told some political activism website about his mission, but nobody directly connected to the US government. By email to a role address that may or may not be read for days. And what TFA calls "a time-delayed email", so delivery wasn't even attempted until after he took off.
So while it might have been "literally" under the radar, it wasn't figuratively under the radar. The White House knew he was coming and expected him.
What utter and complete bullshit. He wasn't going to the Whitehouse, he was going to the Capitol, so I guess Barry was sitting on the portico with a beer and a cigar waiting for someone else. But barackobama.com has no connection to Barry or to the US government. As they admit when asked "is OFA affiliated in any way with the federal or any other government", the answer is "NO". So how an email to barackobama.com would make it to the Prez is a mystery, and how it could be seen by ATC prior to his entry to the airspace so they would know he was coming is even more of a mystery.
Trying to defend him on the basis that he told the appropriate government officials he was coming, and the the President was looking forward to his visit, is just pathetic nonsense.
It is not about you.
We need a car analogy. I know ... I lock my car doors every time I park. It's not about you. It's about the criminal who would walk off with some of my stuff that I have in the back seat if I didn't. And "The Club" on the steering wheel? Also not about you.
Unless you're a crook. Then it is about you, just like having security escort you out is about you if you tend to go postal on your coworkers.
So it's better for them to do it in the parking lot?
Assuming they're going to do it, yes. In a parking lot it is easier for people to run away, and it won't cost the company millions of dollars and put everyone else's job or life at risk.
It's an MBA type policy by a bunch of asshats that don't give two shits about their employees.
The company has a responsibility to the remaining employees, too. Once the disgruntled employee is off the premises the company can do nothing to stop his rampage, but while he is on-site they can -- which is to have security escort him off-site.
Since it is hard to tell who is going to be disgruntled enough to do something like that, and the result of getting it wrong for one who is is very serious, it's better to err on the side of caution.
If your employer does it you should find another job...
You're free to make your employment decisions based on whatever criteria you choose. The 80% of employees stuck in a building with one or more potential knife-wielding nuts shouldn't have to suffer from your freedom.
I'm saying that they didn't feel that the "threat" was serious enough to divert the plane.
You're saying that you think they didn't think his threat was worth dealing with because they didn't have the plane diverted. That's different. They obviously didn't think the threat was worth diverting the flight, but that doesn't mean they didn't think it was serious. And you don't know when the FBI became aware of the threat. Perhaps Syracuse was the most appropriate "diversion" airport by the time they knew. IIRC, it left Chicago, so it's only an hour and a half flight or so. It's a pretty large airport with good services, or was at the time I lived in the area. It's got (had) an Air Guard unit with F16s, so emergency response is capable there.
After, the lack of anything happening at all is a pretty good clue (for the cluefull) that the "threat" which could have been a bit of dark humor was, in fact, a bit of dark humor.
No, all that proves, for the clueful, is that he didn't do what he talked about. You can make a deadly serious plan to kill someone and then change your mind at the last minute. That doesn't turn the plan into just "dark humor".
As for the rest, I'm guessing that the combination of the feds looking right at him and an IQ above 60 told him who they were there for to at least 90% certainty.
The feds walked past him. How did he know they were looking for him? A guilty mind. He expected to be detained and he got what he was looking for. Fifteen minutes of fame.
This kind of idiocy is exactly what gets innocent people killed by cops.
Except he wasn't innocent, and he makes no claims that he is. Has he denied making the tweet, and has he denied that he would be able to do it?
You avoided the first question I asked you. You said because it was on Twitter the threat wasn't serious. It was "just a tweet". Do you really believe that, and are there ANY social media sites where threats should not be ignored?
That would be obvious if the dogs are showing "their manly hood", would it?