Actually, I notice that Bradley13 lists a Switzerland domain as his homepage, which makes me wonder if Change.org is delivering him petition search results tailored to the country or region of the IP he used to visit. I didn't dial in from Switzerland, nor from Europe.
What is strange is how you managed to come up with site search results that in no way reflect actual Internet reality. Did you use the Wayback Machine to visit the site a month after it first opened for business? Here's the current true results from the search process you proposed:
Trayvon Martin's parents win justice for their son
2,278,102 supporters
Create Caylee's Law
1,313,713 supporters
Boy Scouts: Don't let your anti-gay policy deny my son his Eagle award
422,733 supporters
Governor Tom Corbett, PA Board of Pardons, District Attorney Seth Williams:Grant Clemency to Terrance Williams, Survivor of Child Sexual Abuse
384,946 supporters
Secretary of Defense: Create a Central National Registry for Military Sex Offenders
359,081 supporters
Stop Wildlife Crime, Starting with You
344,003 supporters
Boy Scouts of America: Reinstate Cub Scout leader who was removed for being gay
333,940 supporters
Bradley13 seems to think he's using the same Internet as the rest of us, but he's doing it wrong.:-)
Accusing someone of having a knee-jerk episode isn't exactly calling someone mindless, though it does imply a deficiency in the balance between emotion and reason. I didn't call HIM mindless, I called the CPSC regulation mindless. You took different parts of two of my sentences and strung them together to make a new sentence I didn't write. Don't do that.
The record here also clearly shows everyone that I never said anything even remotely like "fuck you asswipe" to you. You can't justify ad hominem by simply claiming "well he said it first!" when he actually didn't.
You don't have facts on your side. You think you have "facts" because, what, you can site verifiable news reports that children have died after swallowing powerful magnets? What about ALL THE OTHER small neodymium magnets that have been sold for many years? Would you make all of them illegal to sell as well? And what of, say, vehicles, which I can prove have killed far more children than any magnets ever, yet there are still tens of millions of them hurtling around?
Congratulations on having YAKJR (yet another knee-jerk reaction). Yes, it IS mindless regulation to ban it outright. What wouldn't be mindless is to place reasonable restrictions on its sale and use such that it can still be obtained by people for use in environments where children cannot be endangered by it.
I seem to recall similar regulatory stupidities regarding chemistry science kits in the last decade? Both are examples of think-of-the-children regulation stretched beyond reasonable into the realm of authoritarianism for the sake of itself.
It wasn't hard to predict that idiot voters would approve this proposition and that it would then promptly be challenged in court as unconstitutional. I told a friend just that days ago, and look what happened. The same idiots believed the "arguments against" lies about Prop 33 and voted against that one, too. I really hoped that one would pass, as I've been stung by the perverse loyalty restriction in old Prop 103 twice now when I switched insurers.
Maybe you already have a star making machine in your house? Perhaps if we all pool the lint from our dryers we can make a baby star? We can name Sol as the godmother and Jupiter the midwife.
I guess it's time for the Universe to pay a visit to the fertility clinic? All that stellar sperm has gotten flung out all over the place instead of being deposited where it can do some baby-making. Somebody needs to teach the Universe how to stop pulling out and ejaculating all over the place.
I didn't expect that it would be useful, but just in case there was enough flexibility that it might work I offered it anyway. Did you also try the ARSTechnica OpenForum?
They serve two completely different purposes, then. California's law was about thwarting or reducing the impact of planned obsolescence, but it didn't mandate that consumers have direct control over the repair process; third parties were presumed to be involved. While this law is also about restoring more control from the manufacturers to the alleged owners of vehicles (only), it's not so much about planned obsolescence.
With a title like "Right to Repair", I thought I was going to be reading about another state trying to duplicate the purpose of California's so-called "Lemon Law", which literally is a 7-year right-to-repair mandate not just for automobiles but all mass-produced consumer goods with a cost over $100. In California, thus, manufacturers are obligated to make available the parts and documentation necessary to keep a product in service for no less than seven years.
This Massachusetts proposal seems to be a lot more limited and specific to vehicles.
You forgot to include mention of those whose "job" it is to create those loopholes: Congress and Parliaments. It's a difficult job, crafting those loopholes so that only your friends and donors can drive their Humvees through them, but somebody's gotta do it.
Complete with all documentation, some of it still shrink-wrapped. The diskette and CD envelopes were also never opened, though the adhesive on the perforated flaps has dried up and left them unsealed even though they were.
And this is precisely the sort of scenario that motivated me to take PayPal up on its unusual offer to "opt out" of its new recent adjustment to its service agreement that attempts to force customers to only use singular arbitration and prohibit class actions altogether. These news clauses are all the rage in service industries; all the corporate kids are dying to get one. Valve has one, AT&T has one, and now PayPal. I'm sure there are hundreds more I don't know about or mindlessly clicked-thru. Why PayPal chose to give customers the ability to reject that clause I can't figure, but I exercised it and this incident is demonstrative why. The rest of you have until December 31st IIRC to consider the same; you aren't likely to get this choice often.
As to why these clauses are a big fucking deal, the New York Times and TechDirt both published good analyses of the Supreme Court decision last year that inspired it and the inevitable effects. It's the same Court that gave us the Citizens United ruling and others that are almost slavishly favorable to business at the expense of the common good.
It should be obvious why another creature's - any creature's - gaze would be the focus of one's own: you need to see where the other creature is looking. If it's looking at you, then you might have a problem. This is completely unsurprising, as my cats always look directly at my eyes when they want to determine my focus and intent.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I notice that Bradley13 lists a Switzerland domain as his homepage, which makes me wonder if Change.org is delivering him petition search results tailored to the country or region of the IP he used to visit. I didn't dial in from Switzerland, nor from Europe.
What is strange is how you managed to come up with site search results that in no way reflect actual Internet reality. Did you use the Wayback Machine to visit the site a month after it first opened for business? Here's the current true results from the search process you proposed:
2,278,102 supporters
1,313,713 supporters
422,733 supporters
384,946 supporters
359,081 supporters
344,003 supporters
333,940 supporters
Bradley13 seems to think he's using the same Internet as the rest of us, but he's doing it wrong. :-)
Accusing someone of having a knee-jerk episode isn't exactly calling someone mindless, though it does imply a deficiency in the balance between emotion and reason. I didn't call HIM mindless, I called the CPSC regulation mindless. You took different parts of two of my sentences and strung them together to make a new sentence I didn't write. Don't do that.
I said that instead of "teleporters" because I knew it would upset a physicist somewhere. :-)
The record here also clearly shows everyone that I never said anything even remotely like "fuck you asswipe" to you. You can't justify ad hominem by simply claiming "well he said it first!" when he actually didn't.
You don't have facts on your side. You think you have "facts" because, what, you can site verifiable news reports that children have died after swallowing powerful magnets? What about ALL THE OTHER small neodymium magnets that have been sold for many years? Would you make all of them illegal to sell as well? And what of, say, vehicles, which I can prove have killed far more children than any magnets ever, yet there are still tens of millions of them hurtling around?
No, you don't have facts.
Congratulations on having YAKJR (yet another knee-jerk reaction). Yes, it IS mindless regulation to ban it outright. What wouldn't be mindless is to place reasonable restrictions on its sale and use such that it can still be obtained by people for use in environments where children cannot be endangered by it.
I seem to recall similar regulatory stupidities regarding chemistry science kits in the last decade? Both are examples of think-of-the-children regulation stretched beyond reasonable into the realm of authoritarianism for the sake of itself.
Well, you certainly predictively picked the perfect pen-name, didn't you?
It wasn't hard to predict that idiot voters would approve this proposition and that it would then promptly be challenged in court as unconstitutional. I told a friend just that days ago, and look what happened. The same idiots believed the "arguments against" lies about Prop 33 and voted against that one, too. I really hoped that one would pass, as I've been stung by the perverse loyalty restriction in old Prop 103 twice now when I switched insurers.
So they'll leapfrog straight to quantum teleportation, then?
Maybe you already have a star making machine in your house? Perhaps if we all pool the lint from our dryers we can make a baby star? We can name Sol as the godmother and Jupiter the midwife.
Is this the result of English as a third language or mental disease? I'm thinking the latter....
I guess it's time for the Universe to pay a visit to the fertility clinic? All that stellar sperm has gotten flung out all over the place instead of being deposited where it can do some baby-making. Somebody needs to teach the Universe how to stop pulling out and ejaculating all over the place.
I for one welcome our new entropic overlords. No (stellar) news is good news, right?
I didn't expect that it would be useful, but just in case there was enough flexibility that it might work I offered it anyway. Did you also try the ARSTechnica OpenForum?
They serve two completely different purposes, then. California's law was about thwarting or reducing the impact of planned obsolescence, but it didn't mandate that consumers have direct control over the repair process; third parties were presumed to be involved. While this law is also about restoring more control from the manufacturers to the alleged owners of vehicles (only), it's not so much about planned obsolescence.
With a title like "Right to Repair", I thought I was going to be reading about another state trying to duplicate the purpose of California's so-called "Lemon Law", which literally is a 7-year right-to-repair mandate not just for automobiles but all mass-produced consumer goods with a cost over $100. In California, thus, manufacturers are obligated to make available the parts and documentation necessary to keep a product in service for no less than seven years.
This Massachusetts proposal seems to be a lot more limited and specific to vehicles.
You forgot to include mention of those whose "job" it is to create those loopholes: Congress and Parliaments. It's a difficult job, crafting those loopholes so that only your friends and donors can drive their Humvees through them, but somebody's gotta do it.
Complete with all documentation, some of it still shrink-wrapped. The diskette and CD envelopes were also never opened, though the adhesive on the perforated flaps has dried up and left them unsealed even though they were.
And this is precisely the sort of scenario that motivated me to take PayPal up on its unusual offer to "opt out" of its new recent adjustment to its service agreement that attempts to force customers to only use singular arbitration and prohibit class actions altogether. These news clauses are all the rage in service industries; all the corporate kids are dying to get one. Valve has one, AT&T has one, and now PayPal. I'm sure there are hundreds more I don't know about or mindlessly clicked-thru. Why PayPal chose to give customers the ability to reject that clause I can't figure, but I exercised it and this incident is demonstrative why. The rest of you have until December 31st IIRC to consider the same; you aren't likely to get this choice often.
As to why these clauses are a big fucking deal, the New York Times and TechDirt both published good analyses of the Supreme Court decision last year that inspired it and the inevitable effects. It's the same Court that gave us the Citizens United ruling and others that are almost slavishly favorable to business at the expense of the common good.
It should be obvious why another creature's - any creature's - gaze would be the focus of one's own: you need to see where the other creature is looking. If it's looking at you, then you might have a problem. This is completely unsurprising, as my cats always look directly at my eyes when they want to determine my focus and intent.
It was caused by the construction of that secret RCMP underground command base for spying on everyone. It was their fault.
I'm getting into the paintball manufacturing business on Monday. Look for my Kickstarter project, peoples.
I want to see Temple Grandin's version of these remote hug machines.