It's not really clear what time scale we're talking here. It sold around that much on a particular day, perhaps; not every day over the last two weeks. Or at least, if that's happened, it's not clear from the linked article.
With a sufficiently "secure and safe" at-home voting service, you could move toward replacing some representative positions with direct democracy. They don't want that. Also, it starts to eliminate the excuse for voting districts, which are carefully chosen to protect the status quo.
I remember there was a topless coffee shop in Vassalboro Maine until it got burned down. The idiot owner didn't have insurance to cover such things. I don't think they obeyed your "only attractive baristas" suggestion, but I never visited to find out.
That's not slower than necessary. That's slow enough to be dangerous. The solution to that is to make it so it's not illegal to keep up with traffic, not to get mad at the people who follow the law. I hate needing to go 67 in a "Speed Limit 55" to keep up with the "slow" cars. That's risking a hundreds-of-dollars ticket to avoid being a hazard.
As dangerous as speeding, perhaps, but it's the only way to drive legally.
What are people supposed to do if they want to obey the law and also be safe? Is the variance in the speed more the fault of the person obeying the law or the person breaking it?
I, personally, think that in those situations the speed limit is unreasonable and unsafe, and should be raised. But that doesn't seem to be happening.
There's nothing wrong with driving slower than necessary (how do you judge what's necessary?) or braking early. Both are safer and more cost-effective ways of driving. Driving substantially under the speed limit should, of course, be discouraged. But don't get mad at people because they're trying to obey the law, despite how stupid you or they believe the law to be. It's very difficult to drive within the speed limit and keep it within a mile under at all times.
Swerving into other lanes is, of course, awful. And no competent driver should ever hit the rumble strip unless avoiding an accident or navigating construction areas.
I'm saying that I wouldn't expect that it's illegal. It's completely stupid on the hotel's part, but I really doubt the manager broke any laws. As the police said, this is a civil matter.
Again, I'm not saying that what the manager did was a good idea, or that the people staying in the room were at fault in any way. I'm saying that the hotel probably has a written policy explicitly stating that they can do this, and that such a policy is likely within the law. However, I'd suspect the couple cannot be charged for the time that they are ejected from the room (hence the police telling them how to get a refund).
This doesn't conflict with freedom of speech. Management likely reserves the right to do this for any reason. The couple needs to live with the manager choosing to eject them, but so does he.
If you see a protected wireless network, sure, it's easy to break, but you know they don't want you using it. They did the equivalent of an unprotected network called "Share Me". The point here is that they acted like they wanted it, then sued the people who bit without even asking them to stop first. Hopefully I don't start a rape flamewar with this.
"You are not a criminal until you actually commit a crime. This guy is proactively preventing "criminal" behavior BEFORE it happens at this particular location."
Each time that you speed is a separate act of speeding. If the people are not speeding where the police are, they're not breaking the law where the police are. This guy is not responsible for what they do in other places, at other times.
On the post: US Intelligence Agencies Angry At France Over Three Strikes; Worried It Will Drive Encryption Usage
Re: Re: No doubt
On the post: Minecraft's Developer Making
$350,000$100,000 Per Day [Updated]Re: Re: Sounds off
http://minecraft.net/stats.jsp
On the post: Minecraft's Developer Making
$350,000$100,000 Per Day [Updated]Sounds off
On the post: Washington DC Pulls Down Internet Voting Trial After Hackers Program It To Play UMich Fight Song
Re: Re: Re: Possible, but intolerable
On the post: Starbucks Staffer Claims He Was Fired For Turning Off WiFi To Block Porn Watchers
Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
On the post: New Study Shows Texting Bans May Make Roads Even More Dangerous
Re: Re: Re: Driving
On the post: New Study Shows Texting Bans May Make Roads Even More Dangerous
Re: Re: Re:
What are people supposed to do if they want to obey the law and also be safe? Is the variance in the speed more the fault of the person obeying the law or the person breaking it?
I, personally, think that in those situations the speed limit is unreasonable and unsafe, and should be raised. But that doesn't seem to be happening.
On the post: New Study Shows Texting Bans May Make Roads Even More Dangerous
Re: The people are the problem ...
These are simple infractions, not actual crimes, hence the people are not criminals.
On the post: New Study Shows Texting Bans May Make Roads Even More Dangerous
Re: Automated solution:
On the post: New Study Shows Texting Bans May Make Roads Even More Dangerous
Re:
Swerving into other lanes is, of course, awful. And no competent driver should ever hit the rumble strip unless avoiding an accident or navigating construction areas.
On the post: Football Helmet Maker Drives Competitor Into Bankruptcy With Patent Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: They should have gone into the Dark Helmet Business instead...
On the post: Sorry, But We Don't Just Hand Out Information On Our Commenters
Re:
On the post: Sorry, But We Don't Just Hand Out Information On Our Commenters
Re: LOL...
On the post: Couple Kicked Out Of Hotel After Manager Accuses Them Of Writing A Bad Review
Re: Re: Re: Well
Again, I'm not saying that what the manager did was a good idea, or that the people staying in the room were at fault in any way. I'm saying that the hotel probably has a written policy explicitly stating that they can do this, and that such a policy is likely within the law. However, I'd suspect the couple cannot be charged for the time that they are ejected from the room (hence the police telling them how to get a refund).
On the post: Couple Kicked Out Of Hotel After Manager Accuses Them Of Writing A Bad Review
Re: Well
On the post: Lily Allen Said To Be Suing Apple Over Her Hacked Laptop... But Details Are Scarce And Hazy
Re: Obviously...
Does that make anyone else think of Harry Potter?
On the post: Judge Indicates LVRJ May Have Offered An 'Implied License' To Copy In Righthaven Lawsuits
Re:
On the post: Time Warner Cable Boycotting Epix Movie Channel Because It Did A Deal With Netflix
Re:
On the post: Time Warner Cable Boycotting Epix Movie Channel Because It Did A Deal With Netflix
Re: Comcast, Nail in Coffin?
On the post: Police In South Africa Looking To Arrest Guy For Tweeting The Location Of Speed Traps
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You are not a criminal until you actually commit a crime. This guy is proactively preventing "criminal" behavior BEFORE it happens at this particular location."
Each time that you speed is a separate act of speeding. If the people are not speeding where the police are, they're not breaking the law where the police are. This guy is not responsible for what they do in other places, at other times.
Next >>