Why don't you boycott the Supreme Court?

I don't think "boycott" means what you think it does.

It's not their faith telling them they are abortifacients, It is the US Government Department of Health and Human Services. HHS says the 2 IUDs in question and the morning/week after pills in question keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Their faith says that life begins at conception, so being force to pay for something that keeps that life from implanting in the uterus is a violation of their religious belief.

So basically, you're just saying what I'm saying, "It's their faith that tells them these are abortifacients."

Further, when you talk about the "they" in "their religious beliefs", you are not talking about individuals, but a corporation. Now, we can argue whether or not corporations are people, my friend, but I'm pretty sure you will agree that "Inc" does not have religious beliefs.

As you can clearly see from the National Review article (and the National Review is the mothership for anti-abortion types), this is NOT about abortifacients, but about absolutely anything that someone can say violates their religious beliefs. And if you recall your history, you will note that at one time people found religious justification for owning slaves, refusing to serve blacks, gays, Catholics and Jews.

That's why Hobby Lobby is this era's Plessy v Ferguson. It will go down as one of those decisions about which people will someday say, "That wrong-headed case was decided during the bad old days". And not because of anything having to do with abortion.

I'm sure there were people back during Plessy, that made rational-sounding arguments just like yours for why segregating the races was God's will.

I hope Bill Gates is planning to include Kinect technology in a diaphragm.

I'm not going to read TFA, but in my mind, that's totally what's going to happen. I'm boggled by the possibilities.

Another one is "Open Carry".

Something tells me these courageous members of a well-regulated militia aren't getting any.

http://www.westernjournalism.c...

http://www.cavemancircus.com/w...

http://localtvwtvr.files.wordp...

It's about more than just "abortifacients". http://www.nationalreview.com/... Except, the four methods Hobby Lobby objected to are not "abortifacients". http://www.newrepublic.com/art... But I guess, if their faith tells them they're abortifacients, then abortifacients they shall be. Isn't that the whole point of the decision of the five (male) Supreme Court justices? And we already have cases being brought to use the Hobby Lobby precedent to allow all sorts of civil rights violations, nullification of laws, and even special exemption from taxation based on religious faith. It's going to be a few interesting years until Hobby Lobby is overturned, which it almost certainly will be, Hobby Lobby is the 21st century's Plessy v. Ferguson. But that's the whole point, right?

I'm pretty sure there's more to the story than we're getting out of either Russia or the US. And that goes double for what we're getting out of the Russian media (RT) and the US media. As sympathetic as I am to the Anonymous folks, their cries of "kidnapping" based only on what's coming out of Russia are a little premature. Does anyone here doubt that a Russian MP's son would be involved in a large-scale criminal enterprise stealing US credit card info? Is that really so improbable? I don't have a need for immediate information or immediate reaction on these things. We'll see what we see. Until then, I don't believe a damn thing in any of the reports. Both countries have very large, powerful and dishonest intelligence services who are expert at this crap. They had more than half a century of Cold War practice after all. And I've learned to tread lightly when it comes to RT or the US media.

n/t

You're a little behind the times, that stopped eighteen years ago when PWORA was passed and AFDC abolished.

These days slaves are made with "right to work" laws and strict limits on the extent of the safety net.

I gained my freedom this past February. YAY! Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty, I'm free at last!

Indeed, B&N is cheaper and ships faster and carries more books. And your public library is free.

And if you're going to buy a book, buy one of mine!

"Did you consider the possibility that there really is something wrong with the part? Not everything is a false positive."

"So what? It isn't hard nor a skilled task. Train people to do it."

Well, DUHHHH! Maintenance and tooling has so many manhours available each week. They have so much work to do that they never catch up. You are suggesting that they have the added responsibility of TRAINING some clown off of the street how to do a moderately complex job? What world do you live in? It is the job of MANAGEMENT to hire and/or to train QUALIFIED PERSONNEL to perform QC tasks.

It is never the responsibility of tooling to fix the fool who cannot read a caliper - that is the job of either HR or the clowns in charge of QC.

No, none were making parts for us. The plant in Mississippi was kind of a sister plant to us - they made similar products, many of them going to the same customers. When that plant finally closed, their tools and equipment came to us, and we took over their production, in addition to our own. The products made on those machines weren't especially profitable, but we made some profit on them, whereas the management in Miss. consistently lost money on the same tools.

The plant in St. Louis was intended to feed us metal parts, but it never did. Damned near half of everything they sent us was out of spec, we rejected the stuff, and bought from another supplier instead. That plant was a money hemorrhage. The other plants were totally unrelated to our production, and I can't really say what they did, how, or why - all I know is that every time anyone mentioned money, or raises, we got speeches about all the plants always losing money, blah blah blah.

A friend of mine works in a lot of internet marketing and used to do things like search optimization and whatnot. Trust me, no matter what user-based system you set up, people will work day and night to subvert it to push their products. Any sort of review or rating system would be corrupted very quickly.

So the system is inherently flawed.

I can't believe there's no way to design a more robust system of review that isn't prone to corruption. Maybe the FDA is that system, but it's an expensive and inefficient way to go. Of course though, any app that interfaces with a pacemaker or diabetic medication or something ought to be vetted by them. A "health and fitness app" less so.

The discussion seemed to me to involve the concept of destroying an aircraft with a quadracopter. The idea was pooh-poohed because jets have multiple engines. I proved that not all jets have multiple engines.

If someone were intent on destroying an aircraft, why would he necessarily restrict himself to large commercial aircraft? I could easily set up a command post near an airport, put my copter in the air, and wait for a single engine craft to make a flyby, or try to land. If I'm really good, and really lucky, I crash the small jet, and it goes into another, larger jet, or into a fuel depot, or even into the boarding lobbies.

OR, I can hover around, waiting for an aircraft to take off, and nail it when it is pointed in the direction of a downtown area. Even a small jet can cause considerable damage if it crashes into a high rise office building.

OR, I can hang around a military base, and crash a jet taking off, bringing it down in rush hour traffic, similar to what happened outside Oceania Airbase in Virginia several years ago.

In the hands of an imaginative terrorist who thinks outside the box, this could be a very useful tool.