I think it varies by region. Where I live, the anti-vaxxers tend to be left wing extremists. It's the same people who believe all scientists are corrupt and Monsanto is the devil and GMOs will destroy the world, yet do believe the scientific consensus that climate change is real because science says so. They think Big Pharma is out to get them, and that cancer patients should eat avocados lemon water instead of undergoing chemo. They profess that the paleo diet is how everyone should eat, and think that eating gluten will killing them. They are rabidly anti-corporation, but spend most of their money at multi-billion dollar publicly traded Whole Foods, and those that don't have a lot of money malnourish their children because it's better to eat "clean" than eat enough.

They are part of a religion. That religion is composed of the faith that anything that seems unnatural is evil and is trying to kill them, and everything is part of a conspiracy to force unnaturalness on them.

If there are consequences, I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of voluntary.

Islamist activities, you mean like praying and celebrating holidays just like their Christian counterparts? Or is this a parody of dumbness who are too stupid to know that the word "Islam" is not synonymous with the word "terrorist?"

Better wipe out all of Texas then, just to be sure.

You really don't understand patents do you? The patent is not the title. The patent is a method for accomplishing the title. If it's a different method for doing it than the Fairchild XC-120 used, then the XC-120 is not prior art.

As an analogy, if I come up with a method for shutting up arrogant morons, and title the patent, "A method for shutting up arrogant morons," it doesn't mean my patent applies to all methods of shutting up arrogant morons, only the method that I specify in the patent. If somebody else comes along with another method of shutting up arrogant morons that is not the method in my patent or one that I have used before, then my method doesn't count as prior art to their patent.

Given the frequency of mass shootings lately, if you talk about it at all, it's going to be right after, right before, and possibly during a mass shooting.

It's very likely what the daughter was actually suffering from was depression. The symptoms that the kooky mom attributed to WiFi were actually symptoms of depression. This isn't a case of blaming the WiFi after the suicide, it was blaming the WiFi all along for the daughter's depression symptoms. Instead of treating the depression, the mom went in the opposite direction and convinced the daughter her symptoms were due to external forces and focused energy on a futile battle with the school, thus exacerbating the depression and driving her to suicide. So most likely if the mom had been a responsible, non-idiotic parent and had taken the daughter to a psychologist for therapy rather than blaming WiFi, the daughter would still be alive. Therefore it is the mom's fault.

President? Precedent. Thanks autocorrect.

Yup, and apparently they don't care. I'm pretty sure what they are doing is the epitome of libel. It's not abuse of technology, and future president is not at question. They are intentionally trying to defame somebody by accusing them of something they haven't done.

I live in Hawaii, we don't have Daylight Savings Time, you insensitive clod!

FTFY

The problem is that they paid for an unlimited plan. They probably chose Sprint specifically so that they could be data hogs, and is giving sprint thousands of dollars over the course of their 2 year contract. I wouldn't have a problem with this if they didn't call it "unlimited" on new contracts and in particular if they allowed those still under contract to complete the contract they signed up for. After the contract is up, I can understand, then those people can choose a different plan or provider or choose to accept the throttling. But if you went with Sprint specifically so you could have unlimited data, and now you're stuck with them because you're under contract, well then what they are doing should be illegal (I know, it's in their contract that they can do whatever the hell they want, which should in itself be illegal). Sprint should either be required to finish out the contract with their customer, or the customer should be allowed out of their contract without penalty. There is no indication that Sprint plans to do either one of those.

Sprint has altered the deal. Pray they don't alter it any further.

When I had Sprint it was so f'ing slow that there's no way I could ever approach 23GB. I always figure that's how they could get away with "unlimited" data plans.

That's because the point was never to convict or even charge him with rape, it was to get him to somewhere where he could then be extradited to the US.

I think you may have the burden backwards. If it is a crime in both countries, then they are obligated to extradite him. If it's not a crime in both countries, they can still extradite him if they want to.