Kid-fucking is more than "an idea that I don't agree with".

You're right. But RMS did not fuck any kids. He just talked about the subject. So yes, it is very much exactly "an idea that (you) don't agree with."

If he were actually doing it, that would be a different story. But people should be permitted to hold unpopular and controversial opinions.

A lot of police vehicles already have auxiliary batteries used to power that stuff, because a car's basic electrical system already can't handle all of that additional load. I would see no reason that it couldn't be done in the Tesla models as well, so that the primary battery remains available just for powering the vehicle and its normal accessories.

Not just police vehicles, either. People who like to do big stereos, the big light bars, etc., also often have to power them off of an auxiliary battery. So, they might have to do that, but they probably already would've had to anyway.

Failure to regularly apply chemicals to organs tends to damage them in pretty short order, too.

Water is a chemical. Vitamins are chemicals. Trace minerals are chemicals. Proteins, lipids, carbohydrates and sugars? All chemicals.

The fact that something is a "chemical" does not, in and of itself, render it harmful. Many chemicals have little to no effect on human bodies, and some are even beneficial. Indeed, humans will die without regularly ingesting certain chemicals.

Has anyone, at any time, ever found it to be a wise idea to discuss politics at work? I can't possibly see that ending well; someone is going to disagree with you, and you have no idea who that "someone" might turn out to be.

Because if they don't, mad people with pitchforks will make business very difficult for them. Or so they believe.

Somehow we've come to accept that $300 is somehow "just punishment" for speeding, when it's really just a raw revenue grab with many officer's time dedicated to just that. We've been conditioned that this is ok, in the country of No Taxation Without Representation!

In the US at least, you can absolutely take photographs that include private property from a public place. You can't do it in such a way as to violate an actual reasonable expectation of privacy or to photo something you normally couldn't see (e.g., a long zoom through a bedroom window), but if something would be ordinarily visible from public space, it can be photographed. Copyright has nothing to do with it; the copyright belongs to the photographer. A car in a driveway is not reasonably expected to be in private, since anyone walking or driving by could see it.

The eyes can't trespass. If it's something you could see, you can photograph it. Ask Barbara Streisand about trying to stop photography.

The sad part of this is, a lot of these "anti-GMO" types claim they're protecting the environment. Yet they oppose a technology that could cause agriculture to require less land, less pesticide and herbicide, less fertilizer, and less water. Now they're even fighting against plants that would dramatically reduce CO2.

It reminds me a lot of the "anti-nuclear" activists who claim they're environmentalists. You don't get to call yourself that and then oppose technologies that would actually help. Some of these people need to learn to actually think.

Given that there's absolutely no reason to dislike the deal, and many companies have similar arrangements with USPS, I can't see any other reason. Trump is not attacking the idea of bulk service contracts in general, just with Amazon, but he's provided no numbers to indicate it's actually a bad deal. Conversely, the USPS has, and the deal is serving them quite well. It's certainly good for Amazon as well, but well, business contracts are usually entered into because both parties stand to benefit from them.

And Trump has blasted the Washington Post many times, but once again, he could not come up with one single thing that was factually inaccurate in their reporting. Now, if they were reporting something false, he'd have a good case for being pissed off at them, but, well, if the facts make you look bad, that doesn't put the blame on the one who reports those facts...

The USPS is bringing in tons of money through their deals with companies like Amazon. They're not somehow getting screwed. Like in a lot of cases, if you're going to buy a large amount of a product or service, you can generally negotiate to get it at a lower bulk rate. That's not somehow unusual.

It's essentially guaranteed business for USPS. If they double the rate, I'm sure FedEx, UPS, etc., will be quite happy to carry Amazon's packages instead, and the USPS will wind up being the one that loses.

But, what's that matter when you've got an ego to feed? This never was about postal rates. This is about Trump not liking Jeff Bezos, because the Washington Post has the gall to call people's attention to it when Trump says something stupid.

Very true indeed. I don't think my parents thought intentionally to do it, but I do have a very common one. If I google my name, I find that "I" am a comedian in Canada, an aerospace engineer in California, a lawyer in Florida, and was arrested for aggravated assault in Virginia when I was four years old. Even if some of the results that came up really were about me, it would be extremely difficult to filter that from the stuff about other people who share my name.

No, they couldn't. There was a time limit, I think an hour or two. That's long enough to decide if the app is worth what you paid for it, but not so much time that you could do whatever you wanted with it and get a refund a month later.

If they were giving refunds to people years down the line, it was in some other way, not the auto refund via Google Play since that was only available for a short while. But I would tend to agree with you that it's unreasonable to demand a refund for something that went EOL after being maintained for several years, especially when most of those apps only cost a buck or two. If I got five years' use out of an app I like for a couple bucks, I would certainly think I got my money's worth.

When I worked fast food, I periodically went to help at one of our stores that was located at Coors Field, the Denver baseball stadium. I guarantee you, after a sold-out game, we had well over $10,000 in cash.

I didn't handle depositing it (and I would have refused if they'd wanted me to), it was given to an armored car company, but it was a perfectly legitimate enterprise that was depositing substantially more than $10k. The reason people are willing to pay exorbitant fees to set up an outlet in a stadium is because those outlets rake in money like you would not believe.

The Google store used to do this. They'd allow you to uninstall an application within, I think it was an hour or two, and you'd be refunded for it.

When I think about it, I was more willing to try paid applications at that time. I don't mind paying a buck or two for something that's going to serve me well, but I do mind paying a buck or two for a steaming pile, or even for something that works okay but isn't really to my taste.

I don't know why they quit doing that. I'm a lot more willing to try something out if I can kick the tires a bit before I'm committed to paying for it. I hardly think I'm the only one.

Actually, what he did was walked down a sidewalk that appeared to be open to the public. It is a reasonable assumption that a resource accessible by simple URL is intended to be made available to the general public to view. If that's not the case, there's no reasonable way he could have known that, and his presumption that it was intended to be open to the public was entirely reasonable, just like a pedestrian's presumption that they are allowed to walk along a publicly accessible sidewalk. If the sidewalk is private or restricted, it is up to its owner to clearly notify people that the default state of affairs is not true in this particular case.