My bank does it with debit cards also. It's a smaller community bank and I have found it annoying a couple of times when I had to answer an alert or had a large purchase declined but they allowed me to adjust my limits and everything to mostly avoid tripping it. Perhaps some banks are still into customer service. This one used to have awesome hours (7:00 am to 7:00 pm) but cut back with the financial crisis to more normal bankers hours (8:00 am to 5:00 pm) but they said they are trying to staff to return to the old hours now that things are picking back up.

Congresscritter?

I for one welcome our new -hole gender-neutral name style for jobs that are essentially "lie about this in the least possible lie, so that it still puts us in a good light"

In Germany, autopay comes with an authorization limit... basically, "if the bill is over X,€ don't autopay"

I'd prefer to see this on the autopay here in the states as well... because I'm fine with authorizing autopay for any bill less than $60... but if it reaches into the thousands, or even the hundreds, then I damn well don't want to authorize the autopay!

Prepare for another culture-shock, my dear passport-less American. Tokyo has competing privately-owned subway lines. Japan's wonderful highspeed trains are privately-owned too.

Which shock would this be, exactly? Major American cities used to have competing privately-owned commuter rail lines as well -- mostly torn down in the first half of the 1900s in favor of the highway model. This is by no means a surprise to anyone who knows even local transportation history.

If a government is doing it, it can not be smart...

You lecture me about fallacies, and then pull out that?! I find it hard to believe that you're actually interested in making a good-faith attempt at a meeting of the minds.

No, it's because your wife can't cook. Seriously, rumor is the flies in the neighborhood all chipped in and purchased her a screen door last spring.

lol.. The constitution makes reference to common law. I really don't know what your point is if you are not trying to claim common law is superior.

The US constitution was created to constitute a federal government and define its role. In doing so, it put limits on the federal government that common law cannot surmount.

It's almost like they even consider 11% too much... It's like they forgot why they forked to Firefox in the first place.

I'll miss "Password Maker" but I think it's really time for me to ditch it completely.

Does Chrome have anything like Firebug?

They did, but only 39/100 of them found anything out of whack.

Lol.. good luck finding a payphone anywhere.

Yup, there has been free phones for about a decade or longer.

A lot of Ebooks can be read on cell phones which aren't far off from small tablets. I have a niece who reads about a book a week on her phone in the time it takes to ride to and from school, waiting for things, and study hall in school or even when bored at home.

Most of the poor can get phones- the obama phone for instance, some should be capable of reading ebooks (I know obama isn't behind the phone but that's what its called). I imagine you need an app for that and wifi from some place which is why internet access it part of the plan. I also imagine the app for that will collect location data, names and numbers and all sorts of other things like the fucking flashlight apps that need access to your files, address book, GPS and so on when installing.

Actually, there is a constitutional basis for a federal government department. It would simply be an office under the executive with a head of the office as in "principal Officer in each of the executive Departments" as mentioned in Article II, Section 2 - otherwise known today as the cabinet. In fact, most federal agencies started that way and George Washington even had them.

A constitutional department would not be one that makes laws/regulations though. It/they could carry out the executive's duty to see the laws are faithfully executed in the name of the president. So in the manner they are present today, I completely agree, but a department that advises the president and offers laws to congress in the name of the president for consideration would be just as constitutional as his cabinet posts. In fact, it would more or less just be the secretarial and resource pool of his cabinet posts allowed by law.

Sigh.. The slavery issue as well as the secession issues would have been decided without war. Lincoln was begging the south to come back/not leave and jumping through hoops to proclaim they were not going to ban slavery. The WAR broke out because the south attacked a union fort. Had that not have happened, there most likely never would have been any war. All the other issues like slavery or secession, would have either been settled otherwise or still on going today. It's not a simple concept, just follow along and pay attention.

Utter Rubbish. Nothing would prevent the EPA from going to congress and getting laws made to protect the Ozone layer. Oh wait, they did go to congress and get laws passed. Treaties were even made and ratified and laws were passed for them too.

Check out title 40, part 82 when you get bored sometime. You will fine laws and references to treaties and specific mentions you are looking for.

Lol.. Someone has filled your head with all sorts of bullshit it isn't even funny.

First, no- the foreign minister of Iran does not know the US constitution (and it's definition of treason and the laws passed based on that definition) better than the republicans in the Senate do. The president can only enter into a treaty if the senate consents. This is elementary school civics. The administration can come to some executive agreement, but any future administration can nullify it at will because it is not a treaty. What the foreign minister referenced was a misinterpretation of international law which has a principle that agreements between the head of state are treated treaties in dispute resolution. However, this is not binding to the US because we are both not members of the international court of justice and we have an established process declaring what a valid treaty is.

Second, the treason crap you spewed is wrong on so many levels. First, treason is specifically defined by the Constitution so violations of the Logan act (a law) which do not involve levying war against the united states, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. will not be treason by any stretch of the imagination. Second, the logan act specifically involves unauthorized persons which members of the government are authorized. Further, the advice and consent portions of the constitution imply the senate has a specific right to give advice in foreign relations.

The sole reason no one is not being prosecuted for the letter is because violations of the law only exist in partisan political minds and not in reality or matters of law. Several of the president's strongest detractors could be taken out in one swoop if they were prosecuted for this but the justice department knows any attempts to prosecute will fail.

So are you surprized when Republican voters who shout constitution all the time turn out to have no idea what is in it or what it means ? Of course not, the senators they elect don't even know it !

I'm simply amazed at how ignorant people are about the constitution. Do they not teach this in school any more? When I was in school, we had government and civics coursed in a couple of different years (starting in 8th grade) and the last two runs (11th and 12th grades) were actually requirements to graduate.