That said, I read the entire opinion, and there is a nuance in what was decided that seems to have been overlooked here, at least thus far.

In the case in question, the police officer named in the suit was using his work-issue pager to send personal messages, but the initial inquiry was a result of the good-faith request of the police chief to check into whether the issue was that the number of characters per month (set at 25,000) that had been contracted with Arch Wireless was sufficient to the task. Only upon examination of the details of those transmissions did the personal nature of them come into focus.

If I read the opinion correctly, the fact that the messages were examined for a non-disciplinary reason (in this case, to ascertain if the upper limit on characters sent per month was sufficient to encompass all of the required official communications.

I am the master of the twit.

Remember this fucking face. Whenever you see twit, you'll see this fucking face. I make that shit work.

It does whatever the fuck I tell it to. No one rules the twit like me. Not this little fuck.

None of you little fucks out there. I AM THE twit COMMANDER! Remember that, commander of all twits! When it comes down to business, this is what I do

Unless you happen to live in an area with an excellent public transportation system, and also happen to work somewhere with one, it seems like driving is positively necessary to, you know, pay the bills and all.

You might argue that one could walk or ride a bicycle or something, but that simply does not reflect the way that the vast majority of people get around. The average commute in the US is 16 miles. That is a distance that is not casually covered in anything but a motor vehicle.

I'm not trying to troll here, it just seems to me that there are many reasons a jurisdiction might set a speed limit to a specific number.

I don't imagine that it is outside the realm of possibility that a jurisdiction might set an artificially low speed limit to:

1. Generate ticket income.

2. Increase gas mileage.

3. Reduce CO2 emissions.

4. Encourage use of public transportation.

While I agree that they seem to have the smallest network footprint among the three or four "Major Carriers" in the US, the fact that I can use WiFi instead of the cellular network overcomes pretty much all of those concerns for me.

For example, when I'm home (in a rural part of Chester County, PA), my cell signal from T-Mobile is only around 1 bar (of 5), but as I have a WiFi network at home, it doesn't matter at all. Also, I travel overseas quite a bit, and the fact that a call from, say, France, is treated as a local call (so long as I'm connected via UMA) overcomes just about any reticence I'd have over using T-Mobile.

The real shame is that none of the other carriers seem to offer this option, and the majority of the T-Mobile phones no longer offer it either. I've stuck with my Blackberry mainly because of its UMA compatibility. If any of the Android phones (notably the Nexus One) or the iPhone offered this, I'd take it in a heartbeat.

I don't know how (or IF) this would skew the numbers involved, but if you just navigate to the page and start it up, then switch tabs or whatever, PacMan moves one dot to the left and gets stuck on a wall.

I've had it running with this in the same position for several hours now, and the ghosts circle but NEVER kill it.

Nowhere in TFA does it explain what you get for the $20-$30 that will be forked over to Walgreens.. Does that just buy you a tube and an envelope?

Yes, but that misses the point.

The four people you listed didn't do the things they did BECAUSE they were Atheists or to advance an Atheistic viewpoint, they did it to advance their own cause, which usually equals "Staying alive and in total control".

OTOH, the far-right "Batshit Crazy" evangelicals (Be they Muslims, Christians or Jews) seem to take the positions that they do precisely BECAUSE, in their view, their religion requires them to take the action(s) that they do. If they weren't "Batshit Crazy", they wouldn't do the things that they do or advocate the things that they advocate.

Are you seriously quoting Wikipedia as an authoritative source?

Not that I necessarily doubt the veracity of the entry, but in an discussion such as this, a "real" source would really be preferable.

Wait.. How do these trucks fit into the tubes?

Swoosh!