In all honesty, while there are plenty of good reasons to dislike drones, I think this is a terrible one. You're worried that drones would allow them perfect enforcement of laws? How is this a bad thing exactly?

Worst case I can think of is that they are enforcing bad laws in which case right now they might slip by because "no one ACTUALLY pays that fee!" except that a widely ignored but still on the books law is unfair to anyone who actually does follow it, or leaves it as an opening to target a person who hasn't done anything else wrong.

Didn't you hear? There was dihydrogen monoxide in their system as well. We should look into its link to violent crimes...

It depends on the goal. As an experiment in how much money a site would earn by this system? Yeah, won't be too useful. There is other information you can get, however. It could show people how much they would spend in that situation. This could make people who say 'No way would I do that' look back and see they wouldn't actually spend all that much. On the other hand, a proponent might see how much he would spend, and realize the idea may be unworkable. This information can be valuable in itself.

Posting to undo mod. Modded based on your incorrect info, but then you had to go and be all decent and correct yourself.

Depends on how you look at it, really. How is video games so different from imagination games, just with a audiovisual element to it? Sure, there isn't any imagery of blood, but even children without computers play cops and robbers, or army man, using the fingers for guns if nothing else is around. I think video games may just be a small evolution of things that are brains are wired to do.

And if you think most people who enjoy video games NEED to sit in front of a screen to feel normal, you obviously have no clue about the people you are passing judgement on.

Depends on how you look at it, really. How is video games so different from imagination games, just with a audiovisual element to it? Sure, there isn't any imagery of blood, but even children without computers play cops and robbers, or army man, using the fingers for guns if nothing else is around. I think video games may just be a small evolution of things that are brains are wired to do.

And if you think most people who enjoy video games NEED to sit in front of a screen to feel normal, you obviously have no clue about the people you are passing judgement on.

You kind of miss the point with that line about every employment contract having that line. His point was that there is no inherent patent transfer to employer. In fact, if he was wrong, why would contracts say it?

This is kind of situational. Overall, I would agree with what you say, but there are some limits. For example, say I have a subscription to a business. It has always had great service and customer service, and I've been with them for years. Then their data center or whatever gets hit by an earthquake, but they assure me they will be back up soon. You feel I should cut my subscription and go with a random other business I've never used, just because my preferred company is offline briefly?

Actually, you seem to have completely missed the point. First two you got, but the point of the article was that when we are in somewhat of a hurry, we don't speedwalk/semirun, as one might expect. We mix walking and running, which is more efficient.

Except you missed the point by looking for "Gun Crime" vs. "Violent Crime". If someone is killed, does it really matter what weapon was used to do it? So even if the US has more gun crime, if OVERALL violent crime is lower...

Note: I don't have the statistics, I don't know what the overall crime rate is, just that parent missed the point with his response.

So, E16 and E17... you can't tell which is newer?

This makes sense. Tasers are definitely a step up in force from simple verbal or relatively gentle physical actions. However...

If the situation justifies a gun, the officer should use a gun, not a Taser. The Taser should be used for situations that don't justify a gun, but the person is resistant to any other methods to get them to comply with the law.

I voted absentee this year, and unless my state (New Hampshire) is the odd one out (always possible), you have the process wrong.
I filled out a ballot, which had no identifying marks on it at all. No signature, name, or anything like that.
Then, that was sealed inside an envelope with a statement I had to sign saying that I myself completed the ballot, and it was the only ballot I filled out.
That envelope was then put inside another envelope that could be dropped in the mail or handed in at the town office.
Once the envelopes were stripped out, there was no way to tell who had filled in the ballot.

Would you rather he had modified your quote in an non-obvious way?

I think you're a bit off saying they don't care at all. The only reason they have to go with the DNT flag is for PR purposes. If their reason to break it is simply that it cuts into their income too much, they don't get any PR benefit. However, if they can break it and say that it was being abused, they can possibly get some benefit for trying at least.