p.s. And I would never defend property with a firearm. Even if I lived in a state that allowed it, which I'm almost sure of that I don't. I'd only risk an aggressor's life to defend my own. Because I really do want to be able to get through my whole life without killing or harming anyone. It just sucks that it's really the responsible thing to do to look into acquiring some means of deadly force, because of the remote but real threat of violence by uncivilized people.

(Took a chance seeing who's post this third one was, hoping that since mine wasn't a political JE it might not be toxic.)

As I had been wondering that if this person was trying to get in, why not really try and get in, so thanks for posting this as a possible explanation. Still uncomfortably brazen of this person. I'll always be locking it now even if just stepping out to another side of the building for a minute. I suppose with the blinds flapping so wildly, this person could've looked in and saw the back of someone sitting in a recliner and could've decided to take the chance that I had fallen asleep and that maybe it was potentially a grab-and-go opportunity.

I should probably get the real thing, just in case. What's extra bothersome about this is that the intruder could not be expecting to be a mere burglar in this case, but instead must've been okay with being a robber.

Home invasion robberies (by two or three perps) in my larger region have been in the news, and women sleeping with a window open have gotten raped (by lone pervs).

I've never been robbed or assaulted in 48 years of life so far, but I might not always be so lucky, and should think about that. I've thought about getting a shotgun, and holding my ground upstairs (assuming I'm awake) and being prepared to blast someone for coming up the stairwell after being warned. It would be firing towards my own garage and not into any of my neighbors' directions.

But there's other complications, I hear, in Soviet California, and it would be taking up and keeping up a new hobby. And it kind of sucks when bad people cause you to make demands on your own time, on account of them.

Then they would've first stuck their key in the deadbolt lock part above the door handle, to unlock the door first before squeezing the handle. Like I do when I don't park in my garage and hence come in this door. But they didn't.

And if they were expecting it to be their place and left unlocked, they would've squeezed the handle and pushed into the door to open it. LIke I do after just dragging my trash cans down to the front of the building. But they didn't do that either.

It was just a careful squeeze of the handle, so I only heard the slight creak of that mechanism, and didn't hear what I presume was the gentle push to see if the deadbolt had been left unlocked.

And I lied; my head is more like 18-24 inches from that door handle. But still at ear level where I sit. And if that mechanism wasn't oldish and creaky, I might not have heard it at all.

I haven't been the victim of any major crimes, just a few extremely weird incidences (like coming out to my car after work one day and finding someone trying to get into it, who claimed to mistake it for his own), so I don't consider it, but I should.

They meant well, though, right? No matter what bad they do, they meant well, and that makes up for it. You know, like Hitler.

Right. But the point is that they now say it was an oversight, even though the architect said it was intentional, and for a specific and well-defined purpose.

So we know the language of the text is clear: it's for state exchanges. Their argument became, "well that wasn't intentional; if it were, that would be contrary to the purpose of the ACA." We know however, based on this quote and other similar ones, that it was intentional, and perfectly in line with the purpose of the ACA.

Gruber said in another comment in 2012 that the reason why you can't get subsidies for the federal exchange is so that states will be encouraged to make their own exchange.

I love the quote, "Five hundred kilometres is pretty much as far as a normal person would want to drive in a single day." Oh, man, I've driven further to see a live show, and driven back essentially the next day

Indeed. Aren't things in Australia nearly as spread out as they are here? 300 miles is nothing. 300 miles won't even get you from Las Vegas to San Diego. I've done that as a same-day round trip. I've driven from Las Vegas to Denver in one day. 770 miles makes for a long day behind the wheel, but it's doable. You can cover 600 miles in 8 hours at 75 mph.

Who are these people, that would give a damn about this change?

You don't need an intermediary not-you authority for this job. And in fact, using one can only possibly decrease the security, in the best case scenario. Even the worst most incompetent company in the world, would make a better CA for its internal servers, than the best, most trustworthy public CA.

Screens come in all sizes and aspect ratios

So do developer's brains. Perhaps even more so than the screens. :)

Whoa there. This was no mere bad judgement call. Having him thrown off the plane was over-the-top malicious, totally beyond what I ever expect from anyone who is "having a bad day." I sincerely believe such a person really shouldn't be in any sort of position where they might have that amount of power over other people.

Put a hundred random people in the same sort of bad-day position, and I don't expect one of them to behave like this one did. This one is truly exceptional, and does not merely "have bad days." This is the kind of person whose news stories are usually headlined something like "gunman kills five then self."

I might be willing to excuse them, if say, their psychiatrist were to explain how this was anomalous for their character and that their medication was defective, or something like that. OTOH that can be handled in their lawsuit against the medication manufacturer, and then this psycho will never need a job where they exercise power over other people again.