"Authorities are still trying to determine the suspects' motives, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson said Monday."

Battery life of an existing device won't go up over time.

If a brand new one has only 30% at the end of the day, a year from now (or an OS update, whichever happens first) you'd better get used to charging your watch at lunch.

Ah, so "right" and "wrong" can be determined by popular vote now?

Not so much "popular" as "fiscally responsible".

Society has a compelling interest in keeping people employed as long as possible - Ideally until they drop dead on the job, but as long as possible in any case. The longer someone can't work, the longer society will bear the financial burden to keep them alive. A decade of SSI, we can readily bear when offset by a 40 year career of paying in to that system. 30+ years of welfare because companies "don't want" to hire competent experienced professionals, however? The numbers just don't work out when we allow that to happen on any large scale.

So yes, we as a society have determined, for our own good, that companies (you remember "companies", right? Legal fictions allowed to exist as a boon society grants them in exchange for the small possibility they will benefit us overall?) cannot turn away otherwise-qualified people because of a few protected categories.
It doesn't matter if you don't want to work with blacks - Too fucking bad.
It doesn't matter if you don't want to work with women - Too fucking bad.
It doesn't matter if you don't want to work with fogeys - Too fucking bad.
It doesn't matter if you don't want to work with Jews - Too fucking bad.

If someone can do the job and you don't "want" to work with them, rejecting them for only that reason breaks the law. They have a "right" to consideration for employment regardless of the age, gender, race, or religion; you don't have a "right" to run a company however you want, simple as that.

McDonald's in town has a help wanted sign out front saying "hiring 15 year olds". Discriminatory?

Possibly by the letter of the law, but probably not under any reasonable interpretation - 15 year olds fit into a special "pain in the ass" category as far as labor laws go, so McD's intends that sign to mean they will hire 15YOs, not that they'll only hire 15YOs.

Whoah whoah whoah there!

We use standard units around here, none of that "furlongs per fortnight" crap.

You'll need to rephrase that in multiples of Rhode Island, please.

The right to face your accusers in court is irrelevant here. They don't present Stingray-obtained evidence in court, just the old-fashioned stuff it led them to.

"Your accuser" doesn't just mean the testimony and evidence against you - How and Why they collected evidence can matter more than that evidence itself.

Just think how much easier it would make police work if they could randomly barge into your house and search for criminal activity without a warrant... Or if they could "find" your DNA at a crime scene by bringing you there after-the-fact to "ask some questions" and you "just happen" to trip and bleed on the scene (but don't worry, an anonymous phonecall assured them you did it).

We have rules in place for a reason. We either always follow them, or they mean nothing.

Law-enforcement officials also don't want to reveal information that would give new ammunition to defense lawyers in prosecutions where warrants weren't used, according to officials involved in the discussions.

Un-fucking-believable - Or rather, sadly all too believable.

That one statement right there almost completely expresses everything wrong with modern American legal system.

Mr. Prosecutor, I would point out that if you would so willingly abandon the core principles of our legal system - The ideas of innocent until proven guilty and having the right to face your accuser in court - Why shouldn't we go back to vigilante mob justice and tar-and-feather your worthless ass for breach of public trust?

But the political ends *is* the installment of fairnesses. (There's no morally higher pursuit.) And we're gonna hafta disagree on being able to equalize everything in life as sounding plausible.

Thank you for explaining that; I'd missed that nuance to it.

Maybe this points to one of the inherent problematicnesses [new word there] of regulating business. That is, how does one decide (and who does the deciding) at what point is charging more for a costlier service being done for anti-competitive reasons?

Well, it's not the space cadets in academia who sit around and ponder how everything is relative that I'm worried about. It's the more pragmatic Lefties who have delusions that everything in society can be equalized (given the application of sufficient coercive power).

And yes, it's about all those things, to amass enough political power to install Progressively greater levels of "fairness"*. But it's not about burning the culture just to have an orgy or something. It's because our culture was based on a totally different values system.

*AKA economic and social justice.

But being in support of common carrier laws, that apply to the whole country, would not be even Left-leaning libertarian. It would have to be collectivism, that was completely voluntary. I'm pretty sure that's not what pro Net Neutrality folk were about.

Well summed-up. The only nuance that might be missing is what they have in common (besides being a waste of time, that is). And that is, whether or not fusta is an equal opportunity troller (across the political spectrum) or only targets Conservatives like DR.

I may post a JE some time soon about modern sleazy web programming tactics I'm noticing, such as on that site.

Only when it comes to God's morality. For example, downplaying the truth that it's much better for children to be raised in a two-parent household of both sexes. But when it comes to their man-made morality, there is no unwavering in for example their belief that it's a truism that more "fairness" = more betterness, ad infinitum.