Have to say this is pretty much false everywhere I shop, but will add I wouldn't shop anywhere where this is true. Any business whose survival depends on saving a few pennies on credit card fees is destined for failure around here because there are very few willing to walk around with cash just to keep them alive.

So the benefits to those who are totally 180 degrees opposite your opinion is, what!? Pretending we are still a democracy, just what would it take to cause those who want their legally protected to side with yours? Are you sure you understand the bottom line here? If I give you $x I want an authoriatory to guarantee the I get $X back if I give it to you. Maybe some laws that force you to make me at lease break even when you go under? Don't know for sure, but people are generallly okay with accepting loss as long as they don't lose.

First thought, if your "business" couldn't survive for a mere 45 days without income then your business was was underfunded to start with, and I believe that underfunding is one of the biggest causes of new business failures. I would hope that you should consider your "been there, done that" as a lesson that you should never start an enterprise that you can't fund without income for at least a year.

The question should be, can a smart watch replace your smart phone?

To me, at least, the answer to question would determine whether I would invest in smart watch. Any device that requires me to carry another to work how i expect it to work is just a non-starter in my book.

What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? The man in is dead, his rights are dead.

What with the internet lightspeed and all it doesn't take much more than that to distribute your works. Hell, it was good enogh in the whip and buggy days, right?

....that are not releases. Really wish they would stop that. I went to XFCE with the great "4" announcement. that screwed up everything that I expect a finished window manager to do. Anyway, isn't this a dupe?

I would certainly hope that is their devices default. Yes, I know most people will just give whatever permissions are requested, but that would at least give a few of a chance.

Wouldn't it be much more expedient to only allow those who don't worry about such things to go into space? This really is such a low priority issue it is almost laughable. There is so much more important survival factors to focus research on instead of wasting it whether someone with undected artheroscralosis survives.

None have diied of a heart attack so far, and there's no reason for the great unwashed to fund research/technology to handle some future hypothetical event. If that's an issue for you, simply don't volunteer. No one has ever been forced onto a ride to space, non-humans excluded.

Exactly! It way too early to worry about anything except perhaps to screen out those most likely to have an MI during spaceflight.

Then that is where research should be focused, how to better screen those who are apt to have a heart attack in space. Better biometric data recorders ;perhaps?

At this stage of the game it would probably make more sense to limit space travel to those with the lowest risk factors rather than waste money on treatment. First and foremost, research today should be 100% geared to how to successfully and consistently move humans from this planet to another. Treatments for the less than healthy can wait until that is accomplished.

"Activist" judges, the ones who are willing to overrule laws based on Constitutionality no matter what Congress or the President says, have been pretty much shackled by will of the people who want their personal prejudices enforced.

Probably, but these guys are from the branch of government that determines what is constitutional and what is not.

It's electric storage that is the problem. Fix the range problem, and I'm not talking about the average or median range here, and we"ll all be golden.