A coworker of mine bought a new Charger a couple of months ago. He wanted fog lights but couldn't get the deal he wanted for one that did. He bought some OEM fog lights and the final step of installation was having a dealership register them with the manufacturer and then the manufacturer confirmed with the car's local computer that there were fog lights installed. He had to drive 50 miles to find a dealership who wouldn't charge more than the installation fee to register the things.

If voice mail is gone then people might expect me to answer my phone. I'd much rather deal with voice mail than having to talk to people on the phone when it isn't necessary.

Come on now: The appropriate followup for that is "Open mailbox." It is far too bright to be eaten by a grue.

I don't get the presumption that people with well-behaved children have that people who do use more harsh discipline for their children haven't tried other methods. I absolutely hate punishing my difficult child. I hate it more the more restrictive and severe that I have to be with him. I most certainly use empathy and consequences whenever possible for discipline. Those methods are effective for long term discipline and work flawlessly with my other children (so far), but for him are not always effective for short term compliance. I'm not even particularly harsh with discipline being effective for short term compliance if his behavior isn't hazardous.

I clicked through to the article. I'm not sure what this has to do with "experiencing" race. When people talk about racism it is about how people treat them because of their skin color but this looks like a virtual mirror that turns your skin color dark. It might have some minor effects on my behavior but it doesn't really instruct me about what it is to actually be someone of another race.

Of those types of laws that I have read, they have been very specific. Even with the precedent that corporations are people, the wording doesn't apply to corporate entities.

Practically nothing, but denying a religious exemption in authoring the law bears the threat of an expensive battle over the constitutionality of the law and probably court ordered delays in implementation.

Do you understand the "why" of stand your ground and castle? It is an extension of self defense justifications. Self defense justifications are for protection against crimes that result in intentional, direct, grievous harm to a specific person; things like rape and murder. Online interactions just don't bear those consequences in any normal case (maybe at some point for connected medical implants); certainly not in the case of Sony protecting itself from monetary loss. Anyone trying to extend SYG or castle that direction is undermining the entire justice system. SYG, castle, and self defense exist because the justice system is not fast enough to protect victims from irreversible damage from the most heinous of crimes. Property loss can wait on investigation, prosecution, and judgement.

Just put on Comcast's hat, say thank you for calling Comcast support, and beat them with the pistol; it will be the best Comcast service call they have ever made.

Both sides of the glass need to be cleaned at some point. Why not brushes on both sides?

I've got several friends in law enforcement. According to them, because of incidents around the country they've had to have tactical training for dealing with a knife wielding attacker. A knife wielding attacker can close and stab a standing officer before he can draw and fire his service weapon at about 10 yards. If we are talking about a novice with a gun and a novice with a knife, then lethality for both men are going to drop significantly beyond that range. Don't underestimate a knife; I've had several skilled people from many backgrounds say it is the scariest thing you will ever face.

What pool of money would a resource officer come from and what pool of money does the shooter detection system come from? Are they the same? Just because we can pay for a shooter detection system doesn't mean that money can legally be applied to a resource officer's salary instead.

More interesting: what happens to the footage actually contains something covered by DMCA?

I'm really confused here. We've got the bankers pressuring the retailers for higher security or they will legally pursue them to cover the damages. Isn't this the picture perfect case where capitalism should solve the problem? Why are the retailers running to the government for regulation? Shouldn't the market solution be cheapest for the pure blooded capitalists of retail?

I've got a couple places where I would really like some smart bulbs but it is just under the threshold that the price isn't worth the convenience.