I'm fine with the state setting minimum requirements. (Your sewer system shouldn't back up into the public's basements. -- Yes, we've had this happen.)

However, the case of municipal broadband is the state setting a maximum requirement. "You can't provide this level of service - only less than this level." You can argue whether or not municipal broadband is a good idea and the answer will vary on a case by case basis, but a blanket ban on local governments providing this service is just wrong.

Too bad about all these state legislators who seem to feel the need to protect their constituents from super-fast internet speeds at affordable rates that the private companies never seem to feel the need to deliver.

In these cases, these politicians' constituents are the big ISPs who don't want any competition (even in areas they refuse to serve), not the voting public.

In some areas, the major ISPs haven't provided any wired, high-speed access. In this case, the local governments - after trying to get the major ISPs to come in and wire the town and being shot down by the ISPs - want to wire themselves. They are being prevented by doing so by the state who is acting on the request of the ISPs - who don't want any competition even if it's in an area they refuse to service. Assuming the citizens of the local town vote to form a municipal broadband service, why should the ISPs who have refused to service the town have more say in whether or not the municipal broadband network gets deployed than the public?

Your comment brought to mind a recent Sheldon Comics take on how you react to basic pain.

In my case, my pain in getting up from the floor is usually in my muscles which protest at having been kept in a particular position for too long. A couple of seconds and I'm back to normal.

In any event, I think we can agree that old age doesn't begin at 25.

As I've gotten older, I've gotten used to a lot of things that I previously associated with "being old." My hair now has streaks of grey. The songs I grew up listening to now play on the "Oldies" station. (Despite my yelling at the radio that Billy Joel is NOT oldies.) Sitting on the floor is still easy, but getting up involves a lot of aching bones/muscles. (Not to mention groaning sounds.) I'm turning 40 in a few months, so there's another "I Feel Old" moment approaching.

But now I've been "old" and "dying" since the moment I turned 26?!!! When I was 26, I had been in the workforce (having graduated from college) a mere 4 years. I was just married a couple of months before my 26th birthday. I was definitely not "old" or "dying" (any more than anyone who is living your average life is "dying").

I might be slightly biased to define "old" as being 50-or-older (so that I don't get lumped into the "old" category), but "old" is definitely not anyone over 25.

For some, no evidence will ever be enough. They will adjust to the "new climate" as the norm and insist that any cold spell disproves that any climate change is occurring.

My wife won a Keurig awhile back. She liked being able to produce single cups of coffee (because I don't drink coffee). However, the best Keurig-purchase she ever made was a reusable K-cup. You fill it with whatever coffee you want (anything from grind your own beans to buy pre-ground in bulk), run the Keurig, and then clean out the reusable K-cup for the next cup. She saves money, still gets her single cup of coffee, and has much less waste than buying a ton of one-time use K-cups.

Wanted to agree with you but, as someone who is a semi-religious Jew, it's actually a religious commandment

Oops.... That should have been: Wanted to agree with you and expand a bit. As someone who is.....

Really need to proof-read before I post!

Wanted to agree with you but, as someone who is a semi-religious Jew, it's actually a religious commandment to break any and all religious laws to save lives. If someone needed urgent medical attention on the Sabbath and their only method of getting it would be for an Orthodox Jew to drive them to a hospital on the Sabbath (when you usually aren't allowed to drive), that Orthodox Jew would be committing a HUGE sin if he said "No, I'd rather observe the Sabbath." He might not drive the car back from the hospital (as that's not needed to save a life), but he wouldn't think twice about getting behind the wheel to save a person's life.

I can't speak for other religions, but I would hope that they would have similar rules. It just seems like common sense to me.

I don't know about the autism claims but I do know that getting 6 shots in one day can be a problem.

The autism claims were based of a study that was completely fabricated by the author.

And - the part that many anti-vax folks forget - he fabricated the study to help sell his own version of the MMR. So he wasn't anti-vax, he was just pro-"the vaccine I made which will make me more money." (Of course, he quickly turned anti-vax when he saw dollar signs in that direction.)

And for good reason. Do you want your boss to be able to say "If you value your job, you'll vote for Candidate X"? (It's illegal, but depending on your situation and your boss' situation, it might be hard to report him.) Right now, he could say that, but would have no way of verifying it. If votes could be verified, people could be coerced into voting a certain way. Even if verification was optional, the coercion would simply include being able to verify how the person voted.

So you can shout to the world how you voted, but there's no way to actually tell who you voted for.

Who was that person who hacked an "unhackable" company by scattering a few USB thumb drives in the parking lot?

I can see the scam now. Thumb drives are mailed to voters by the "National Election Voting Council (NEVC)" (nice, official sounding name). The note with the drive states that this will help the user vote*. The user boots up to the thumb drive and casts his/her vote... ... which the thumb drive then passes on as a vote for the candidate that the sender chose regardless of who the user chose. This user still got off easy because another set of thumb drives sent by another official-sounding organization actually encrypts the person's computer and demands payment to decrypt it.

* Fine print on the reverse side of the letter declares that all votes will be counted for candidates approved by NEVC.

Except this article is talking about online voting which means:

1) Any computer connected to the Internet can vote in the election. This includes grandma's unpatched Windows XP box with the 50 browser toolbars that she opens all those e-mail attachments with.

2) There is no verification of identity. Is "John Smith" who is voting really "John Smith"? Or did some hackers steal his voting credentials? Or maybe John's employer demanded his voting credentials to ensure that John votes "the right way."

3) Speaking of John's employer, John might be really casting the vote (and thus would pass identity verification), but might be doing it from his work computer with his employer looking over his shoulder to ensure the "correct" vote is cast. Anything "incorrect" and John will find himself out of work. (In case John sues, the company lawyers are standing by to drag the case on until John goes bankrupt and drag John's name through the mud so much that he will never find work again.)

I agree with other people that Election Day should be a national holiday. We should have the day off (or, at least, a half day off) so that everyone has time to make it to the polls. Being able to go to a physical polling location would negate any need for online voting.

Also, there's been a rash of 911 calls resulting in SWAT teams breaking down the doors of people who voted for Candidate B over Candidate A.

We already have this. Want your vote to be non-anonymous? Just post on Facebook/Twitter/etc who you voted for. No problem. However, you can't *prove* it with an Official Government Voting Receipt declared that you voted for Candidate A because that would expose the voting process to coercion. e.g. "If you don't vote for Candidate B, then you're fired! And good luck suing us because we're a big company with lots of lawyers. We'll tie you up in court util you are bankrupt."