Right, that or they're just working on a faster way to send letters to their mothers.
Technically, exactly correct.
Replying to pedantic ACs is a waste of time, I know, but I see this mistake made often enough. "Insure" and "ensure" are largely interchangeable: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insure.
"I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum... and I'm all out of bubblegum."
It's more of a first-person declaration of intent than a rallying cry, but I've heard it used as such.
I remember it as "Autobots, roll out!" No idea what was actually used most often, though. I tried watching the original cartoon recently on Netflix, and it was... difficult. Apparently my adult attention span is somewhat different than my 6-year-old attention span.
Also "Push the button, Max!" I use that one all the time, even though it's not really a nerd-associated line.
(Source: Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, in The Great Race).
Or to quote Brain,
"I feel the need... the need for expeditious velocity!"
Some feel there is a loss in quality vs OTA but depending on who you talk to it's not something people will notice.
Comcast subscriber here, and I can definitely tell in some programs. There are certain types of scenes that the compression algorithm doesn't handle well at low bitrates, notably when there's a lot of detail changing from frame to frame. I was watching "Planet Earth" and when it showed a large flock of birds taking flight, the TV looked like a checkerboard pattern of flickering grey squares. So it's usually ok, but often noticeable, and occasionally ugly. I may hook up our old rabbit ears for the OTA channels.
As for the customer service nightmare, I guess my experience has been anomalous, as I've never had a problem with them, even canceling TV service once or twice in the 6 years I've subscribed (TV+internet currently). I rarely have to call, though; service here in Chicago has been extremely reliable. It is very expensive, though.
The White House should respond by providing links to state and federal representatives if they want the law changed.
Why? Can an organization like Tesla not find people smart enough to look them up? Are we not smart enough to know where to look? Or so disengaged we don't know which ones to write?
Apparently. GGP's whole point is that this petition proves that this is true, and people are asking the president to "do something" rather than using the appropriate channel - their representatives in the legislature (whichever is appropriate to the issue). In theory, enough constituents contacting their representatives will stir them to act; it practice it usually takes an organization with funding to have enough influence; either way, there's a method for the average Joe to amplify his voice and get heard.
Exactly what I wanted to say. The White House should respond by providing links to state and federal representatives if they want the law changed.
Alternatively, people should pool their resources and form a lobbying group to have greater influence in changing the law. Kickstarter has proven the potential for crowdfunding; there should be a Kickstarter-type site for forming issue-specific political action committees, so people can more effectively lobby for the change that matters to them most. I think this is very much in line with the spirit of the republic, while offering an effective voice to groups of like-minded people.
Of course, there are already many groups lobbying on many issues, so maybe all that's needed is a comprehensive directory of PACs and lobbying orgs sorted by topic, so people can find one aligned with their ideologies. I just found a decent list here which focuses on tracking financial contributions, but has quite a lot of info.
Assault someone with a bat and go to jail for 5 years. Say, "I hate black people!" while doing it and go to jail for 15 years.
So yeah, we DO put people in jail for thoughts.
Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. Hate crime legislation DOES punish thoughts: we've decided that what you were thinking at the time of a crime somehow makes your crime worse than that of someone who wasn't thinking "hateful thoughts". If we hold to the principle that "the punishment must fit the crime," then hate crime laws seem to directly criminalize certain thoughts, which in the USA seems to come dangerously close to treading on the freedom of thought and expression protected by the first amendment, if not stomping all over it.
Where there's a will, there's a relative.