Largely because California isn't trying to re-write science textbooks.

CA textbooks say the big bang happened and evolution is real, which has been the nationwide standard for decades. TX is trying to change that, and change is what gets media attention.

The difference between humans and animals is that doctors have industrial-strength pain-killers they will administer to humans. No matter how excruciating the pain, doctors can keep you drugged into a dream world

And here in this place called "reality", doctors do not do that. Because keeping someone so heavily drugged causes the DEA to come knocking and your license to get suspended while you're investigated.

Plus, there's lots of hospitals that are so concerned about causing drug addiction that they refuse to give sufficient doses of painkillers to be pain-free. Even on terminal patients.

HE can or could have have made the decision. Living wills, do-not resuscitate orders, etc. If he didn't want to go this way, he has (or had) that option.

Nope. Living wills can only deny treatment. Which means you have a very long and painful path you get to shuffle down until you reach the point where you need a feeding tube. And then you get to starve to death over a few days.

There's a whole lot of suffering and pain to endure between a terminal diagnosis and actually needing a feeding tube or resuscitation. There is no reason to make someone suffer through that if they do not want to.

Living wills can be ignored. What, you gonna sue while you're unconscious in a hospital bed?

In addition, living wills can only be used to deny care. For example, a living will can prevent a feeding tube, but that just means you get to starve to death.....once you are so far gone that you need a feeding tube. But it can take a very long time to get from "no hope of recovery" to needing a feeding tube, and then a few more days to actually starve to death.

It should be legal to request a lethal drug cocktail to avoid that suffering.

Congradulations! You've made the dumbest argument I've ever read on Slashdot.

Let's roll back to pre-ACA. What happens? The elderly are covered by a combination of Medicare and Medicaid (once they're destitute) so that doctors and hospitals get paid much, much more to prolong their lives.

Now after the ACA, what happens? The elderly are covered by a combination of Medicare and Medicaid (once they're destitute) so that doctors and hospitals get paid much, much more to prolong their lives.

Boy, what a gigantic shift!! But good job rolling out the talking points.

And they should take days to die from starvation-that-we-think-they-don't-feel instead of a lethal dose painkillers because............?

By having more students than Texas.

Texas's large student population creates a textbook "standard". So does California, even though the article does not discuss California.

"Red" states buy the Texas version of textbooks, "Blue" states buy the California version.

There's this one out West somewhere....Cali-something-or-other.

Modern encryption works by making it take a very, very, very long time to brute-force the encrypted data. Part of that lengthy time is the hardware involved in the brute-force effort.

The NSA has resources well beyond what are available to the rest of us - the joke is the NSA measures its computing power in acres.

Add that to large budgets to develop specialized hardware, and nice standard encryption algorithms to target with that hardware, and it's not clear that the NSA can't read everything. Encrypted or not.

No offense... really... but you're not as clever as you think.

Says the guy whose entire premise is this law requires the government to inspect every kitchen and remove every wood stove they find.

Ah yes, the post from the person who really wants to sound intellectual.

However, if I talk to someone and ask them for something and they consensually provide it, then the government has no right to influence that situation unless its willing to breach individual rights.

And when you two agree to dump your trash in my yard, the government shouldn't get involved, right? After all, you two made your own agreement.

No? Well, that's the situation here. The particulates from these stoves do not just remain around the person who buys the stove.

Banning wood burning stoves indifferent to zoning, population density, and frequency of use is actually pretty irrational.

You know what's more irrational? Thinking that a limit on particulates is "banning wood burning stoves". It is quite possible to make a wood burning stove that meets the new regulations. Most manufacturers did not bother until now, because they did not have to.

Banning them entirely is actually a really bad idea for a few reasons. One, many people will simply not follow the law and there is no means to actually enforce it. You're not going to inspect kitchens in rural house holds.

You now what else is irrational? Believing that regulations on _new_ wood stoves would have to be enforced by inspecting _existing_ wood stoves.

The second problem with this law is that it hurts people that aren't hurting anyone else.

Except that those particulates aren't just remaining near those stoves.

Industrial particulates were pretty much not a problem east of the Mississippi. Why? Jet stream blew them East. That's why states in the Eastern 1/3rd of the country made a big deal about regulating them in the 70's, whereas most of the states in the West did not care.

He's in the middle of giant forest and has to keep brush clear of his property on a regular basis. That brush must be burned.

Nope, there's other disposal methods. Burning is just the cheapest.

And good news! He can keep using his old wood stove. Or if he buys a new one, it will put out fewer particulates.

Well, one inconsequential writer helped to ban "gay marriage" in California. He also helped direct a whole lot of other anti-homosexual activities in other states from his position in an an anti-gay advocacy group.

The fact that you want to minimize the guy and his beliefs does not mean they are, in fact, minimal.

The only point I was making was that Card is free to practice his beliefs

If that was all he was doing, that would be fine. But it Card is doing much more than that.

Card is trying to get laws passed so that every single one of us has to practice Card's beliefs regarding homosexuality, instead of our own beliefs on the subject.

Except that Christ also taught his followers to let God deal with the sinners. Card and his fellow travelers insist on attacking sinners themselves.

There's also the little problem that Christ also never said homosexuality was a sin. Only comments on that subject in the New Testiment come from one of his apostles.

I think this case needs to be appealed in the federal courts.

That would be because you haven't read the article or bothered following the story.

He was asked for the passwords before he was fired. He was being transferred, because he refused multiple valid requests for service. He did not want to be transferred. So he tried to sabotage replacing him. He was fired for that sabotage.

Worse yet what kind of idiots are in charge of this company?

"This company" is the city of San Francisco.

What if the man had stroked out and died suddenly?

Well, if Childs had followed city policy, then it wouldn't have been a problem. Childs was not following policy, in order to extort the city into not transferring him.

So your plan is to go from the place where you actually have some protection from the NSA (they have to steal your data from foreign locations) and instead move all your data to foreign locations where the NSA doesn't have that pesky step.

Excellent plan. I eagerly await your plan to destroy McDonalds by eating there regularly.