uh, why would a vegan "explode" over concerns about bacteria? It's so funny to hear people say vegans bring up veganism...when really it's just idiots that insert vegan-bashing into unrelated conversations, and the vegans just end up saying "uh, what?" Plants are exponentially more complex, and vegans eat the heck out of those....

that's a lovely view you have there. You seem to be missing the point I was trying to make, however - which is that the FAA has no business trying to do this. I was intentionally giving an extreme outside case, to explain precisely why it's not something the FAA should do - the treaty was incomplete, and written half a century ago. Things have changed. It isn't the USGOV's business (via the FAA or any other US agency) to "regulate" these things. It's the business of an international body.

or a big wall moving slower, and when they crash, oops - you should have slowed yours down too? Or spy satellites hovering over another country? The UN needs to take the reigns, not the FAA. In theory we evolved past the point of the rich ("companies", previously just lords/kings/trade companies/etc) having independent sovereignty many centuries ago, for most of the world.

is it just about the moon which you feel this way? What about near-space? No one is touching a satellite, so if you go up and touch it you can claim it? What about the space station - if it was temporarily empty and another country rushed up there, could they call dibs? The UN simply needs to make some sort of organization for regulating this, since we're way too close to commercial entities being up there. The idea that the FAA would do it is absurd.

sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays!

It's farking 6.0. That *is* the farking version. What is the "6.0" thing if 1.0 is the version?

you want a "modern" camera that will "support FTP?" No modern *anything* should. And seriously, what the hell sort of process is this that you'd do this this way? If the menu changed, then someone typed the new one. Instead of saving as a doc, save as a pdf - boom, there's your pdf. You seem to be making a convoluted process just to bill them 10x as much as they could pay, to create a complicated pathway which will be expensive and non-intuitive to maintain. Is this a job security thing?

Oh, so you're unable to understand context, OK. Re-read the post, and tell me how there could be confusion

No, its not. Obama being president is a fact, not a matter of belief

If you're not Muslim, why the fark are you saying "the Prophet" Muhammad? Why would you grant that honorific if you don't yourself believe it? How would that be different than saying "Jesus the Messiah" while not Christian? And hey, if you do believe it "soulskill" then hey, why not, but I've been seeing this become more and more common among journalist at (theoretically) real - and thus, presumably impartial - news agencies. You know, ones that wouldn't say "Jesus the Messiah" and "Buddha the Enlightened One"

when you say something fanatical like "no republicans have ever tried to push a bill like that on the entire country" you put yourself in a group that hates helping sick people and also tends to think it's great to blow up people elsewhere (like, suffering is just great all around, I guess). You then try to use the Constitution to justify your statements - but don't really understand what is in the document at all. Such as, the Constitution directly stating there shouldn't be a standing army. The two subjects are remarkably intertwined; ACA costs a small fraction of the wars in the middle east, and at least ACA provides a /benefit/. But hey, maybe you buck the system. Maybe you don't like our middle east involvement either - maybe you're an honest "constitutionalist." Which would be great, except for the farking part that the FFs were slave owners and treated women like crap. Stop pretending one side or the other are angels without flaws, and stop pretending the Constitution was sent by G-d. Argue something on it's own merits, not based on what some long-dead slave owner thought.

to be fair, this was only really clear starting with Omnibus - prior to that, HIPAA relied a lot on common sense and a personal sense of ethics from the reader. Fortunately, the semi-retroactive nature of it to 2009, plus Omnibus being released 9 months prior to healthcare.gov, means that yes - the government faces stiff penalties of paying itself money (amount=irrelevant, since paying self) and the BAs made $1.7BILLION for making a farking WEBSITE for fark's sake, so I don't think the 1.5M max fine will really cramp their style much.

::blink:: wait, what? Something inside me wants to know how you interpret Art1, Sect8, Clause12...just for giggles.

they can't, but the fine has a max penalty per year, and that max would just be the fed paying itself a number at which it wouldn't blink even if it wasn't paying itself. Just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it won't happen - if the only penalty for underage drinking was you had to have sex with Scarlet Johansen, do you think that would work as much of a deterrent? We don't live in a world where society can decide it doesn't accept a certain behavior, and then just expect everyone to not do it regardless what the penalty might be

I can not imagine a scenario in which something *has* to be local (ie, not a term into a cluster or HPC unit of some sort), *has* to be a laptop, and *has* to have 3-6 disk slots. Are you pretending you need the multiple slots for raid for performance reasons? Are you really going to claim that an SSD isn't fast enough for you? Perhaps you have to myopic of a view, or perhaps - and this is far more likely imo, you're part of the "engineers are Gods!" crowd, and the real answer is that the engineers want an uber-laptop they can take home for personal use, on their employer's dime. Seriously, *try* to justify why it has to have those specs. I dare ya.