I'm not going to acknowledge that.

If someone is on record as not only saying, but actively paying to support making sure a group of people enjoy fewer civil liberties than another, and that person's *job* is managing people, some of whom are in that group?

In that case, I don't think it's bigoted to question whether they are capable of perfoming that job well.

That's not bigotry. That's common sense.

And to heck with 2008, while we're at it. If his suport for treating people equally had changed in the past six years, he had more than enough opportunities, including the CNET interview less than 72 hours ago, to not directly avoid answering that question.

Ahh, cool! I'd just checked the Coast Starlight. Thanks!

I've done Seattle -> San Francisco Bay Area on Amtrak, and it was (by comparison with plane travel) nice. I'd thought that that route might extend to Vancouver, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I'm sure some problems do happen because of cultural misunderstandings, but speaking as someone who grew up in the USA: the problems with the TSA are far more than cultural misunderstandings. I've had good experiences, to be sure, but some pretty horrible ones as well. I'll now drive half way across the country to avoid flying when it's possible, sadly that won't get me to many of the other places I need to get to.

Printing, even if it's rarely used, can have significant up-front costs. I'd still like to see an accounting, though.

Meh. Wrong link, to the WP article history rather than the article. Sorry about that.

No, the inclusion of "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals" in the original act creating the FDA (the FFDCA, the C is "Cosmetics", btw) has been more or less uncontroversial for longer than you or I have likely been alive.

Moreover, I have really have no desire to return to the era of Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness , or the bionic equivalent thereof.

I look forward to your justification for why Facebook feels it necessary to strip embedded copyright information from uploaded images.

(Arguably in violation of the DMCA.)

I'll wait.

--Joe

Funny, I had just been talking about this the day before yesterday.

In any case, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1202

(b) Removal or Alteration of Copyright Management Information.— No person shall, without the authority of the copyright owner or the law—
(1) intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information,
(2) distribute or import for distribution copyright management information knowing that the copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law, or
(3) distribute, import for distribution, or publicly perform works, copies of works, or phonorecords, knowing that copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law,

Actually, the DMCA does have an anti-copyright notice stripping provision.

I'm not 100% convinced that Facebook's Terms of Service legally allow them around this, but I'll be damned if I'll be the one footing the bill for that case.

High speed popcorn delivery.