The mayor already resigned. He's still being sued, but he is no longer in office.

I don't think you'll need to fund it. If you haven't read the PDF of his complaint, the listing of facts is surprisingly strong.

Seriously, it is short, just read the few pages in the middle. Complaint in PDF.

The claims include that there are written documents (probably email) between the mayor and the chief of police, where the mayor tells the cops to do something, the police chief says there is no legal basis, and the mayor tells him to do it anyway. Then the claims include that the cops made written statements (again, probably email) that show officers were ordered to arrest him, they balked saying there was no legal basis, but the police chief ordered it anyway. If he has those emails, that is rather damning.

The list of claims continues by citing court records, where the police filed an empty form citing no probable cause even though the law requires proper documentation. Granting a warrant based on a blank probable cause statement is also pretty damning for those involved.

If he actually has those papers, city officials and court officials declaring that they knew it was illegal but did it anyway, that is going to be hard for the individuals to deny.

A few of them are likely just CYA papers, but if accurate, the exchange boils down to this: "Do this illegal thing." "Sorry boss, it is against the law." "I know it is against the law, do it anyway." If the allegations can be substantiated (and since the suit says those are all public official records, it should be easy to validate) then this case will be a quick settlement.

So should OUR private info receive similar handling by unauthorized people, would the justice system give the same consideration or is this just for high ranking figures such as the Bushs.

Yeah I know the answer. But asking the question as I believe we would have minimal justice for the same crime against everyday people if we were lucky.

My elementary age (grades 1-5) kid has 4 lunch line options. They include a minimalist prepackaged peanut butter and jelly sandwich on the low end and rather nice hot meals on the other. When Mrs Obama did her thing, my kids complained that they forced them to also take a fruit even if they didn't want it. Hence the comment.

My junior high age (grades 6-8) kid has similar lines. Yes, one is a burger and fries if the kid wants it, and a pizza line, but also a daily rotation of better options, and a salad bar.

My high school age (grades 7-12) kid discovered not only are there two cafeterias with lots of choices, but they also have an open campus and can go anywhere as long as they return for class.

When I attended school we also had one line that was daily burger and fries, (they had several different sandwiches, ham & swiss, turkey, etc) but we also had additional lunch lines to choose from.

If a child chooses to go to the same line every day it is not because of a lack of options.

I disagree.

I don't think it is a matter of "more rights", any more than you get "more rights" when you turn 40 and enter that legally protected class in the US.

Almost all discrimination is legal. There are very few things you cannot legally discriminate against.

In an idealized world, people get jobs because they can do the job. They can keep the job as long as they do it well. The only factor used to discriminate (=differentiate) is the ability to do the job.

In the real world, once the field is narrowed people get interviewed and decisions get made based on tons of factors. How people look doesn't really matter to most technical workers, but would you rather hire the ideal-weight handsome person, or the 450 pound ugly guy?

We discriminate all the time, and do it legally. Employers discriminate based on education, based on job history. We discriminate based on regional accents, and hair styles, and body language. Those aren't protected classes. Employers discriminate based on all kinds of factors that have nothing to do with the job, even your cologne choice at an interview can make the difference between the person hired and the person told "no". People discriminate based on body fat. Currently it is not a protected status, so the discrimination is currently acceptable. That one might be changing.

I'm not sure how to interpret that. Are you objecting, saying who you sleep with isn't a choice? Perhaps all homosexual are rape victims, even if they thought it was consentual adults out for a fun time? Or maybe it is genetic, some defect that needs to be cured?

Because if it is not a choice those are the options. Either the person makes a choice or they don't. You seem to suggest it is not a choice people can make. Somehow homosexual and bisexual people don't make a choice about their partners. DNA forces the choice of who we will have sex with, or other people force it on them. Nobody would ever choose a 3-way, and nobody would ever willingly choose to touch another person's naughty bits if they are the same gender... is that what you mean?

Sure, I do believe some people have same sex attraction because of DNA reasons. But the actions themselves are a lifestyle choice. Lots of people have homosexual relations because that is how the person wants to live their life.

Just like all the other items on the list, they are things people choose to do. People serve in the military as a choice. People get married and have children as a choice. People have sex with others as a choice. These choices are all legally protected under discrimination laws. Adding obese to the list doesn't seem extreme.

Pregnancy is a lifestyle choice, and it is a protected status.

Family status including marriage and children are a lifestyle choice, and it is a protected status.

Choosing to be in the military is a lifestyle choice, and it is a protected status.

The gender of your sexual partners is a lifestyle choice, and it is a protected status.

All that maters is the ability to do the job.

So why not?

The only thing that should make a difference is your ability to do the job. Unless obesity has something to do with the job like fitting through manhole covers, I see no problem with making it protected.

You mean that telling kids they are required to take a fruit with their lunch (which they throw it away) isn't going to reduce obesity?

Shocking. The plan was foolproof. The fruit industry said so.

That makes it easy. We already make protected classes from lifestyle choices.

The lifestyle choice to get pregnant, the lifestyle choice to serve in the military, familial status, the lifestyle choice to be homosexual.

So sure! We absolutely could consider body weight a protected class.

Well to be fair, pretty soon employers are not going to have much choice.

Several cities are already at the 40% mark. It won't be a question of choice, the only viable candidates will all be obese.

The choice will be to accommodate and hire, or refuse to hire anybody and stall your business.

Ultimately all of them will make a lot of money. I never claimed they wouldn't.

As a game developer professionally, I love the competition. I want lots of game consoles. Since we're cross platform, I want all of them to have as many sales as they can. That's the good part for me and for everyone.

Last generation both Sony and Microsoft had a net loss on hardware sales that they never recouped in hardware. They took (and continue to take) profits from online subscriptions and other licensing.

Nintendo made more money than either of them, but all of them were profitable. Nintendo is still on track to make more money than Sony (but probably not Microsoft) because both Sony and Microsoft again decided to take a huge loss on hardware sales.

As slashdot users, most of us understand that 'broadband' refers to frequency, not speed. Broadband is different from baseband, in that they use their spectrum differently.

DSL is broadband by definition. It doesn't matter if they give you a 1kbit connection or 5GBit connection, it will remain broadband as long as the frequencies are partitioned in that way.

Except that it is still cheaper to manufacture than either the PS4 or XBox One.

Although the manufacturing contracts and specific details are not known, the estimate is that Wii U hardware is currently roughly net positive $350M. The XBox One hardware is approximately net loss of $350M, and the PS4 is approximately net loss of $750M. Sony and Microsoft are hoping losses will be recovered with software and online subscription fees to recover the losses, but Nintendo doesn't really need it since it is just extra profit.

So even though by count the two devices are tied, the Wii U is over a half billion ahead of XBox One, and a billion more than the PS4.

Again: Hardware sales are tied, but Nintendo has a BILLION dollars more in net funding from race.

When you are making a profit on every unit and your competitor is making a loss on every unit, why would you object very much when the competitor takes the lead on number of units?