That is kind of a surprisingly low number. I've seen about that number killed in a 6 story building I was in before we moved to this one. But then I guess it depends on how the outside of the building looks to a passing bird.

And then when you blow it up to appease the environmentalists, it destroys the ecosystem AGAIN.

Existing Facility Type A Kills X birds. Proposed Facility Type B kills Y birds where Y < X. Facility Type B is proposed to replace Facility Type A.
Facility Type B is sh*tcanned because it kills greater than 0 birds. Existing Facility Type B continues normal operation, killing X birds.

How about an almost blindingly intense light with increasingly uncomfortable hot temperatures the closer you get to it?

Introducing another species to weed out an undesirable species always backfires, especially when the introduced species is homo sapiens.

Never underestimate the evolutionary advantage of being tasty to a species of higher animal.

People complain about humans causing extinction. Never doubt that a lion would eat the last zebra in the world without a second thought.

Similar to this is when touring caves or something and they will point out people who signed the cave wall back in the 1800s, but you can't do that today. Somehow it is celebrated that present day people did that in the 1800s, but it is wrong for today's present day people to do that.

Oh, I'm sure the treehuggers will come out of the woodwork to protect the poor Northern SnakeHead and the Zebra mussel.

I think there is a line drawing game going on and at some point people step over the line. For instance, if you go in to city council with a rezoning request, they are not going to just say "Yes, that makes sense for it to be rezoned to X" and grant it. No, they are going to say at the very least "What improvements will you be making to this property to entice us to make this change?" and right on up to "Give me some money".

How does one know when a person on vacation will be back? Is it my responsibility to keep track of when everyone I have dealings with will be in or out of the office? That sounds like a full time job in itself. Perhaps e-mails to a person who is out of the office should be autoforwarded to the person's boss.

In my company, we have e-mails going out to customers with attachments that they use in order to post balances to medical claims. Because it is e-mail, the delivery is not guaranteed. Yet if they don't get one, it screws them all up. We have had to jump through fiery hoops checking the server logs and everything else to prove that it got out of the office, yet I keep saying that e-mail is not a guaranteed delivery mechanism. Just because it happens to be very reliable does not mean that it is 100% reliable. I can't seem to convince them to take delivery of these files by something geared for file transfer, like say File Transfer Protocol or something.

The internet is supported by public and private companies and also by tax dollars. We already pay to have a troll-free internet.

If you're going to make an omelet, you are going to have to break some eggs.
Ultimately, the deal is that comcast sucks and you want them to die as a company. So the service rep will be out of a job anyway. So we should be afraid to hurt their wittle feelings now? If we continue to come up with excuses to live with bad service, raising prices, unfair EULAs, unfair cell phone contracts,etc just because we think one or a few people can't make a difference, then the companies have won. They have cowed us as a people into believing that it is better to go along with the unfairness rather than stand up as consumers and fight for our rights. We are the customer and we determine what fair is.

Even if you live in a one party state and record a call in a two party state without consent, what are they going to do? The secondary state has no authority over you. The worst they can do is put out a warrant for your arrest which would only be an issue if you travel in their state and they happen to catch you. It is highly unlikely that a state with one party consent is going to extend reciprocity laws to a state with two party consent, and also unlikely that they would honor extradition when they find the other state's laws to be contrary to their own.

It seems obvious to me that if they say "the call may be recorded" that they are saying that I may record the call. I would not expect that to mean that they would be recording. Otherwise, I would expect them to say "We may" or "we might" or "the call might".