Exactly this!

Comcast, et al complaining about this is like a bank complaining that their workers unionized because they had a reputation for firing workers the day before their pensions became fully vested.

Had Comcast not screwed their customers so hard, this wouldn't be happening. I am no fan of Obama, but he was clever to announce his intention to implement this regulation using a video that regularly paused with a buffering icon.

I learned on a TI-85, and then a TI-86 when the TI-85 broke. I kept the TI-86 around for sentimental purposes and occasionally used it until it broke down, too.

I think "Let Me Google that for you is funny." Lighten up a bit.

I think that generally speaking, it's a bad idea to have laws prohibiting the mere possession of common things in your house for a variety of reasons.

First, it gives the state reason to forcibly enter your home searching for these things. This is dangerous practice that has resulted in many lost lives, injuries, and extensive property damage, even when it is ultimately found that no law was broken.

Second, it is generally very difficult to prove in court that something was or was not found in your home. If the powers that be don't like you, they could simply haul you into court and show some prohibited item (unlicensed firearm, cocaine, child pornography, etc) to the jury, and say that they found it in your home.

I know, freedom is a scary concept. It means that other people will do things you don't like.

You might be joking about the cliffs, but there was a bit SNAFU in Hawaii several years ago. As I like climbing, I'm glad it happened after I moved away from that state.

A young teenage was critically injured when a climber kicked a rock down from a cliff onto her while she was on a climbing tour with the YMCA. (As an aside, this likely would have been prevented had the YMCA put a helmet on her) In response, the state declared that the cliff was closed to public access, put up signs declaring it off-limits, and actually sent out officers to summon violators to court to be punished.

So you may jest, but denying public access to a cliff is not without precedent.

There is a man burned himself alive in front of the court where he was divorced to protest his divorce. He was likely inspired by the Tunisian man who burned himself alive to protest conditions there.

Did that change jack shit?

Here's a link to one report of the story: http://freekeene.com/2011/06/1...

There is a man burned himself alive in front of the court where he was divorced to protest his divorce. He was likely inspired by the Tunisian man who burned himself alive to protest conditions there.

Did that change jack shit?

Here's a link to one report of the story: http://freekeene.com/2011/06/1...

"men who weren't even related to the child have been forced to pay child support" - evidence please.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=man+not+t...

I tend to agree with you that being drunk does not count as being not in a fit state of mind. The thing is, if you suffer from mental illness or someone places you under duress, that is beyond your control; you are not in a fit state of mind.

If you were drunk, sorry, you made the decision to drink knowing what the possible consequences are. How someone can get drunk and then claim that having sex afterwards was rape just because they were drunk is beyond me.

Why should you be concerned? Simple! There are things you want the world to know about you and things you would rather be kept private. I may as well tell you that I use Facebook to interface with support groups for people who have trouble sleeping. (I know it doesn't sound like a serious health issue, but for some people, severe insomnia, narcolepsy, etc cap be absolutely debilitating.) We share our intimate thoughts and emotions with one another so that we don't feel isolated and alone with our struggles. I would rather not have Facebook and the US government (don't kid yourself; Facebook may as well be growing on the NSA's ass) know these things about me.

But I do have things I share. Here's my personal web page: http://danielsadventure.info/

Point taken ;-)

I have reluctantly become a regular Facebook user because it is my only interface to certain "groups" that I participate in. Having it available as such has been very important to me.

I am greatly concerned that Facebook knows so much about me, but I don't know of any alternative that isn't similarly a panopticon.

But if you've kept your life off of Facebook, et al, my hat's off to you, sir.

Up until recently, I used to get junk mail addressed to me now deceased, then ailing in a nursing home grandmother at my home. She's never even lived in the same state that I'm in now. It's creepy.

Everyone except those who hold positions of power will be under the panopticon. You don't actually think that you'll be able to know as much about Mark Zuckerburg or Eric Schmidt as they know about you, do you, you silly man?

Something tells me that this will be used to make Asperger's geeks into pariahs even more than they already are. It will make the already enormous pressure to conform to the group 100x heavier than it already is. Suicides will occur because people are embarrassed by their "timeline".

Comparing "timelines" could make body image issues look like child's play.

It reminds me of the old snarky joke, "It said requires Windows 95 or better, so I installed LINUX!"