Did you read the entire article till the end? It concludes with
Did you? How come you chose not to quote the sentence and two more paragraphs right after that? From the article:
But also adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown in violent crime, the data actually show that police are less likely to kill black suspects than white ones. “If one adjusts for the racial disparity in the homicide rate or the rate at which police are feloniously killed, whites are actually more likely to be killed by police than blacks,” said Mr. Moskos, a former Baltimore cop and author of the book “Cop in the Hood.” “Adjusted for the homicide rate, whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks die at the hands of police,” he said. “Adjusted for the racial disparity at which police are feloniously killed, whites are 1.3 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.”
I'm not saying that the person quoted in the article is right or wrong; I haven't verified his data, and I don't know that anybody else has either. But the issue is not nearly as cut-and-dry as your carefully edited quote tries to make it appear.
It's not about sympathy for this slimeball; it's about whether this is an overreach that gives security authorities an interest in: a couple transferring money from one account to another, or a sole-proprietorship transferring money between personal to business accounts,
Just a minor point. This law isn't concerned with account transfers. Only cash deposits and withdrawals.
They tried vouchers in DC and it has been an unmitigated success which is now trying to be shut down because the unions are scared spit-less that it will spread to other states.
Really? You don't think it might have something to do with the massive cheating scandal? I don't think "unmitigated" means what you think it means.
It seems to me that the FBI somehow keeps itself above this crap.
If you really think they don't do it at least as often, think again. Just because you haven't read about it in the news (yet), doesn't mean it's not happening every day.
All it would take is a service pack. Let users decide if they want Metro or not. Let users decide if they want the start menu taking over their entire screen. I can't see how this would be complicated. The biggest hurdle is getting a marketing department to admit they made a mistake. The only time I can remember that ever happening was with New Coke. Coca-Cola sucked it up, gave the consumers what they wanted, and saved their brand. The ball is in Microsoft's court.
New Coke wasn't a mistake. It was all part of a very deliberate, and successful, strategy to change the formula for "Classic" Coke, by switching sugar for high fructose corn syrup. The "Classic" coke people drink today is not the Coke of 30 years ago.
"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne