I don't think that could ever really happen. Leaving aside the fact that I don't think it's morally acceptable to interfere with other people's rights to advance your own (two wrongs, etc.), I don't think it could ever be effective. If you block someone from going about their normal life, their emotional response is to hate you. Even if they would have been sympathetic to your cause, they will now start rationalizing why you are "wrong". If they start calling on the government, it will be demands that they put a stop to your group. The best you can hope for is they will think "I agree with their goals, but these jerks go too far!"
This is what pisses me off every time HFCS comes up in a debate. You're not supposed to replace HFCS with sugar. You are supposed to replace it with fresher, less processed foods that don't need added sugars.
The problem I think was that 2 different anti-HFCS groups got some publicity at the same time. One was Dr what's-his-name who called HFCS "poison". But he really meant all sugars. It's just that HFCS was the main one found in everything at the time (because it's cheaper, easier to add since its liquid, and the corn supply is more stable than the sugar supply).
At the same time, the "Passover Coke" crowd was making noise about how much better CocaCola tasted with cane sugar, compared to HFCS. I agree that it does taste awesome, but that has nothing to do with health.
Unfortunately, these two movements collided in the public conscienceless and became "HFCS is really bad for you, and should be replaced with sugar". So now you have idiotic things like Raisin Bran that proudly says "No HFCS" on the box but is full of added sucrose. Raisins are supposed to be the sweetener in Raisin Bran, the only other ingredient should be bran.
The only people who take issue with that usage of "America/American" (aside from internet pendants) are Spanish speakers who rather arrogantly insist that the English word "American" needs to match up with the Spanish word "Americano".
Personally, I say we adopt "Americano" into English as a word meaning "person from the Western Hemisphere" and end the debate.
I supposed remembering old Dilbert references probably marks me as a tech dinosaur.
The hospital sends their own bill. Then the doctor sends a separate bill (WTF? The doctor isn't even employed by the hospital?) The EKG tech, sonogram tech, x-ray tech, all send there own bills (often months later). Anesthesiologist, separate bill.
What exactly is the hospital bill for? Apparently, the only employee the hospital has is the billing co-ordinator, who makes sure all these separate entities know who to bill.
Gas turbines these days are getting close to 40% efficiency, and close to 60% if you put them in combined cycle (where you use the exhaust heat to boil water to run a steam turbine).
Alternately, maybe you don't have a wife, who constantly buys new clothes that need to be hung up.
What I really want to know about "deflate-gate" is how does it even work? What's the advantage of an under-inflated ball? It seems like it would be harder to throw an under-inflated ball accurately. It might help you grip a ball better, but how often do NFL players fumble (enough to really make a difference?)?
And how would the Patriots keep the other team from getting the same advantage? The deflated balls would end up being used by both sides right? Even if the Patriots were stealthily deflating them on the field wouldn't the other team get the same ball after the next turnover?
Or do they change balls after every turnover? If so, how would the Patriots rig it so only they got the deflated ones?