For example - (Thinks)"Ah good, my spouse is picking me up at the north side of the car park at 4.30pm". [Puts phone away.]
Why do you need to get that text before the credits roll?
"Handguns" didn't exist in 1789, so if you're holding up a 1789 piece of paper, you should only get to use a 1789 gun! If you accept a gun made in 2014, then you have to accept ALL the technological features required. It's not that complicated.
Handguns existed at the time the Second Amendment was passed. They weren't nearly as good, no question, but they did exist. More importantly, though, I doubt you'd accept that kind of limitation with respect to the First Amendment, which would allow only handwriting, unamplified speech, acoustic megaphones, woodcuts, manual printing presses, and a few other, mostly one-off or impermanent, means of expression. No internet. No microphones. No audio recording and playback. No video or photographs.
That's why the article says this: "For legal reasons, the ShareRoller won't engage when you're at a standstill, so I had to pedal a couple of times before I could engage the 1.0 horsepower motor with a handlebar-mounted throttle."
The law banning electric bikes does not apply unless the motor "is capable of propelling the device without human power." Here, it's not (although it doesn't sound like it needs much human power).
That still doesn't mean this is legal to use. It's possible the Citibike agreement bans (or will ban) their use. Probably won't result in a fine, but it could result in a ban. And money damages if the device does cause excess tire wear. But the general NYC ban on electric bicycles doesn't apply.
The irony of someone accusing the Tea Party of "Almost assassinat[ing] an American congresswoman" in the same post that decries "[d]ivid[ing] America to the worst point since the Civil War" is painful. The former had NOTHING to do with the Tea Party, and the accusations that it did were a prime example of the vitriol that's come to dominate political debate.
I don't support most of the platform that's associated with the Tea Party, but the accusation that they've somehow been more vitriolic is ridiculous (although they haven't been less). A simple scan of the comments here is the perfect counterpoint.
Ever since I dropped cable and started buying shows individually, I've saved about 80% on my costs of video-viewing (which included cable, netflix, plus buying DVDs). Also, I watch less crap--no couch-surfing with the remote--and am happier for it. Sure, it's artificial willpower. But it works for me.
Basically, if it's not worth $3, then it's not worth an hour of my time.
Yeah, but Amazon is really clear when you buy a season pass that you're paying $(n * 2.87) for the n episodes that have already been aired and $2.87 for each future episode as it comes out. It's very clear there's a per-episode price, and splitting it into multiple seasons has no effect on the total price paid.
I have no idea if iTunes is as clear; I don't order from them.