The road construction. When states go to the federal government for infrastructure grants to add or improve roads, that's the point where the federal government tells them they have to install conduit if they want the money.

From the first linked article:

"Specifically, the dig once bill requires states to evaluate the need for broadband conduit any time they complete a highway construction project that gets federal funding."

It's not quite as insane as you would like to suggest. If you read the summary below, and apply it to the examples you offered, you'll see that none would be examples in which you'd be legally justified in using deadly force.

Laws vary by state. In Pennsylvania (From http://www.pennlago.com/justif...):

Summary of The Castle Doctrine:

• You must not be the initial aggressor. You have to come to the situation free of any provocation. You have to come to the situation with "clean hands."
• There is no duty to retreat at home or at work (remember the co-worker exception).
• There is a presumption that you reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to avoid death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, or sexual intercourse by force or threat, IF:
• Somebody is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering your dwelling, residence or car (provided you're in the car);

• Somebody has unlawfully and forcefully entered your dwelling, residence or car (provided you're in the car); or

• Somebody is or is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully remove you or somebody else, against the will of the individual being removed, from your dwelling, residence or car (if they're removing you or trying to, it's safe to say you're in the car).
• The person has to be someone who has no right to be there. So, it is always best to identify your target. You cannot claim the Castle Doctrine protections if your teenager is sneaking back into the house and you tragically and mistakenly think it is an intruder.
• You cannot invite the intruder into the house or car just to get a free shot at him. The entry has to be forceful and unlawful, unless we are dealing with a kidnapping or removal scenario.
• If you are in your dwelling or residence, and all of the above are met, you are presumed to act reasonably in the eyes of the law in the use of deadly force.
• If you are in your car, and all of the above are met, you are presumed to act reasonably in the eyes of the law in the use of deadly force.

Summary of Stand Your Ground:

• Be aware that the law is not as extensive as many suggest.
• If you have no legal right to be where you are, are engaged in criminal activity, or are in illegal possession of a firearm, the protections do not apply.
• If your attacker does not display what is or appears to be a deadly weapon, the protections do not apply (you must retreat if it can be done with complete safety).
• You must reasonably believe deadly force is immediately necessary to do so to protect yourself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, or sexual intercourse by force or threat.
• Stand Your Ground does not protect uses of force against known law enforcement officers.
• If all of the above requirements are met, the law eliminates the duty to retreat, and the use of deadly force is permitted.

If the bridge was less than 5 feet above the road, I would.

Yep.

The correct headline should be "Facebook Decides Which Killings It Wants to Show Us"

If you want something that Facebook doesn't offer, go elsewhere.

If people are getting all their information through Facebook, then THAT's the real problem.

> I have never been given any opportunity to negotiate on salary.

I'm wondering if I'm misunderstanding your wording, or if hiring & promoting works differently for people other than myself.

I've never been GIVEN any opportunity to negotiate on salary. When I've gotten raises, it has been because I went to my boss and said I need more money.

So, I'm wondering if you've tried going to your boss and asking for more money? Are you being as passive as it seems to me, or am I just misunderstanding what you said?

My wife was late on a bill, the vendor asked her to fax a copy of the check as proof that she wrote it. She faxed a copy, then mailed the check. The vendor cashed the fax, then cashed the check when it arrived.

I remember installing SLS Linux from 3.5" floppies. I don't remember how many it was. I downloaded it at work & wrote it to floppies using a Sun Sparc workstation. It took several days to write the floppies.

I hated them, but they got the job done.

While I agree not everything should last forever, it should still be the goal, at least until the things we get are perfectly recyclable.

I just purchased a Nexus 6p. I was upgrading from an HTC One M7 GPE. I did not want to get a new phone, but the battery life of my HTC one had dropped to the point where it was barely usable. It went from lasting all day without a charge to needing multiple charges per day. The HTC One is the first phone I've owned that I had to retire because it failed. My wife had one that also died "early".

I don't have a problem if you decide you need or want a new phone & abandon a working phone to move on. However, I absolutely HATE being forced off a phone that does everything I need just because the manufacturer wants to be able to sell me another one.

Planned obsolescence should never be permitted for anything that can't be completely recycled. Accidental obsolescence should be good enough.

Actually, anyone who pays attention will know. The food will be more consistently prepared.

If they calibrate everything properly, and set it up correctly, every burger, every fry, every shake will be perfect. If you set it up so that the customer enters their own order, you will eliminate the multitude of errors that are introduced into the process by the quality of humans that are currently involved in the process.

Of course, if they fail to set it up the way it should be, every burger will have half the cheese stuck to the wrapper, the fries will be burnt and over-salted every time, the sodas will be handed to the customer with too much ice... ...actually, that describes every experience at a couple fast food joints in Lansdale, PA. They need to re-calibrate their robots.

As someone who rarely flies, I still pay for the TSA. I don't care about who they inconvenience, but I do care about the colossal corruption and waste of money that the organization represents.

My opinion is that the people in power (Congress, Bush, Obama, et al) have done far more damage than the terrorists did, and they are in fact doing the terrorists work for them. The founders of the USA would be disgusted by what we've become.

Ultimately, I'm not frightened of the terrorists. I'm frightened by the people in power who are using the threat of terrorism to frighten cowardly Americans into giving up our rights for the perception of safety. I'm frightened by the huge number of Americans who seem to be willing to abandon their principles because they think it will let them live a longer life.

But how will the TSA randomly decide who should go through different screening. Oh yeah, now I remember:

http://loweringthebar.net/2016...

Was in New Orleans recently. My wife has some neck problems so I was carrying a reusable ice bag that we could fill with ice at the hotel and use throughout the day. When the ice melted, it had probably about 20 ounces of water in it.

Before we came home I forgot to empty it and forgot to take it out of the bag. Went right through security with no problem. When I discovered it was there (while on the plane), it was squished against the back of the bag. Probably no part of it was more than 1/2" thick except the cap. I'm not sure what it looked like on the xray...or even if anyone was looking.

I imagine them getting into trouble every edition, with Steve Wozniak secretly swooping in, saving the day, and rescuing them each time. They would, of course, believe that they were the true heroes.

Seems pretty good to me. More entertaining than C-SPAN.

I would point out that the gullible trump supporters are somewhat more complex than that. They believe that Trump means the things he says that they agree with, and they believe that he does not really mean the things he says that they disagree with. They are absolutely convinced of his dishonesty, yet they somehow think he's on their side.

NPR's This American Life did a segment about Alex Chalgren, an african-american, gay Trump supporter. In the segment, Alex explained that he supported Trump because Trump supported gay rights. Later when confronted by a statement from Trump saying that he would try to appoint judges to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage, he continued to defend Trump. He said that Trump only made the statement to get votes.

Trump rejected the one issue that Alex chose him for, and Alex continued to support him.

http://www.thisamericanlife.or...