"Ok Google Now. Call 911."

That's part of the reason that overturning it doesn't get as much voter support as one would expect. But they are also sticking with it because the people who profit from it (car dealerships) are lobbying to keep their unfair advantage.

This is sort of like the shenanigans happening with alcohol laws in my home state. Alcohol can't be sold at stores on Sundays, but it can be sold at restaurants and bars. The main push against changing the law isn't from religious people. It's from the liquor store association who doesn't want to have to be open an extra day to compete with groceries and the restaurant association who wants to keep their monopoly on Sunday alcohol sales.

Unfortunately, it IS normal. (Not this guys particularly bad experience, but walking through scanners, getting felt on, etc.) I don't like that it's a part of air travel, and I don't think that it's acceptable. But it is what it is. I avoid flying if at all possible, and I've written my reps to let them know my opinion. But when I have to (or choose to) fly, my only real options are to jump through the TSA hoops or run the risk of having a really unpleasant time at the airport.

If this man's story is accurate, it's a shameful scenario indeed. But I've read a lot of these well-documented horrible TSA encounter accounts, and most don't involve Ramadan. However, most DO have one thing in common: the person opted-out of the scan and/or argued about the pat-down.

I'm in no way saying that a person deserves this kind of treatment for opting-out of a scan, and I think that the current security procedures border on reprehensible. But people need to understand that they are part of air travel nowadays. Consider them to be a travel risk. If you want to fight them in safety, quit flying and write your rep. And if you decide to fight them in person, prepare to be a martyr. And if you want to get from point A to point B with as small of risk of problems as possible, prepare to consent to being scanned, groped, or whatever else they want to do.

Not everything has to be "important" or has to teach people something. And that goes double for teaching them something specific. If we're going to have a female Doctor specifically for the purpose of "teaching," why not have a black or an Indian or a middle eastern Doctor? Or we could teach people about other social issues of the day... drugs, poverty, etc. Or maybe the Doctor could come out of the closet?

People watch Doctor Who primarily for entertainment. When you start forcing changes, it feels forced and takes away from that entertainment value. The story is never going to work out right when you say "we need to do ___ for political/social/whatever reasons, now let's write the story around it."

Identifying gun owners not only screws those gun owners, it screws the non-gun owners as well (if the list is comprehensive.)

By identifying gun owners, you give criminals who want illegal guns a definite target. Maybe they know that the risk would be great by breaking into the house when someone is home, but it gives them the information they need to have a better chance at a payoff if they wait around and watch the house until everyone is gone before breaking in. This by itself puts everyone at risk by making it easier for criminals to know where to steal guns.

The other problem is that if a comprehensive list is available, they would also know who doesn't have a gun. This could make non-armed households greater targets for criminals who don't want to waste their time staking out a house first and would rather just break in steal when they can carry, and assault whoever gets in their way.

People need to understand that phone use, even silent phone use, distracts some people, and it should be kept to a minimum. But on the other hand, people also need to understand that when they're in a room with 200 other people, there are going to be distractions. And there are some scenarios where, in my opinion, it's perfectly acceptable to turn on your screen for 10 seconds to see who is calling and then either turn it off or excuse yourself to the lobby. There has to be compromise and understanding on both sides.

I go to the theater about 5 times a year. I admit that I'm not an avid movie goer. But out of my limited experiences at the theater, I don't think I have ever been so annoyed by someone else's phone that I gave it a second thought after the movie. I see a lot of people talking and texting through the previews, but once the movie starts, people seem to stop. I have seen one person answer their phone and run out of the theater. And I see people checking their phones or texting here and there but not constantly and not with sound. Sometimes I wonder if I just live in a more polite region or if people are just anal.

No no no. People still need the ability to call 911.

From the article you linked:

"If society is benefiting from whatever the government is doing, society should pay for it, not the landowner," said CEO Robert Laing. "The cost can be horrendous. And it isn't fair."

This this this.

It's all over the internet. Here for one:

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/06/nsa-gets-early-access-to-zero-day-data-from-microsoft-others/

The solution is to fix the culture to make it socially unacceptable.

This, right here, hits the nail on the head. I'm not sure about the mandatory jail time, but making it socially unacceptable is the key. Right now, playing with your phone while driving is kind of like speeding. Lots of people do it, and most people don't really care that you do it. Or even if they care, they don't really say anything to you. If we could get to the point where admitting to texting and driving was similar to admitting to reading a book while driving... where your friends would act like you're insane... then most people wouldn't do it anymore.

You mean deliciously close to raw.

I understand the need to add fees or increase rates. But it would have been a lot smarter just to add the fee to all new contracts or at contract upgrades rather than sticking it to everyone at the same time.