Fezmid

$75 ticket?!?! Geez... I got pulled over for allegedly doing 75 in a 65 and the ticket was ~$170... I was going to challenge it (I was only going 69... Yeah, still speeding), but I was leaving my job and coworkers put together a big lunch for me that day. And I didn't want to reschedule because asking for a day off of work that soon after starting a new job didn't seem like a good idea. But I still know I wasn't going 75.... Especially with what the cop said. "I saw you fly past as I was getting onto the highway, but figured it was just because I was going so slow on the onramp. Then I started following you and saw you were going too fast." If that was a true story, how fast must the cop have been going to catch up to me? Oh well.

Keep up the good work!!!

That's one of the common arguments if you read the thread on the post -- it's public information anyway and most places give you the ability to bypass the checkpoint by using side streets. I can't say that I've ever seen a checkpoint in Minnesota, so I'm not sure if they're legal here. The article says that they're not legal in Oregon.

I didn't realize this article would generate such a response when I posted it -- but it seems like most people think the app shouldn't exist. http://www.neowin.net/news/us-senators-tell-apple-and-others-to-remove-dui-checkpoint-app I was rather surprised by that and was just wondering what people thought about it here.

http://www.neowin.net/news/man-jailed-for-putting-porn-on-video-billboard

Duke Never Comes Early!

You're just bitter that your boyfriend was the first one off the tribe. While I agree that it was dumb to throw the challenge - I don't think it was dumb to get rid of Russel first. The guy's made the finals of the first two seasons he played. Why would you want to keep him around when he's that big of a threat? And really, what does he do for the TEAM to propel them? Nothing, he's all about himself. Which is fine - but why keep him around when he's that dangerous to everyone else?

But wouldn't it be cheap to just break the reclining button...?

Next time I fly overseas, I'll ask you to ask your friend to help me out. I just realized I have 49,000 miles -- which isn't even enough to get me roundtrip FC between Mpls and Buf.

Would've been nice - but the tickets were $1,100/person for coach... FC would've been unaffordable.

On our flight back from Spain a few months ago, the seats reclined so far back that it was impossible to actually use the tray table during the meal. The flight attendants had to ask people to please not recline until dinner was over.

So you're saying since Wisconsin was first to grant the privs, they should also be the first to remove them? I would think that a lawyer should be able to provide arguments to make a point without resorting to name calling....

Pawlenty was pretty well-liked in Minnesota, and his fiscal record is great. He did get into a spat with Wisconsin's governor and ended the reciprocity so I'm a bit miffed at him for that... But most won't care.

I forgot to post last week's update: http://www.neowin.net/news/kickstarter-week-in-review-game-history-facebook-future-and-food Here's the most recent edition - all about Apple products: http://www.neowin.net/news/kickstarter-week-in-review-apple-edition

Scott Walker murdered a union worker! http://www.theblaze.com/stories/depressed-wis-teacher-commits-suicide-unions-blame-gov-scott-walker/

Returning to 2004 levels is "getting rid of OSHA?" Or maybe, just maybe, OSHA is bloated like most of the rest of government and we're trying to shrink things down so that we're not trillions in debt? Maybe if it said 1974 levels, it'd have more merit. But 2004? Really? I bet this is where you call me an idiot for not thinking like you.

And yet that's what you keep saying here - that conservatives just don't understand the plight of the poor union workers. Why, if the unions go away, then 10% of the population will have to.... Join the other 90%? And I notice you like to call people name's like "tool" and "stupid." Since, like I said, I'm new to this forum - is that your normal MO for trying to convey your opinion? Or do you just not know anything about this topic so have to resort to name calling? Really? Can you give some examples of anyone trying to repeal OSHA? The only thing I could find on the topic was a vague ergonomics section that was removed back in 2001.

You have no reasons. That's what I thought, just wanted to clarify. Continue on with your quarter-truths that make no sense to people with a 3rd grade education.

So you asked for examples of where bad things don't happen, and then you dismiss it when i point them out....? Ummm.... Your main examples of why we "need" unions was unsafe/unfair labor practices, but now you're back to simple wages and benefits. Why not let the free market work for wages and benefits like they do for the private sector?

I worked at K-Mart in high school. No violations that i saw. I worked for the University of Minnesota's computer labs. No violations that I saw. I worked for the University of Minnesota's super computer lab. No violations that I saw. I've worked for three corporations since graduation. No violations that I saw. Happy? Regardless, since you're talking about unsafe work conditions and inhumane work hours, what type of "unsafe working conditions" and "90 hour workweeks" are teachers experiencing that they need a union....? Yeah, only been coming here due to the WI stuff.

We're just going around and around -- so I'll ignore the rest of your misrepresentations (oh, the poor teachers!) and ask one follow-up question: If union support is a necessity, why are less than 10% of people in Wisconsin part of a union? What's going on with the other 90% of the people in the state? I haven't confirmed, but I suspect those percentages are pretty accurate across the entire country. Are you trying to say that 10% of the country is protecting the other 90%?

Why do you continue to misrepresent this? You make it sound like they were asked to contribute more, the union said yes, then the Republicans said, "Oooh, they conceded to that, let's ask for more!" The bill included BOTH at the same time. More misrepresentation. How does removing the appropriations portion of the bill "prove" that it wasn't about the deficit? Another part of the union play book -- "They're attacking teachers!" No, they're not. They're protecting the budget by targeting UNIONS. Teachers != unions. Just because teachers are IN a union, doesn't mean that people are attacking them personally. Teachers are great. Unions that represent teachers, force their will upon the state, encourage a strike to shutdown schools are NOT great. There are already laws on the books protecting working conditions and labor laws. A union isn't required to protect those. If a private sector employee is being unfairly treated or working in crappy conditions, then how about following the laws in place? Why does the union have to be the middle man here?

Not sure if this was posted before, but I didn't see it when I searched.

I kind of figured as much, but I still thought it was an amusing read. Surprised nobody's asked how I stumbled upon it to begin with...