The Department of Boneheadedness.

[Gatefan1976]

If you recall, this discussion started when I posted an article about Calif. saying that drivers are not required NOW.

For -testing- purposes, not mass roll out.

[garhkal]

The question you have to ask yourself is, would anyone bother to hack -you- personally in a malicious way?

Already had it attempted a few times. Mostly for malware..

You understand that it is up to the fed to enforce fed law, right?

Are not drugs a "federal law thing", but locals enforce them don't they.. Same imo applies to immigration.

[Gatefan1976]

Already had it attempted a few times. Mostly for malware..

Malware is generally not "targeted"

Are not drugs a "federal law thing", but locals enforce them don't they.. Same imo applies to immigration.

States have drug laws as well, Pot is still federally illegal, but many states have legalized it. If the fed wants the states to do something, it's up to them, not the state law.

[garhkal]

That is where we disagree. When a mayor swears into office he doesn't say "I will support the constitution, and enforce the laws, just only state ones, not federal ones". They swear to do both. So ignoring one over the other is breaking their oath..

[Gatefan1976]

That is where we disagree. When a mayor swears into office he doesn't say "I will support the constitution, and enforce the laws, just only state ones, not federal ones". They swear to do both. So ignoring one over the other is breaking their oath..

Disagree all you want, that's the way it works. Remember the Supremacy clause? It cuts both ways. Essentially, what you will probably find with many of our personal disagreements boil down to that very issue, we are fans of different versions of what constitutes big or small government.

[Annoyed]

That is where we disagree. When a mayor swears into office he doesn't say "I will support the constitution, and enforce the laws, just only state ones, not federal ones". They swear to do both. So ignoring one over the other is breaking their oath..

The former sorry excuse for a president did the same thing. He swore the presidential oath of office, and yet deliberately chose to not enforce a lot of laws, particularly when it came to illegal immigration.
For some reason, politicians seem to think that when it comes to laws regarding illegal immigration, enforcement is optional.

However, as long as Trump keeps his word about cutting federal funding from sanctuary jurisdiction areas, the problem will solve itself. I don't think too many state/local level taxpayers are going to want to pony up that additional money to make up for what the feds cut.

[jelgate]

And yet we are going to ignore how Trump violates laws?

[Annoyed]

No, but it depends upon who is doing the accusing. If he actually breaks laws, he should be held accountable, but right now, at least half of the accusations leveled against him are just the rantings of liberals and "establishment" Republicans who are still behaving as crazed, stepped-on cockroaches who are appalled at the fact that he WON the election.

If someone can PROVE illegal activity is going on now, then fine, prosecute. But I'm not going to pay attention to the rantings of the cockroaches.

[garhkal]

Disagree all you want, that's the way it works. Remember the Supremacy clause? It cuts both ways. Essentially, what you will probably find with many of our personal disagreements boil down to that very issue, we are fans of different versions of what constitutes big or small government.

Since the supremacy clause states the federal constitution is the law of the land, then how are you saying it "cuts both ways"?

[SoulReaver]

No, but it depends upon who is doing the accusing. If he actually breaks laws, he should be held accountable, but right now, at least half of the accusations leveled against him are just the rantings of liberals and "establishment" Republicans who are still behaving as crazed, stepped-on cockroaches who are appalled at the fact that he WON the election.

If someone can PROVE illegal activity is going on now, then fine, prosecute. But I'm not going to pay attention to the rantings of the cockroaches.

cept the LSOS has been breaking the law even before you Russia elected him (not just taxes, also labour law not to mention his colourful history with women)

[jelgate]

No, but it depends upon who is doing the accusing. If he actually breaks laws, he should be held accountable, but right now, at least half of the accusations leveled against him are just the rantings of liberals and "establishment" Republicans who are still behaving as crazed, stepped-on cockroaches who are appalled at the fact that he WON the election.

If someone can PROVE illegal activity is going on now, then fine, prosecute. But I'm not going to pay attention to the rantings of the cockroaches.

Devil's advocate says the same about the former president and the radical right

[Annoyed]

Fair enough. But I don't recall the LSoS being prosecuted, either.

[SoulReaver]

Fair enough. But I don't recall the LSoS being prosecuted, either.

with his billions in fortune & his backing by the ruskies don't count on him being prosecuted anytime soon (if ever)

[garhkal]

with his billions in fortune & his backing by the ruskies don't count on him being prosecuted anytime soon (if ever)

Just like don't ever count on hillary or obama ever being prosecuted for their crimes..

[Womble]

iPhone chargers should carry warning, coroner says, after man electrocuted in the bath

A coroner is to warn Apple that iPhone chargers can be potentially lethal after a man was electrocuted in the bath.

Richard Bull, 32, was charging his phone next to the tub when it accidentally fell into the water.

He was found by his wife Tanya, who thought her husband had been attacked because his burns were so severe.

She made a distraught call to the police, who found that Mr Bull had used an extension lead from the hallway of his Ealing home so he could use the phone in the bath.

...He was getting ready to go out to meet family members to exchange Christmas presents when the tragedy happened on December 11.

Coroner Dr Sean Cummings said: "This was a tragic accident and I have no reason to believe at all that there was anything other than it being completely accidental.

"These seem like innocuous devices, but they can be as dangerous as a hairdryer in a bathroom. They should attach warnings.

"I intend to write a report later to the makers of the phone."

Richard's mother Carole said: "I have worried that so many people and especially teenagers, that can't be separated from their phones, don't know how dangerous it is."

His brother Andrew said: "When you are younger you are taught about electricity and the bath, but you don't think about this.

"I still find it hard to believe that between the charger plug and the phone would be enough electricity to kill someone."

There are layers of boneheadedness in this report. Layers and layers.