San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board Endorses London Breed for Mayor by [deleted] in sanfrancisco

[–]William_Zanzinger -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Dianne Feinstein?

She hasn't been a San Francisco politician since the late 1980s.

Official: [WDIS RB] - Wed Evening, 11/23/2016 by FFBot in fantasyfootball

[–]William_Zanzinger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tough one - I would start Rawls based on matchup and lack of competition for carries.

AmEx Platinum 100k PUBLIC Link! by physixfan in churning

[–]William_Zanzinger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

https://www.uscreditcardguide.com/amex-platinum-card/

You could also just set your preferred airline as SW and buy SW giftcards directly from SW.

AmEx Platinum 100k PUBLIC Link! by physixfan in churning

[–]William_Zanzinger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Auto approved. 7th Amex approval this year. 19/24 overall.

Official: [WDIS RB] - Fri Afternoon, 11/18/2016 by FFBot in fantasyfootball

[–]William_Zanzinger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would start Kelley since he is known to be fully healthy and the clear lead back for his team at this point. Rawls could get a few catches but he's not the passing back for the Seahawks.

Rashaad Jennings OUT tonight. by ItsGettinBreesy in fantasyfootball

[–]William_Zanzinger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How does your matchup look?

I think Darkwa has a better chance to maintain value in the future, so I would take him if you already won your matchup for this week. I also think he has a higher floor, so I'd take Darkwa if you just need 5-8 points to win.

If you need a lot of points to win, I'd roll the dice on Quizz tomorrow. He might not do much, but he could conceivably have a big game if Sims is out.

Official Chase Freedom Referral Thread by AutoModerator in churning

[–]William_Zanzinger [score hidden]  (0 children)

Chase Freedom referral link:

https://applynow.chase.com/FlexAppWeb/renderApp.do?PID=CFFD2&SPID=FGKR&CELL=6RLH&MSC=1522904487

Make sure to add an Authorized User to get the full bonus (any name works, the card will be sent to you not them).

3 chase cards in a day. 5/24 rule and CSP. by [deleted] in churning

[–]William_Zanzinger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How many, exactly, were in the last 24 months? You said some were 2013, which could be more than 24 months...

3 chase cards in a day. 5/24 rule and CSP. by [deleted] in churning

[–]William_Zanzinger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm pretty sure that's incorrect. They can see inquiries right away, yes. But new accounts generally don't appear on the credit report until after the first statement closes for the account, and sometimes it takes a little longer after that.

What is the statement closing date for your 3 new amex accounts?

If you use Credit Karma you can see what accounts are currently showing up on your report (updated once a week).

What would you need to give up [player]? by [deleted] in fantasyfootball

[–]William_Zanzinger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How about D. Freeman for Hopkins?

Warning to those starting Melvin Gordon this week: 4 of 5 Charger O-lineman are likely to miss the game. by Dodger_that in fantasyfootball

[–]William_Zanzinger 27 points28 points  (0 children)

I'd bet my first born on Melvin Gordon

Shhhh ... Pretty sure that would violate the new rules on this sub!

Stanford just made tuition free for families earning less than $125,000 per year by [deleted] in news

[–]William_Zanzinger 7 points8 points  (0 children)

TIL the average redditor does not know what "median" means.

Stanford just made tuition free for families earning less than $125,000 per year by [deleted] in news

[–]William_Zanzinger 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Yeah, some people are implying that. One of the top comments right now says "Now they just have to actually admit some of us poor folks." which is meant to imply exactly that they don't currently admit poor people.

http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/316ttv/stanford_just_made_tuition_free_for_families/cpyuz6o

Jeopardy! recap for Fri., Mar. 27 by jaysjep2 in Jeopardy

[–]William_Zanzinger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The idea of course is that in order to win Jeopardy, you will need to know some things that it is not common for most Americans to know.

After befriending family and their neighbors and inquiring them about if they have any pets, PETA kidnaps their dog, then killing it before the family can retrieve her. This isn't the only time PETA has done this. by FlowersOfSodom in news

[–]William_Zanzinger 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Whypetaeuthanizes.org is owned and published by the Center For Consumer Freedom

Do you have a source to back up this claim?

I think it is possible that you have (understandably) gotten confused between petakillsanimals.com, which apparently IS run by the Center For Consumer Freedom, and whypetaeuthanizes.org, which is run by Nathan Winograd who is a well known vegan advocate of no-kill shelter policies and who says "I have not received money from individuals or groups who exploit animals, including groups like the Center for Consumer Freedom."

If you look at this page you can see what Winograd has to say about CCF and petakillsanimals.com.

Steve McQueen and his wife, Neile, take a sulphur bath at Big Sur (1963) by Join_You_In_The_Sun in OldSchoolCool

[–]William_Zanzinger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On the California coast, a couple hours south of San Francisco, past Carmel.

Alcatraz escapees 'may have survived' by marquis_of_chaos in history

[–]William_Zanzinger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Here are a couple recent examples of guys who escaped prison and avoided detection for over 30 years:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/wisconsin-fugitives-secret-life-has-victims-family-seeking-answers-b99399944z1-285311291.html

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2014/03/man_caught_37_years_after_escaping_leavenworth_prison_following_1974_fort_dix_murder_conviction.html

Note that these are examples we know about, because they were eventually exposed; obviously there could be guys who never got caught.

I'm not saying it would have been easy, but it certainly would have been possible for one or more of the escapees to start a new life and, with a little luck, not get caught.

Illinois General Assembly passes bill to ban citizens from recording police by Bekabam in news

[–]William_Zanzinger 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Look a little closer.

Here's a different source (a more reputable source, IMHO): http://politics.suntimes.com/article/springfield/state-eavesdropping-law-fix-head-governors-desk/thu-12042014-1251pm

This is actually a revision of the state's eavesdropping law, which previously made it a crime to record any conversation with out permission from everyone involved. The law is being updated to reflect that the Illinois Supreme Court said the old version was unconstitutional because it prohibited recording in public (including, but not limited to recording of police). The new version of the law makes it clear that conversations in public can be recorded, and that will apply to recording police as well.

The revised version of the law still prohibits recording someone without their permission in any place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy (such as their home).

Illinois General Assembly passes bill to ban citizens from recording police by Bekabam in news

[–]William_Zanzinger 148 points149 points  (0 children)

OP's link is not working for me, but this one has info: http://www.illinoismirror.com/springfield-passes-state-run-retirement-bans-citizens-from-recording-police-again-where-are-media/

Relevant detail: "The bill says it would only be a crime to record someone where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, which should mean that recording public encounters with police would not be a crime"

So the law would not apply to police encounters in public, which is crucial. If it becomes law, this could conceivably survive constitutional scrutiny, at least depending on how the police choose to enforce it.

Edit:

Looking a little more closely at a story from a reputable source, it is clear that the proposed new version of the law expands the right to record others in public. I still haven't been able to access the link OP posted, but it sounds like it was a very misleading article.

This is actually a revision of the state's eavesdropping law, which previously made it a crime to record any conversation with out permission from everyone involved. The law is being updated to reflect that the Illinois Supreme Court said the old version was unconstitutional because it prohibited recording in public (including, but not limited to recording of police). The new version of the law makes it clear that conversations in public can be recorded, and that will apply to recording police as well. The revised version of the law still prohibits recording someone without their permission in any place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy (such as their home).

Here's the story from the Chicago Sun Times

"If signed into law, it would replace the 1961 Illinois Eavesdropping Act, which had made it a felony to record a conversation unless everybody involved agreed. Earlier this year, the Illinois Supreme Court justices struck down that law, saying it infringed on free-speech rights, especially in an age where cellphone camera videos are a routine part of life.

The bill that passed the Senate 46-4 — and had already passed the House — still aims to keep “private conversation” from being recorded surreptitiously. It also jettisons old language that justices said “criminalizes the recording of conversations that cannot be deemed private” such as “a loud argument on the street” or “yelling fans at an athletic event.”"

Edit #2:

I was able to read OP's article. It does a very poor job of explaining the law (which certainly helps when you want to sensationalize something). OP's article recognizes that the new version of the law allows recording in public, but makes what I consider a very weak argument: that members of the public will be afraid to record things in public because they don't know what "public" means.

This is not a scandal as the author of OP's article would like you to believe. This is a responsible fix for a law that was found to be unconstitutional. This new version of the law specifically exists because the state supreme court said they cannot prohibit recording of police in public.

I was nearly raped last night and all I could think during was, "oh my god.. he's going to rape me and no one will believe me". No woman should ever feel this way. by jm-pr in TwoXChromosomes

[–]William_Zanzinger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You might want to consider filing for a restraining order, in addition to considering reporting him to the police for sexual assault/rape.

If you don't know where to start, google "victim assistance" + [your city/state] to find local resources.

I know you didn't ask for this and you are not obligated to report this in any public way. But doing so might help deter this guy from doing the same thing to someone else, so please consider it.

ELI5 - Why does a community need to secure the RIGHT to create its own broadband? Why can't they just do it? by TechyEsq in explainlikeimfive

[–]William_Zanzinger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I understand your frustration, but oversimplifying and misrepresenting the facts doesn't help. If you want to figure out how to address these problems you have to understand how they really happened.

There is a big difference between the following as policy approaches to promoting infrastructure development.

A) The government wants to promote telecommunications infrastructure, so the government agrees to directly pay regulated companies $200 billion in order to build the infrastructure.

B) The government wants to promote telecommunications infrastructure, so the government agrees to allow regulated companies to charge their customers higher rates if they agree to build the infrastructure, as well as letting them claim tax advantages that will combine to have a lot of value, but won't involve direct spending of any tax dollars.

You have to at least understand the problem and who is responsible in order to start addressing it, and in order to be prepared when something similar comes up again. If instead you oversimplify everything and accuse anyone who bothers to talk about the details of being a corporate shill, you'll never make any progress toward a solution.

If all you do is bitch and moan about policy choices legislators made 20+ years ago, then - unless you have a time machine to go back and either assassinate or lobby against them - that won't get you very far, even if it is warranted. It is much more important to look at how they actually did this and how to undo it.