Guard Dog

I believe Sanderson has written all three of those books in the time SINCE George RR Martin finished A Dance With Dragons. In fact he finished the last three WoT books, two of his other projects AND all three of this series in the time we've been waiting for Rothfuss to finish his next book Doors of Stone. We need to find out what coffee Sanderson is drinking and send it to Martin & Rothfuss.

Money. Also can't underestimate the ego when vying to be head of a world power. It's all about legacy building from day one. The people who actually want that kind of power are usually the ones you least want to have it.

Remember the Salt Lake City cop who never heard of the 4th Amendment? The one that wanted to take blood illegally from an accident victim and arrested the nurse who tried to stop him? He's been fired and his supervisor demoted. http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/10/10/slc-police-chief-fires-one-officer-disciplines-another-in-nurse-arrest-case/

Sure there is. We do it every two years here in the US. However people keep checking Democrat or Republican and nothing ever changes. If you really want to change, then change your vote. There are other options.

The Red Sox fired John Farrell! http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/red-sox-fire-manager-john-farrell/ar-AAtivGw?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp&ffid=gz I guess 93 wins and a trip to the playoffs was unacceptable to Dave Dombrowski. I bet the Mets would love to have him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FONN-0uoTHI

How does it compare to Eastside Hockey Manager? Much more detail, not as streamlined I'd say. Actually playing out the games is still the weakest part of the game. It is a text based sim after all. But OOTP does a much, MUCH better job coming from the same company (although different dev team). FHM 4 is still a step up from 3. But what I love is it's completely customization. You can make a completely fictional league with fictional players and set it up any way you please. You can take over a team going back to 1917 with real players. You can take a team from any of the major hockey leagues all around the world. Even a minor league or junior league team.

Warning labels are fine. disclaimers are fine. Hell even a license that says "This person knows what they are doing" is fine. Criminal charges because she didn't have that? Not fine. Caveat emptor. Don't tell consumers what they can and can't buy, or who from.So regulation is fine but enforcement of regulation isn't? Let's say certification is fine, regulation (with some exceptions) isn't.

Warning labels are fine. disclaimers are fine. Hell even a license that says "This person knows what they are doing" is fine. Criminal charges because she didn't have that? Not fine. Caveat emptor. Don't tell consumers what they can and can't buy, or who from.

Exactly/ It makes no sense.

And that's been responded to. If she was offering an alternative to physical therapy as a "health coach" that was unfit and even harmful, would it be the consumer's choice to get injured from advice they didn't know was bad? So the assumption is the consumer is too stupid to make an informed choice?Yes? Why should we allow snake oil salesmen to inflict harm on uniformed customers who lack the knowledge on the difference between a dietitian and a nutritionist? Are you so blinded by ideology you would let wolves devour the sheep if their sheepskin suit was convincing enough? God have mercy on us poor stupid peasants. Wherever would we be without the government to tell us what to buy and protect us from our poor stupid selves. I don't believe we are letting the wolves devour the sheep. I believe in empowering the sheep to take care of themselves. You know it occurs to me some of the worst kinds of oppression begin in benevolence. The desire to "help" people by making decisions for them ends in the drive to have complete control over them. To quote on of my favorites H.L Menken "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule"

And that's been responded to. If she was offering an alternative to physical therapy as a "health coach" that was unfit and even harmful, would it be the consumer's choice to get injured from advice they didn't know was bad? So the assumption is the consumer is too stupid to make an informed choice?

You folks are missing the forest for the trees here. Don't get bogged down in the minutia of dieticians vs non-dieticians. The point was a heavy handed government agency putting one businesswoman out of business at the behest of others. Surely that does not sit well with at least some of you? It certainly bothers me.

I haven't seen the original since it's release, I wasn't particularly bowled over by it enough to remember more than the basic premise, would I need to rewatch it, or could I go into the new one with just the basic knowledge? Do not watch the theatrical cut then. There have been a few different Directors Cut editions released. They are much better. Ridley Scott didn't have the juice to tell the studio heads to bugger off when they were screwing up his movie in 1986. 1982, surely? I stand corrected!

Can you imagine the Dodgers vs the Yankees in the WS? That would be like Palpatine vs Snoke.

I'm not sure what's wrong about shutting down someone who isn't qualified to hand out dietary advice from doing so for-profit. Would you feel similarly outraged if she was offering tips on prescription drug usage? I didn't know, but looks to me like the requirements for obtaining a dietitian's license in Florida are quite stringent. That's a good thing. She doesn't get to do the same thing without undergoing proper training. What happens if someone's health is damaged from following her advice? As long as she is not presenting herself as something she's not what is the problem? Suppose you need new brakes on your car. The repair shop quotes you one price and I offer to do it in my backyard for half. Should the government be harassing me? The choice is always with the consumer. The problem is twofold, the way I see it. First: she's engaged in unfair competition v. actual dietitians. She's not presenting herself as a dietitian, but she's billed as a "health coach", whatever the **** that means. If her videos bore a "not an actual dietitian" watermark and she wasn't making money off of it, it wouldn't be a problem. If such an activity is allowed, it disincentivizes getting an actual education and offering quality advice. It's just much more insidious because the consequences of a bad diet are harder to connect to the root cause, unlike say, a botched surgery. Second: as there is no official licensing involved, there can be no official liabilities derived from her malpractice either, which leaves potential victims defenseless. If someone with kidney damage is given improper diet advice and their health suffers as a consequence, they are unprotected as she could never offer dietary advice in a professional capacity to begin with. It's all well and good to say it's a consumer's choice, but not everyone is aware of the severity of the consequences of a bad diet and the rigorous requirements to obtain a license. There's also a degree of expectations regarding professional competence: do you personally ask to see the pilots' licenses every time you board a flight? So the presumption is her advice is bad because she has not "knelt before the throne" of the government and begged their permission to give it? As the article pointed out if she had written a book full of her advice (good or bad) and sold it for money that would be OK. If she ran a website and charged a subscription fee that would be OK. Why then does she need the governments permission to meet face to face. It's not logical. She is not performing surgery, of flying a plane, or even practicing law (do NOT get me started on THAT one). She is not presenting herself as a dietician just like I wasn't presenting myself as a mechanic in my scenario. The option to take of leave the offered service is entirely on the consumer of the service. I sure as heck would not hire me to fix your brakes (because of the absence of a guarantee rather than workmanship fears) but that's my choice. You nailed the heart of the issue. ACTUAL dieticians are angry about having to compete with her. So rather than competing, touting their own qualifications over hers they petition the government to shut her down. And the government itself sees an opportunity to make the one thing it loves above all other things: money. Licensing fees. The government, any government, is as greedy and venal as any villain in a Dickens novel. So they are only too happy to sell their "'permission" to do business in the form of a license fee. And the fact that people (dieticians in this case) are begging them to so it makes it only that much sweeter I'd say.

I haven't seen the original since it's release, I wasn't particularly bowled over by it enough to remember more than the basic premise, would I need to rewatch it, or could I go into the new one with just the basic knowledge? Do not watch the theatrical cut then. There have been a few different Directors Cut editions released. They are much better. Ridley Scott didn't have the juice to tell the studio heads to bugger off when they were screwing up his movie in 1986.

YA Tittle passed away today. http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/giants-legend-ya-tittle-died-at-age-90/ar-AAtbbOw?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp&ffid=gz

I'm not sure what's wrong about shutting down someone who isn't qualified to hand out dietary advice from doing so for-profit. Would you feel similarly outraged if she was offering tips on prescription drug usage? I didn't know, but looks to me like the requirements for obtaining a dietitian's license in Florida are quite stringent. That's a good thing. She doesn't get to do the same thing without undergoing proper training. What happens if someone's health is damaged from following her advice? As long as she is not presenting herself as something she's not what is the problem? Suppose you need new brakes on your car. The repair shop quotes you one price and I offer to do it in my backyard for half. Should the government be harassing me? The choice is always with the consumer.

Welcome to the United States. Giving advice is a crime here so STFU: http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/09/florida-threatens-woman-with-fines-jail Everyone is so uptight about Democrats vs Republicans. That is just a distraction. It's really the government vs you.

It might make more sense to ask each player why THEY are doing it rather than collectively asking why are all of them doing it. I seems to hear different answers from different players. JT Brown from the Tampa Bay Lightning is getting in on the act: He said he got death threats after. I don't see how. He plays for the Lightning so no one saw the game.

Now playing Franchise Hockey Manager 4 It's better than FHM 3 but still has some flaws.

Never mind... this is politics thread not sports

Four games on today. All spaced out so you can watch all four if you want. Yes, I do believe I will do just that!

That is pretty cool to see Premier League games on TV here isn't it?