You're right that the 4th and 5th amendments don't prevent the police from gathering evidence in a lawful manner. However, there is no requirement to provide unreasonable assistance to law enforcement in order to aid them in a case. What if the government forces Apple to decrypt phones and then I turn around and encrypt the phone myself so that Apple cannot get access to it? Then Apple is spending a lot of time and effort to decrypt a phone it may not even be able to decrypt. Throw in these criminal penalties and some Apple employee could go to jail because they are not capable of decrypting a phone that they may never be able to decrypt. It makes no sense. It's not reasonable. And Apple is not doing anything to prevent the police from decrypting the phones. They are just not helping the police decrypt the phone. See the difference? It's a huge difference. If the government wants to get the data badly enough, they will find a way to get it. Apple is not trying to set any new precedents. They are trying to maintain the status quo in criminal discovery. The federal government is trying to set a new precedent in forcing businesses to take unusual measures to provide evidence in criminal matters. And before you try and pull out wiretaps just think about that situation. Does the phone company decrypt any data traveling over phone lines? No. Do they provide the government with translators to assist with language barriers? No. They provide the raw data in whatever form it is. It is up to the government to turn that raw data into usable evidence.
You're crazy man. There is no way that there are more bugs running around NYC than there are in Rio. I'm wondering whether you've ever actually been to Brazil. I'm not trying to say that Brazil is a dirty or uninhabitable country but Rio is inside of the tropics. There is so much more plant life and far better weather for bugs in the (typical) tropical biome than any other part of the world. The warm weather year round, rain fall, and lush foliage in Rio gives bugs everything they need to survive. You'll find cockroaches in the tropics that are way bigger than you'll find anywhere in NYC. And then you go into this diatribe about vaccines and hand sanitizers? Sure buddy.
I was a bit surprised to find out that the DOE regulations explicitly state that discrimination against males and caucasians is not discrimination. I wonder of the Department of Labor has a similar rule.
Isn't this unconstitutional or against Human rights? I don't know about the US, but the German constitution says "All Humans are equal".
Don't be silly. Some humans are just more equal than others.
No they don't.
"Inflammable" is a word. "Flammable" is not.
"Non-inflammable" is a word. "Non-flammable" is not.
Inflammable comes from inflammare.
Flammable is a fucked up piece of shit that some retard tried to shoe horn in. It comes from flamma.
Inflammare is the root word, and "inflammable" and "non-inflammable" are the words.
Flamma isn't a fucking verb and should not be used as a root to create a word with the same meaning as "inflammable". Further, adding "flammable" only increases confusion (of which there was none among non-retards) because the already valid and correct "inflammable" exists, as well as the valid and correct non-inflammable.
Hmmm my dictionary seems to disagree with you. It lists flammable as an adjective, and not a verb.
You will pay for them nonetheless. Either you pay them directly, or your pay burglar alarms, private guards, the police, courts and prisons necessary to keep them away from plundering you. As it seems, especially the court and prison system can get quite expensive, much more expensive than just handing out a basic income to everyone. What you save in welfare, you have to spent several times in protection.
I just witnessed that first hand in Africa. Everyone has electrified fences on their houses and an armed response security system. Well, everyone but the people living in the shanty towns. There are areas on the motorways through town with big electronic signs telling you not to stop for accidents, flats, etc. You just keep driving until you can stop at a gas station or somewhere else away from the shanties.
I never travel with those boots. Until the one time that I did.
Am I an irresponsible knife owner because I'm so accustomed to having that knife on me that I don't think about it?
Obviously, yes. FFS. Listen to yourself.
There is a huge difference between being accustomed to carrying something and being irresponsible with it. I'm quite used to having a wallet in my pocket. I've never lost my wallet. I've never left it laying about. But I never think about the fact that I have my wallet until I need to use it. Am I an irresponsible wallet owner, too? I know where that knife is at all times. But do I consciously think about the fact that I have the knife? Why should I? I have a million things to worry about and the knife is not going to extract itself from my boot, unfold itself, and then stab someone without human intervention. If I had someones children over I would secure it. But if someone breaks into my house to kill me there are far more effective weapons than that knife in my boot. And if I am out and about with those boots on, what does it really matter if I do not think about the fact that I have it? It might be an issue if I were going to a secure location.
Obviously a gun is a far more serious matter but there are police officers who do the exact same thing. If they're in their uniform they're not likely to try and go through airport security with a gun. But if they're just carrying their off-duty weapon they may not even think about it. That, in and of itself, is not necessarily dangerous.
As a European, I continue to be utterly bemused/scared by America's obsession with owning guns. I know all the arguments that usually get trotted out, they just sound like crazy talk to me.
Why exactly does it scare you from a continent away? Do you worry that armed American citizens are going to storm the beaches of Europe?
In the US a lot of people who own guns shouldn't, which is why kids are accidentally killing people, each other and the like. About 100 kids die each ear by being accidentally shot.
I think anyone who is willing to spend the money on a gun ought to be willing to spend the money on a good safe.
Regardless, it means the TSA needs more money.It also means they need more rights and people need to have less rights.
Wow... The TSA hasn't wasted enough money already? And exactly how many terrorist events has the TSA stopped since Sept 11th? None that we know about. Every instance since has been stopped by passengers on the plane. Airport security is an arms race that is impossible to win by just throwing more money at the problem. If you'd like to give up your constitutional rights, you're welcome to do so any time you're stopped by the police. The current security program far surpasses what I believe the 4th amendment should allow. You go ahead and volunteer for additional security and fewer rights, but don't take me with you.
It happens, it does not make one irresponsible, maybe a bit too complacent, but not necessarily irresponsible.
I would argue that leaving a weapon such as a gun in an unsecured/uncontrolled location* and not knowing where that weapon is, is the epitome of being irresponsible.
*You may consider it safe while it was in his own home, but once he left that location and was out and about with no clue he was carrying a weapon - well that is a different story all together.
You may well be aware you have the weapon but not think about it when traveling. I have a pair of tactical boots that I keep a knife in. I never travel with those boots. Until the one time that I did. Thankfully I remembered when retying my shoe just before going to the airport. The knife sheath on that boot is such that it probably would have made it through the scanner just fine - it would have just looked like the ankle support on the boot.
While I don't carry that knife for self defense, it could still be dangerous to a child. I would still need to keep those boots in a safe location (or remove the knife) prior to babysitting a friend's child, for instance. Am I an irresponsible knife owner because I'm so accustomed to having that knife on me that I don't think about it? No, I wouldn't think so. Of course a gun is more dangerous but it could very well be that the lawyer keeps the gun properly stored in a safe and, as a ritual habit, put it into that laptop bag when he left for the day because that is always what he does when carries that bag. People fall into routines. Treating a gun as a routine matter could be unsafe, but so can treating driving as a routine matter. Both can be catastrophically deadly. Most likely the lawyer needs more training. Now the drunk guy who brought his gun to a movie theater in Renton, Washington? He is definitely irresponsible. Guns and alcohol do not mix.
That is because the owner of the car is responsible for the car even if they aren't driving it. I doubt it is different in Minnesota.
OK. So the owner of the vehicle is responsible for where it is parked. But if someone steals my car, should I have to pay a red light camera ticket on it? Or what if they just steal my license plate and I get the ticket anyway? That makes absolutely no sense. A red light violation is a moving violation and I cannot control whether or not someone decides to run a red light with my license plate.
I don't always get home at the same time, either. If I decide to leave early now I just kick the nest on and it'll have the house cooled a few degrees before I get home.
I think a lot depends on how stingy you are. With a programmable thermostat, I'd set it to turn on slightly later than I usually get home from work. With an internet thermostat, I turn it on just as I'm leaving work, thus spending a little more money. Were I less stingy in my original programming, I'd have the heat/AC kick on slightly before the time I usually arrive at home, insuring the temperature is comfortable.
Honestly, though, I find that I only ever control the heat remotely. If AC is appropriate, I only turn it on when I'm actually home. (Though I'll admit I might have a different opinion if I lived somewhere like Florida or Arizona)
I don't run my heat at all. I have it set to emergency heat of 50 degrees so the pipes don't burst. But in general my place seems to stay in the low 60's during the winter, even when it's 35 degrees outside. During the summer' it's usually 85 degrees inside when I leave work (and humid). So I want the AC to get it down to 82 and maybe 40% humidity by the time I get home. It definitely depends on climate!
Every time I see a bug like this I can't help but think - the engineers that built this don't actually use this.
This is exactly how I feel about iOS lately. iOS 8.4 broke a lot of the functionality that really set it apart from Android. Now listening to music / audiobooks on my phone is so painful that I have dusted off my old iPod.
And, really, how much benefit does internet connectivity really add to a thermostat anyway?
That depends on how much you travel. I used to travel a lot for work and would often forget to adjust the thermostat for my travels. I would be gone for weeks and would be heating/cooling the house more than necessary. Now I can adjust it from the road. I don't always get home at the same time, either. If I decide to leave early now I just kick the nest on and it'll have the house cooled a few degrees before I get home. It just depends on your lifestyle and how many people you have at home.
I live in Florida with a high efficiency A/C (19 Seer) and I noticed very little savings $10/mo at the expense of major fluctuations in temperature and coming home to a hot humid house. The upstairs and downstairs would have strange set points that made one unit run all the time (at full power).
I sold them online and have cheap thermostat with 4 set points during the day. The units run nearly all of the time in the summer but on the low power, high efficiency setting. The house is much more pleasant at very little extra cost.
i'm also in Florida. With a really old (less than 10 SEER) unit, I was saving $40 a month with my initial investment in a nest. Now with a newer unit, I save a lot less. But it paid for itself in the first year and then some.
It only applies to devices sold or leased in NY state. So you drive to New Jersey and buy the encrypted device. You're not going to have to enable/disable encryption every time you cross the border.
Of course legislation is a check on both branches. You cannot nullify a constitutional amendment with the judicial branch. There is also a way to override a veto by the executive branch. All three branches have checks against the other. You can specifically pass laws that put constraints upon the executive branch. The only recourse that branch has (besides a veto) then would be a supreme court ruling overturning the law. The department of education falls under the executive branch. These departments use grants as a way to force states and other localities into accepting regulations that are not permissible by law. So anything the legislature does to prevent the department of education from using money as a tool to affect local regulations is, by definition, a check on the power of the executive branch.
If "upholding the constitution" is the argument, then that is a job for the executive and judicial branches. You can uphold the constitution by passing unconstitutional legislation.
It's all academic anyway, as the law in question (despite TFA's assertion) does not affect local communities at all - it is only aimed at the feds.
Certainly it is the job of the judicial and executive branches to uphold and defend the constitution. Be that as it may, the legislative branch can use its authority to force misbehaving judicial and executive bodies into obey the constitution. That is the whole point of the checks and balances. And indeed the legislation has (historically) stepped in to curb the abuse of domestic spying by the executive branch. Unfortunately, that sort of thing is no longer popular.
You're looking at this all wrong. This is not the federal government saying whether or not you can let your children walk to school. It is the federal government saying that you are not endangering your children by letting them walk to school. Some people have been hit with neglect or endangerment charges specifically for letting their kids walk to school. This is the federal government making sure that the states know that the power to decide how your children get to school rests strictly with the parents and not with any government agency.
Your argument is reasonable, just not based on constitutional principles. I don't think this law abides by the constitution, even if it seems reasonable enough. How do you reckon the feds have authority in such matters?
Look at it this way: The federal government is upholding the constitution by saying that the power to decide how you get your children to school resides with the people. That you can't use child endangerment or other laws to try and legislate how the people choose to care for your children. Is that better for you?
This might just lead to touch screen keypads, where the numbers change sequence per use?
I already know of one bank where your online pin needs to be entered via a reconfiguring onscreen keypad. I believe the intent is to avoid key loggers.
The truth is, with interactive security, the human is always going to be the weak point.
It's to prevent shoulder surfing. I used to work at a government facility where the keypad sequence would scramble every time you hit the button to enter your access code. This was in addition to a badge scan. Once you got past those, there was another door with a 'combination' style lock that had a shared code used by all. Sort of a last ditch effort to try and keep out anyone who may have managed to sneak in that far.
I actually do a 50/50 mix of cooler and warmer LED lights around home. I like the color better by having 2-4 lights with a varying light range rather than have them all in one range. This is only in fixtures with multiple bulbs pointing in the same approximate direction.
Yes but you do not want people smelting the coins to harvest the raw value of the materials. It just increases the loss for the mint. That is why the penny is no longer made of (mostly) pure copper.
I hate coins. Please, just get rid of them entirely. I know they last longer than bills do, but I rarely use cash. It's much lighter and easier to carry a couple of $5s and $20s around than to lug a pile of coins. When I get a coin, it goes into the bin. Not the trash bin, but a bin that stores my coins until I get around $300-400 worth and finally bother to roll them.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right that the 4th and 5th amendments don't prevent the police from gathering evidence in a lawful manner. However, there is no requirement to provide unreasonable assistance to law enforcement in order to aid them in a case. What if the government forces Apple to decrypt phones and then I turn around and encrypt the phone myself so that Apple cannot get access to it? Then Apple is spending a lot of time and effort to decrypt a phone it may not even be able to decrypt. Throw in these criminal penalties and some Apple employee could go to jail because they are not capable of decrypting a phone that they may never be able to decrypt. It makes no sense. It's not reasonable. And Apple is not doing anything to prevent the police from decrypting the phones. They are just not helping the police decrypt the phone. See the difference? It's a huge difference. If the government wants to get the data badly enough, they will find a way to get it. Apple is not trying to set any new precedents. They are trying to maintain the status quo in criminal discovery. The federal government is trying to set a new precedent in forcing businesses to take unusual measures to provide evidence in criminal matters. And before you try and pull out wiretaps just think about that situation. Does the phone company decrypt any data traveling over phone lines? No. Do they provide the government with translators to assist with language barriers? No. They provide the raw data in whatever form it is. It is up to the government to turn that raw data into usable evidence.
You're crazy man. There is no way that there are more bugs running around NYC than there are in Rio. I'm wondering whether you've ever actually been to Brazil. I'm not trying to say that Brazil is a dirty or uninhabitable country but Rio is inside of the tropics. There is so much more plant life and far better weather for bugs in the (typical) tropical biome than any other part of the world. The warm weather year round, rain fall, and lush foliage in Rio gives bugs everything they need to survive. You'll find cockroaches in the tropics that are way bigger than you'll find anywhere in NYC. And then you go into this diatribe about vaccines and hand sanitizers? Sure buddy.
I was a bit surprised to find out that the DOE regulations explicitly state that discrimination against males and caucasians is not discrimination. I wonder of the Department of Labor has a similar rule.
Isn't this unconstitutional or against Human rights? I don't know about the US, but the German constitution says "All Humans are equal".
Don't be silly. Some humans are just more equal than others.
No they don't. "Inflammable" is a word. "Flammable" is not. "Non-inflammable" is a word. "Non-flammable" is not.
Inflammable comes from inflammare. Flammable is a fucked up piece of shit that some retard tried to shoe horn in. It comes from flamma.
Inflammare is the root word, and "inflammable" and "non-inflammable" are the words. Flamma isn't a fucking verb and should not be used as a root to create a word with the same meaning as "inflammable". Further, adding "flammable" only increases confusion (of which there was none among non-retards) because the already valid and correct "inflammable" exists, as well as the valid and correct non-inflammable.
Hmmm my dictionary seems to disagree with you. It lists flammable as an adjective, and not a verb.
You will pay for them nonetheless. Either you pay them directly, or your pay burglar alarms, private guards, the police, courts and prisons necessary to keep them away from plundering you. As it seems, especially the court and prison system can get quite expensive, much more expensive than just handing out a basic income to everyone. What you save in welfare, you have to spent several times in protection.
I just witnessed that first hand in Africa. Everyone has electrified fences on their houses and an armed response security system. Well, everyone but the people living in the shanty towns. There are areas on the motorways through town with big electronic signs telling you not to stop for accidents, flats, etc. You just keep driving until you can stop at a gas station or somewhere else away from the shanties.
I never travel with those boots. Until the one time that I did.
Am I an irresponsible knife owner because I'm so accustomed to having that knife on me that I don't think about it?
Obviously, yes. FFS. Listen to yourself.
There is a huge difference between being accustomed to carrying something and being irresponsible with it. I'm quite used to having a wallet in my pocket. I've never lost my wallet. I've never left it laying about. But I never think about the fact that I have my wallet until I need to use it. Am I an irresponsible wallet owner, too? I know where that knife is at all times. But do I consciously think about the fact that I have the knife? Why should I? I have a million things to worry about and the knife is not going to extract itself from my boot, unfold itself, and then stab someone without human intervention. If I had someones children over I would secure it. But if someone breaks into my house to kill me there are far more effective weapons than that knife in my boot. And if I am out and about with those boots on, what does it really matter if I do not think about the fact that I have it? It might be an issue if I were going to a secure location.
Obviously a gun is a far more serious matter but there are police officers who do the exact same thing. If they're in their uniform they're not likely to try and go through airport security with a gun. But if they're just carrying their off-duty weapon they may not even think about it. That, in and of itself, is not necessarily dangerous.
As a European, I continue to be utterly bemused/scared by America's obsession with owning guns. I know all the arguments that usually get trotted out, they just sound like crazy talk to me.
Why exactly does it scare you from a continent away? Do you worry that armed American citizens are going to storm the beaches of Europe?
In the US a lot of people who own guns shouldn't, which is why kids are accidentally killing people, each other and the like. About 100 kids die each ear by being accidentally shot.
I think anyone who is willing to spend the money on a gun ought to be willing to spend the money on a good safe.
Regardless, it means the TSA needs more money.It also means they need more rights and people need to have less rights.
Wow... The TSA hasn't wasted enough money already? And exactly how many terrorist events has the TSA stopped since Sept 11th? None that we know about. Every instance since has been stopped by passengers on the plane. Airport security is an arms race that is impossible to win by just throwing more money at the problem. If you'd like to give up your constitutional rights, you're welcome to do so any time you're stopped by the police. The current security program far surpasses what I believe the 4th amendment should allow. You go ahead and volunteer for additional security and fewer rights, but don't take me with you.
It happens, it does not make one irresponsible, maybe a bit too complacent, but not necessarily irresponsible.
I would argue that leaving a weapon such as a gun in an unsecured/uncontrolled location* and not knowing where that weapon is, is the epitome of being irresponsible.
*You may consider it safe while it was in his own home, but once he left that location and was out and about with no clue he was carrying a weapon - well that is a different story all together.
You may well be aware you have the weapon but not think about it when traveling. I have a pair of tactical boots that I keep a knife in. I never travel with those boots. Until the one time that I did. Thankfully I remembered when retying my shoe just before going to the airport. The knife sheath on that boot is such that it probably would have made it through the scanner just fine - it would have just looked like the ankle support on the boot.
While I don't carry that knife for self defense, it could still be dangerous to a child. I would still need to keep those boots in a safe location (or remove the knife) prior to babysitting a friend's child, for instance. Am I an irresponsible knife owner because I'm so accustomed to having that knife on me that I don't think about it? No, I wouldn't think so. Of course a gun is more dangerous but it could very well be that the lawyer keeps the gun properly stored in a safe and, as a ritual habit, put it into that laptop bag when he left for the day because that is always what he does when carries that bag. People fall into routines. Treating a gun as a routine matter could be unsafe, but so can treating driving as a routine matter. Both can be catastrophically deadly. Most likely the lawyer needs more training. Now the drunk guy who brought his gun to a movie theater in Renton, Washington? He is definitely irresponsible. Guns and alcohol do not mix.
That is because the owner of the car is responsible for the car even if they aren't driving it. I doubt it is different in Minnesota.
OK. So the owner of the vehicle is responsible for where it is parked. But if someone steals my car, should I have to pay a red light camera ticket on it? Or what if they just steal my license plate and I get the ticket anyway? That makes absolutely no sense. A red light violation is a moving violation and I cannot control whether or not someone decides to run a red light with my license plate.
I don't always get home at the same time, either. If I decide to leave early now I just kick the nest on and it'll have the house cooled a few degrees before I get home.
I think a lot depends on how stingy you are. With a programmable thermostat, I'd set it to turn on slightly later than I usually get home from work. With an internet thermostat, I turn it on just as I'm leaving work, thus spending a little more money. Were I less stingy in my original programming, I'd have the heat/AC kick on slightly before the time I usually arrive at home, insuring the temperature is comfortable.
Honestly, though, I find that I only ever control the heat remotely. If AC is appropriate, I only turn it on when I'm actually home. (Though I'll admit I might have a different opinion if I lived somewhere like Florida or Arizona)
I don't run my heat at all. I have it set to emergency heat of 50 degrees so the pipes don't burst. But in general my place seems to stay in the low 60's during the winter, even when it's 35 degrees outside. During the summer' it's usually 85 degrees inside when I leave work (and humid). So I want the AC to get it down to 82 and maybe 40% humidity by the time I get home. It definitely depends on climate!
Every time I see a bug like this I can't help but think - the engineers that built this don't actually use this.
This is exactly how I feel about iOS lately. iOS 8.4 broke a lot of the functionality that really set it apart from Android. Now listening to music / audiobooks on my phone is so painful that I have dusted off my old iPod.
And, really, how much benefit does internet connectivity really add to a thermostat anyway?
That depends on how much you travel. I used to travel a lot for work and would often forget to adjust the thermostat for my travels. I would be gone for weeks and would be heating/cooling the house more than necessary. Now I can adjust it from the road. I don't always get home at the same time, either. If I decide to leave early now I just kick the nest on and it'll have the house cooled a few degrees before I get home. It just depends on your lifestyle and how many people you have at home.
I live in Florida with a high efficiency A/C (19 Seer) and I noticed very little savings $10/mo at the expense of major fluctuations in temperature and coming home to a hot humid house. The upstairs and downstairs would have strange set points that made one unit run all the time (at full power).
I sold them online and have cheap thermostat with 4 set points during the day. The units run nearly all of the time in the summer but on the low power, high efficiency setting. The house is much more pleasant at very little extra cost.
i'm also in Florida. With a really old (less than 10 SEER) unit, I was saving $40 a month with my initial investment in a nest. Now with a newer unit, I save a lot less. But it paid for itself in the first year and then some.
It only applies to devices sold or leased in NY state. So you drive to New Jersey and buy the encrypted device. You're not going to have to enable/disable encryption every time you cross the border.
Of course legislation is a check on both branches. You cannot nullify a constitutional amendment with the judicial branch. There is also a way to override a veto by the executive branch. All three branches have checks against the other. You can specifically pass laws that put constraints upon the executive branch. The only recourse that branch has (besides a veto) then would be a supreme court ruling overturning the law. The department of education falls under the executive branch. These departments use grants as a way to force states and other localities into accepting regulations that are not permissible by law. So anything the legislature does to prevent the department of education from using money as a tool to affect local regulations is, by definition, a check on the power of the executive branch.
"I hate coins. Please, just get rid of them entirely."
I never carry coins. I save them in a jar for a bimonthly visit to Coinstar, which gives full value if you take it out as Amazon certificates.
Neither do I, as I mentioned. But if they started using $5 coins then I would feel like I have to actually start carrying and using them.
If "upholding the constitution" is the argument, then that is a job for the executive and judicial branches. You can uphold the constitution by passing unconstitutional legislation.
It's all academic anyway, as the law in question (despite TFA's assertion) does not affect local communities at all - it is only aimed at the feds.
Certainly it is the job of the judicial and executive branches to uphold and defend the constitution. Be that as it may, the legislative branch can use its authority to force misbehaving judicial and executive bodies into obey the constitution. That is the whole point of the checks and balances. And indeed the legislation has (historically) stepped in to curb the abuse of domestic spying by the executive branch. Unfortunately, that sort of thing is no longer popular.
You're looking at this all wrong. This is not the federal government saying whether or not you can let your children walk to school. It is the federal government saying that you are not endangering your children by letting them walk to school. Some people have been hit with neglect or endangerment charges specifically for letting their kids walk to school. This is the federal government making sure that the states know that the power to decide how your children get to school rests strictly with the parents and not with any government agency.
Your argument is reasonable, just not based on constitutional principles. I don't think this law abides by the constitution, even if it seems reasonable enough. How do you reckon the feds have authority in such matters?
Look at it this way: The federal government is upholding the constitution by saying that the power to decide how you get your children to school resides with the people. That you can't use child endangerment or other laws to try and legislate how the people choose to care for your children. Is that better for you?
This might just lead to touch screen keypads, where the numbers change sequence per use?
I already know of one bank where your online pin needs to be entered via a reconfiguring onscreen keypad. I believe the intent is to avoid key loggers.
The truth is, with interactive security, the human is always going to be the weak point.
It's to prevent shoulder surfing. I used to work at a government facility where the keypad sequence would scramble every time you hit the button to enter your access code. This was in addition to a badge scan. Once you got past those, there was another door with a 'combination' style lock that had a shared code used by all. Sort of a last ditch effort to try and keep out anyone who may have managed to sneak in that far.
I actually do a 50/50 mix of cooler and warmer LED lights around home. I like the color better by having 2-4 lights with a varying light range rather than have them all in one range. This is only in fixtures with multiple bulbs pointing in the same approximate direction.
Yes but you do not want people smelting the coins to harvest the raw value of the materials. It just increases the loss for the mint. That is why the penny is no longer made of (mostly) pure copper.
I hate coins. Please, just get rid of them entirely. I know they last longer than bills do, but I rarely use cash. It's much lighter and easier to carry a couple of $5s and $20s around than to lug a pile of coins. When I get a coin, it goes into the bin. Not the trash bin, but a bin that stores my coins until I get around $300-400 worth and finally bother to roll them.