I also have some questions about the authors math. I dislike math and try to avoid it but his errors are so glaring they leaped out at me! He cites a £2.5 charge by the credit card companies if the customer pays via credit (TFA states that of the £14.50 the phtographer will get of the £29 if the customer pays with credit the photographer will only get £12.00.) Assuming Groupon makes the merchant eat the entire credit service fee (unlikely, more likely is the credit fee comes off the £29 then Groupon gets it's half) that's still 9% of the total amount of £29. Btw: if the £2.5 is on the £14.50 the photographer gets, it makes that fee equal to 18% of the total amount. Credit service fees usually range from 1 to 3 percent of the amount charged, certainly not the 9% that £2.5 would be.
Then there is the CD cost, £1 for a CD and case? Bulk purchased CD's and cases make that seem rather high. Locally I can get a spool of 100 CD-R disks for $27 or 27 cents a piece which is £0.16 a piece. Jewel Cases I found online in packs of 200 for $83 which is about 42 cents a case or roughly £0.26 a case. Giving a cost per customer of £0.42 not £1.
The other costs are harder to quantify (time for each shoot, time to re-touch etc...) but I question the authors math there as well.
Others have more than covered the Up-sell option as well, but I want to point out a couple things I've observed as a customer.
My wife and I are hard to upsell, but where we get photo's for our kids always sends out some great coupons, we use those and keep the price reasonable. As I said we are hard to upsell, but the suggested upsells are very appealing and can be very hard to pass on. We almost always manage to pass, many customers don't, a single upsell can double what the original coupon based price is.
Decide to get a few extra copies of that upsold extra cute picture with the darling graphical design for the grand parents and the price can go to triple or more very quickly.
Also If the shop we use is any indicator, those touch-up/cutifications are almost automated these days. They photographer takes the pictures with their digital camera, it transmits the pictures as they take them to a computer which runs automated smoothing and blending scripts. The photographer then takes a couple minutes to grab a few of the pictures and link them to automated templates and voila! touched up, ultra-cutified pictures that are ready for you to choose between within minutes of the last picture being taken.
And they will pass it on to the consumers in the end, because ultimately that is who pays it. The consumers still need the fuel to get to and from work so they will still pay in the end, just in an ever increasing amount until the customers scream at congress to kill the tax.
The consumers pay the tax, because the Oil Companies don't have some other magical method of making money and keeping their shareholders happy, they produce and refine the oil, then then sell the fuel products to the consumers to cover their costs and make profits to keep the shareholders happy. If their production costs go up (more taxes) they raise the prices, cutting profits doesn't make the shareholders happy, so they raise the prices and the consumers pay.
I'm not sure about how word does it now, but even back in the early 2000's WP did a far better job with managing the editing and format codes, it really was WYSIWYG as what was displayed was what you had set and was how it would print, not so with Word. In WP you changed a setting for an area and it changed for that area. In word, it just layered the new changes on top of the old. Change it back (other than via undo) and it layered the new/old change on top of the old. Resulting in layers and layers of format codes and a much larger file. Then word would end up getting confused about what layer it was supposed to be working off of and your formatting would go all crazy, and good luck fixing it. I tend to think it still operates that way with all the problems auto-format and auto-correct cause today in Word.
The first thing I recommend to anyone new or even somewhat inexperienced with word is that they turn off all auto-correct and auto-format functions other than those dealing with spelling. Otherwise they'll be typing a paragraph and Word will decide they want bullet points, or will change their outline format style, indentation level and outline levels at random. I never had that problem with WP, and I used WP extensively from vs 4.1 through Corel WP 10.
Exactly how do you plan on powering electric long distance OTR semi-tractors?
The best Electric vehicles I've seen can do about 100 miles on a charge (if there are better ones fine, but my point will still stand.) Most semi's can do several hundred miles between fill-ups, those fill-ups take minutes and the trucks are back on their way. A re-charge takes hours. (Then there is the coming slam to our power grid which is expected to somehow handle all these electric vehicles, but nobody want's to build large reliable power generation facilities because those facilities either burn some form of fossil fuel or are nuclear).
What about Hybrids, I've yet to see a hybrid semi for sale. My 2009 Dodge Ram (yes it's got a V-8 Hemi) gets better mileage than any hybrid or alternative fuel truck or SUV on the market. Unless something has just hit the market that finally gets better, the best I've seen of the hybrids is 21 mpg Hwy, I get 23 mpg hwy, sometimes even 24 if I'm careful. Hybrid cars are great for city driving. In stop and go driving the hybrid trucks and SUVs whomp on the fuel efficiency of my truck, but semi's are going to be doing hwy driving. With little stop and go to get the advantage of regenerative breaking. Without frequent regenerative breaking you substantially cut the effectiveness of hybrids, often cutting them to the point that a comparative gas or diesel engine gets better mileage especially when the vehicle is heavy or is pulling a load.
And I'll ebay Hybrid ones for my Truck. Someone will be willing to sell them.
Why require some magic device/item that doesn't exist. Every vehicle on the road has an odometer. Require an annual reading and then allow the driver to pay the tax in monthly installments.
No its incentive, the more they try and overcharge the consumer, the more it hurts the consumers who will get charged the tax. I know it would never ever work in practice but I like to dream.
Outside of the movies, that really isn't all that common a reaction, as the meth cookers don't want to go to jail for shooting some random kid selling candy. They want to stay free and keep on cooking. Find us some links to reports of bad guys responding to someone knocking on their door with gun fire. It has probably happened once or twice in the last 20 years but it just isn't that common.
If the drive is encrypted the authorities are pretty much toast anyway evidence wise. They can get a picture of what is on the screen at the time of capture, but they CANNOT go looking through the drive or they've tainted the evidence, and it's all inadmissible. To properly collect it, the drive must be imaged bit for bit, and then any investigation is done on the image. The police don't have a magic way of keeping a computer powered up when they seize it. They pull the plug and transport the computer to the evidence custodian where it gets stored until it is shipped to a lab, and it probably sits in storage there until a lab tech pulls the machine out to process and examine. Then after weeks or even months of non-use the lab techs pull the drive out of the machine, image it, put the original away, make additional copies of the image and then work on the one of the image copies. If the drive is encrypted they'd better hope the suspect is willing to share the password.
You can't effectively wipe a drive all that quickly short of having an incendiary grenade mounted on top of the drive. Unless they have information that indicates the suspect is so prepared there was no reason for this to be a no-knock.
Or just start actually enforcing the existing penalties for filing fraudulent suits and claims. Such penalties already exist, but getting the various state's to enforce them isn't always easy.
Exactly it all comes down to each student's learning style. Not everyone learns the same way, what works great for one is worthless for others and so on. This gives students another way. Not real efficient at taking notes, but can usually get all the important points just from listening to the lecture, record it and listen again later on when it's time to cram for a test.
Meanwhile the person who needs to write the notes to remember the data can do so with a cheap external keyboard. The person who can learn best by just reading the text books can do so with either hard copy or soft copy books (hope the prof doesn't throw testable data into the lectures that isn't found in the book,)
It all depends on the student and how they learn best.
Well this doesn't really "Erase" the data either. The pits are still in the plastic, just apply a new reflective backing and the disk is readable again.
Best is to simply break the disk up either manually or in a shredder.
Simple, the iPhone wasn't a technological leap. Rather a usability leap and a marketing coup d'etat. All the capabilities of the iphone were already out there, just not all in one device. The iOS was a small push forward, and it wasn't really that big a push. What really happened was all the faithful iPod users/fanbois deciding they wanted the reliable functionality of the iPod in their phones, and thus all going out and getting iPhones. This demand did drag the rest of the industry forward, forcing a wide scale adoption of the touch screen interfaces and virtual buttons (aka icons) versus the more common physical keypads and menu navigation (which was still already often done with icons). What else about the iPhone was so revolutionary, the camera was crap compared to the competition, the network was standard GSM and so on. Touch screens were not original either. It was put together in a decent form factor but the big selling point was the apple logo on the back.
Anyone claiming the iPhone was some technological breakthrough or leap is flat wrong, it was a marketing revolution not a technological revolution. And is owed entirely to the rightful success of the iPod as a stable, easily used mp3 and later video player.
I do not. The US is the Global power. We have and continue to make many mistakes in regards to foreign policy. But it is not out of evil designs or intent. And we kill and have killed far fewer people than any of the major nations of Europe. Our armed forces bend over backwards to avoid needless deaths. But war is war and deaths still occur.
Get off your high horse. Would you rather the Soviets have won the cold war?
You are failing to address the scope of the quake and tsunami. The reactor was designed for an 8.0 quake, that would have been stronger than there was any record of occurring in the vicinity of the reactor, it handled a 9.0 perfectly, with no breaches and an automatic scram of the reactor cores. Let me state that again These reactors handled a 9.0 perfect perfectly, performing an automatic scram of the reactor core as designed. In addition the plant was designed for a 3 meter Tsunami, again based on the worst case the experts could define 40 years ago when the plant was built. It was hit by a 7 meter Tsunami, and the plant again survived just fine, except for the one key failure in this event. The back-up generators and their fuel did not survive the tsunami and thus the cooling system failed.
This plant survived a disaster far worse than the worst case imagined possible when it was built. Only the loss of the generators prevented this plant from surviving the disasters. It's sister plant a few km away did survive with little problem.
Yes there was a failure that resulted in damage to the buildings and release of short lived radioactive isotopes. But compared to what the plant survived, it did very well.
Now consider that this plant is 40 years old. Since it was built we've had TMI and Chernobyl, plant designs have changed and improved. This event will lead to future improvements. If anything this should push for greater investment in new reactors so we can replace the old ones.
Don't forget that the Japanese plant meltdowns happened in response to an earthquake and Tsunami double whammy, both of which disasters were far larger than thought possible in those areas. The fact is the reactors survived an earthquake massively more powerful than it was designed for, which design was based on the worst case scenario. The Tsunami taking out the back-up generators was where the system failed. The reactors as designed worked flawlessly and scrammed automatically. The problem was the siting of the generators and fuel supply that wasn't able to survive a tsunami several meters higher than was thought possible.
Did this show flaws in what they planned to be able to survive? Absolutely, and we can do better. And newer reactor technologies are better, not needing an external power source to maintain cooling. Fix that one aspect, and this disaster never happened.
Not really, The penalties for leaking or mishandling truly classified information are severe. The penalties for mishandling FOUO are a slap on the wrist and don't do it again.
FOUO is primarily to limit access to personal identification information, the most common use is to protect ID theft info such as Birthdates and SSN's and the like, Medical and legal records records are additional classes of exemptions that would be marked FOUO. It doesn't seem like there is a difference, and based on pure dictionary definition there isn't really a difference, but in actual use, meaning and intent there is a substantial difference.
Take this case, That document was marked FOUO and should not have been released, but no major investigation is likely to take place to find out how it was leaked. It's treated as an oops, and anyone identified in the document needs to be notified that their personal identifying information is at risk. If it were classified even at the Confidential level, it is actually a National Security crime to release/leak it. There are three Classification levels in the US, Confidential, Secret and Top Secret, all other markings are handling caveats that further define who has authorization to access and utilize the information.
Because it can be construed that even though you didn't leave your state, your driving on the publicly funded roads causes wear, that wear affects interstate commerce passing through the area, thus you affect interstate commerce. I heartily disagree with the ruling that established this concept, but until it gets successfully appealed it stands, and is why the commerce clause is being stretched further and further in order to allow federal intrusions into our lives and state laws.
It is a stretch of this ruling that allowed the insurance mandate part of the Healthcare act to exist. Judge Vinson decided that was too much of a stretch, now we wait to see if the Supreme Court agrees or if the commerce clause gets stretched further to authorize more federal intrusions.
No it doesn't. FOUO is a handling Caveat not a Classification. It's not a caveat applicable to classified material because their handling is by default different and restrictive. The document is marked unclassified because it is an unclassified document used/created in an environment where classified materials are extensively used or created, thus it needs to be clearly marked so as to not get it confused with or mixed in with classified materials. The information also meets one or more of the requirements for exemption from FOIA requests, thus the FOUO handling Caveat is applied, which mainly means that FAS shouldn't have gotten it in the first place.
Americans don't do those jobs because while paying taxes and not packing twenty men into an apartment, the Americans who are willing to do that work (and there are many) are so substantially undercut in costs by the illegals that they can't make a living if they try to match costs. The reason you are not seeing Americans doing construction, lawn maintenance and the like is because they've been driven out of the business by illegal labor that can do the job at a cost the tax paying American contractor can't meet.
Not that I agree one bit with how it was passed but a big reason for it not getting any debate is that nearly every congress critter was listed as a sponsor. Why debate something they've already all participated in working out. Of course that is the problem, they worked it out in the Party Caucus rather than in the committees and on the debate floor like is supposed to be done, and then they just passed it through both houses so fast the media barely caught it happening.
Agreed, and it's really hard to accept any claims to a dwindling food supply while the U.S. Government is paying landowners to NOT grow crops. Yes there are people who own potential or one time, farm land who get an annual subsidy check to NOT grow any crops. When we start paying them to grow crops on their land then I'll buy the shortage argument. Because we will be at the point that supply/demand concerns outrank cost/profit concerns.
Slashdot Mirror
I also have some questions about the authors math. I dislike math and try to avoid it but his errors are so glaring they leaped out at me! He cites a £2.5 charge by the credit card companies if the customer pays via credit (TFA states that of the £14.50 the phtographer will get of the £29 if the customer pays with credit the photographer will only get £12.00.) Assuming Groupon makes the merchant eat the entire credit service fee (unlikely, more likely is the credit fee comes off the £29 then Groupon gets it's half) that's still 9% of the total amount of £29. Btw: if the £2.5 is on the £14.50 the photographer gets, it makes that fee equal to 18% of the total amount. Credit service fees usually range from 1 to 3 percent of the amount charged, certainly not the 9% that £2.5 would be.
Then there is the CD cost, £1 for a CD and case? Bulk purchased CD's and cases make that seem rather high. Locally I can get a spool of 100 CD-R disks for $27 or 27 cents a piece which is £0.16 a piece. Jewel Cases I found online in packs of 200 for $83 which is about 42 cents a case or roughly £0.26 a case. Giving a cost per customer of £0.42 not £1.
The other costs are harder to quantify (time for each shoot, time to re-touch etc...) but I question the authors math there as well.
Others have more than covered the Up-sell option as well, but I want to point out a couple things I've observed as a customer.
My wife and I are hard to upsell, but where we get photo's for our kids always sends out some great coupons, we use those and keep the price reasonable. As I said we are hard to upsell, but the suggested upsells are very appealing and can be very hard to pass on. We almost always manage to pass, many customers don't, a single upsell can double what the original coupon based price is.
Decide to get a few extra copies of that upsold extra cute picture with the darling graphical design for the grand parents and the price can go to triple or more very quickly.
Also If the shop we use is any indicator, those touch-up/cutifications are almost automated these days. They photographer takes the pictures with their digital camera, it transmits the pictures as they take them to a computer which runs automated smoothing and blending scripts. The photographer then takes a couple minutes to grab a few of the pictures and link them to automated templates and voila! touched up, ultra-cutified pictures that are ready for you to choose between within minutes of the last picture being taken.
Spelling Obligatory maybe?
And they will pass it on to the consumers in the end, because ultimately that is who pays it. The consumers still need the fuel to get to and from work so they will still pay in the end, just in an ever increasing amount until the customers scream at congress to kill the tax.
The consumers pay the tax, because the Oil Companies don't have some other magical method of making money and keeping their shareholders happy, they produce and refine the oil, then then sell the fuel products to the consumers to cover their costs and make profits to keep the shareholders happy. If their production costs go up (more taxes) they raise the prices, cutting profits doesn't make the shareholders happy, so they raise the prices and the consumers pay.
I'm not sure about how word does it now, but even back in the early 2000's WP did a far better job with managing the editing and format codes, it really was WYSIWYG as what was displayed was what you had set and was how it would print, not so with Word. In WP you changed a setting for an area and it changed for that area. In word, it just layered the new changes on top of the old. Change it back (other than via undo) and it layered the new/old change on top of the old. Resulting in layers and layers of format codes and a much larger file. Then word would end up getting confused about what layer it was supposed to be working off of and your formatting would go all crazy, and good luck fixing it. I tend to think it still operates that way with all the problems auto-format and auto-correct cause today in Word.
The first thing I recommend to anyone new or even somewhat inexperienced with word is that they turn off all auto-correct and auto-format functions other than those dealing with spelling. Otherwise they'll be typing a paragraph and Word will decide they want bullet points, or will change their outline format style, indentation level and outline levels at random. I never had that problem with WP, and I used WP extensively from vs 4.1 through Corel WP 10.
Exactly how do you plan on powering electric long distance OTR semi-tractors?
The best Electric vehicles I've seen can do about 100 miles on a charge (if there are better ones fine, but my point will still stand.) Most semi's can do several hundred miles between fill-ups, those fill-ups take minutes and the trucks are back on their way. A re-charge takes hours. (Then there is the coming slam to our power grid which is expected to somehow handle all these electric vehicles, but nobody want's to build large reliable power generation facilities because those facilities either burn some form of fossil fuel or are nuclear).
What about Hybrids, I've yet to see a hybrid semi for sale. My 2009 Dodge Ram (yes it's got a V-8 Hemi) gets better mileage than any hybrid or alternative fuel truck or SUV on the market. Unless something has just hit the market that finally gets better, the best I've seen of the hybrids is 21 mpg Hwy, I get 23 mpg hwy, sometimes even 24 if I'm careful. Hybrid cars are great for city driving. In stop and go driving the hybrid trucks and SUVs whomp on the fuel efficiency of my truck, but semi's are going to be doing hwy driving. With little stop and go to get the advantage of regenerative breaking. Without frequent regenerative breaking you substantially cut the effectiveness of hybrids, often cutting them to the point that a comparative gas or diesel engine gets better mileage especially when the vehicle is heavy or is pulling a load.
And I'll ebay Hybrid ones for my Truck. Someone will be willing to sell them.
Why require some magic device/item that doesn't exist. Every vehicle on the road has an odometer. Require an annual reading and then allow the driver to pay the tax in monthly installments.
No its incentive, the more they try and overcharge the consumer, the more it hurts the consumers who will get charged the tax . I know it would never ever work in practice but I like to dream.
FTFY
It's better that 9999 guilty bad guys go free instead of 1 innocent be subject to a no-knock raid and arrest due to faulty information.
Outside of the movies, that really isn't all that common a reaction, as the meth cookers don't want to go to jail for shooting some random kid selling candy. They want to stay free and keep on cooking. Find us some links to reports of bad guys responding to someone knocking on their door with gun fire. It has probably happened once or twice in the last 20 years but it just isn't that common.
If the drive is encrypted the authorities are pretty much toast anyway evidence wise. They can get a picture of what is on the screen at the time of capture, but they CANNOT go looking through the drive or they've tainted the evidence, and it's all inadmissible. To properly collect it, the drive must be imaged bit for bit, and then any investigation is done on the image. The police don't have a magic way of keeping a computer powered up when they seize it. They pull the plug and transport the computer to the evidence custodian where it gets stored until it is shipped to a lab, and it probably sits in storage there until a lab tech pulls the machine out to process and examine. Then after weeks or even months of non-use the lab techs pull the drive out of the machine, image it, put the original away, make additional copies of the image and then work on the one of the image copies. If the drive is encrypted they'd better hope the suspect is willing to share the password.
You can't effectively wipe a drive all that quickly short of having an incendiary grenade mounted on top of the drive. Unless they have information that indicates the suspect is so prepared there was no reason for this to be a no-knock.
Or just start actually enforcing the existing penalties for filing fraudulent suits and claims. Such penalties already exist, but getting the various state's to enforce them isn't always easy.
Exactly it all comes down to each student's learning style. Not everyone learns the same way, what works great for one is worthless for others and so on. This gives students another way. Not real efficient at taking notes, but can usually get all the important points just from listening to the lecture, record it and listen again later on when it's time to cram for a test. Meanwhile the person who needs to write the notes to remember the data can do so with a cheap external keyboard. The person who can learn best by just reading the text books can do so with either hard copy or soft copy books (hope the prof doesn't throw testable data into the lectures that isn't found in the book,)
It all depends on the student and how they learn best.
Well this doesn't really "Erase" the data either. The pits are still in the plastic, just apply a new reflective backing and the disk is readable again.
Best is to simply break the disk up either manually or in a shredder.
Simple, the iPhone wasn't a technological leap. Rather a usability leap and a marketing coup d'etat. All the capabilities of the iphone were already out there, just not all in one device. The iOS was a small push forward, and it wasn't really that big a push. What really happened was all the faithful iPod users/fanbois deciding they wanted the reliable functionality of the iPod in their phones, and thus all going out and getting iPhones. This demand did drag the rest of the industry forward, forcing a wide scale adoption of the touch screen interfaces and virtual buttons (aka icons) versus the more common physical keypads and menu navigation (which was still already often done with icons). What else about the iPhone was so revolutionary, the camera was crap compared to the competition, the network was standard GSM and so on. Touch screens were not original either. It was put together in a decent form factor but the big selling point was the apple logo on the back.
Anyone claiming the iPhone was some technological breakthrough or leap is flat wrong, it was a marketing revolution not a technological revolution. And is owed entirely to the rightful success of the iPod as a stable, easily used mp3 and later video player.
I do not. The US is the Global power. We have and continue to make many mistakes in regards to foreign policy. But it is not out of evil designs or intent. And we kill and have killed far fewer people than any of the major nations of Europe. Our armed forces bend over backwards to avoid needless deaths. But war is war and deaths still occur.
Get off your high horse. Would you rather the Soviets have won the cold war?
It has? See the ongoing Libyan intervention in behalf of Oil for Europe.
You are failing to address the scope of the quake and tsunami. The reactor was designed for an 8.0 quake, that would have been stronger than there was any record of occurring in the vicinity of the reactor, it handled a 9.0 perfectly, with no breaches and an automatic scram of the reactor cores. Let me state that again These reactors handled a 9.0 perfect perfectly, performing an automatic scram of the reactor core as designed. In addition the plant was designed for a 3 meter Tsunami, again based on the worst case the experts could define 40 years ago when the plant was built. It was hit by a 7 meter Tsunami, and the plant again survived just fine, except for the one key failure in this event. The back-up generators and their fuel did not survive the tsunami and thus the cooling system failed.
This plant survived a disaster far worse than the worst case imagined possible when it was built. Only the loss of the generators prevented this plant from surviving the disasters. It's sister plant a few km away did survive with little problem.
Yes there was a failure that resulted in damage to the buildings and release of short lived radioactive isotopes. But compared to what the plant survived, it did very well.
Now consider that this plant is 40 years old. Since it was built we've had TMI and Chernobyl, plant designs have changed and improved. This event will lead to future improvements. If anything this should push for greater investment in new reactors so we can replace the old ones.
Don't forget that the Japanese plant meltdowns happened in response to an earthquake and Tsunami double whammy, both of which disasters were far larger than thought possible in those areas. The fact is the reactors survived an earthquake massively more powerful than it was designed for, which design was based on the worst case scenario. The Tsunami taking out the back-up generators was where the system failed. The reactors as designed worked flawlessly and scrammed automatically. The problem was the siting of the generators and fuel supply that wasn't able to survive a tsunami several meters higher than was thought possible. Did this show flaws in what they planned to be able to survive? Absolutely, and we can do better. And newer reactor technologies are better, not needing an external power source to maintain cooling. Fix that one aspect, and this disaster never happened.
Not really, The penalties for leaking or mishandling truly classified information are severe. The penalties for mishandling FOUO are a slap on the wrist and don't do it again. FOUO is primarily to limit access to personal identification information, the most common use is to protect ID theft info such as Birthdates and SSN's and the like, Medical and legal records records are additional classes of exemptions that would be marked FOUO. It doesn't seem like there is a difference, and based on pure dictionary definition there isn't really a difference, but in actual use, meaning and intent there is a substantial difference. Take this case, That document was marked FOUO and should not have been released, but no major investigation is likely to take place to find out how it was leaked. It's treated as an oops, and anyone identified in the document needs to be notified that their personal identifying information is at risk. If it were classified even at the Confidential level, it is actually a National Security crime to release/leak it. There are three Classification levels in the US, Confidential, Secret and Top Secret, all other markings are handling caveats that further define who has authorization to access and utilize the information.
Because it can be construed that even though you didn't leave your state, your driving on the publicly funded roads causes wear, that wear affects interstate commerce passing through the area, thus you affect interstate commerce. I heartily disagree with the ruling that established this concept, but until it gets successfully appealed it stands, and is why the commerce clause is being stretched further and further in order to allow federal intrusions into our lives and state laws.
It is a stretch of this ruling that allowed the insurance mandate part of the Healthcare act to exist. Judge Vinson decided that was too much of a stretch, now we wait to see if the Supreme Court agrees or if the commerce clause gets stretched further to authorize more federal intrusions.
No it doesn't. FOUO is a handling Caveat not a Classification. It's not a caveat applicable to classified material because their handling is by default different and restrictive. The document is marked unclassified because it is an unclassified document used/created in an environment where classified materials are extensively used or created, thus it needs to be clearly marked so as to not get it confused with or mixed in with classified materials. The information also meets one or more of the requirements for exemption from FOIA requests, thus the FOUO handling Caveat is applied, which mainly means that FAS shouldn't have gotten it in the first place.
Yep, it's called E-verify it, and it works quite well when employers are willing to use it.
Americans don't do those jobs because while paying taxes and not packing twenty men into an apartment, the Americans who are willing to do that work (and there are many) are so substantially undercut in costs by the illegals that they can't make a living if they try to match costs. The reason you are not seeing Americans doing construction, lawn maintenance and the like is because they've been driven out of the business by illegal labor that can do the job at a cost the tax paying American contractor can't meet.
Not that I agree one bit with how it was passed but a big reason for it not getting any debate is that nearly every congress critter was listed as a sponsor. Why debate something they've already all participated in working out. Of course that is the problem, they worked it out in the Party Caucus rather than in the committees and on the debate floor like is supposed to be done, and then they just passed it through both houses so fast the media barely caught it happening.
Agreed, and it's really hard to accept any claims to a dwindling food supply while the U.S. Government is paying landowners to NOT grow crops. Yes there are people who own potential or one time, farm land who get an annual subsidy check to NOT grow any crops. When we start paying them to grow crops on their land then I'll buy the shortage argument. Because we will be at the point that supply/demand concerns outrank cost/profit concerns.