I think this might be a misnomer. Tig is more difficult than SMAW because you have more controls to muck about with, but it's kind of like driving a bicycle or a car. Once you get the hang of it, it's pretty damn simple (note, I'm not a professions welder and have no clue if my welds would pass any certifications but few of them fail to hold when I need them to).
Auto darkening helmets make about any kind of electrical welding easier to get going. I suggest getting one even if you are going to watch someone else weld. They are relatively cheap now (the same helmet/a comparable one I spend almost $200 on 10 years ago costs about $50 out the door now)
Most of them have a dial that allows you to adjust the darkness a bit along with the delay and so on, so they are useful for different types of welding too. Just make sure that if you get one, that you can get the clear plastic lenses that fit in as a protection for the actual glass that takes the scratches instead of the costly part of the helmet. A neighbor got one online somewhere and couldn't find a source for the replacement lenses for 2 years. They get dulled up and scratched to the point you can barley see through them but don't dare weld without because the same thing will happen to the welding glass that darkens without it.
That's sort of what I was thinking. The best use is to let people who need to use one and do not have one use it. Texas Instruments pretty much shut down most of the modding communities over the calcs but even if they do exist, I'm not sure you could do anything more useful or cool then helping someone finish their education.
I think that really is the question being asked even if it isn't known it was being asked. Is there a use for the calcs more cool or useful then helping students get through or finish parts of their education. There is no right or wrong answer to that I guess, but I would have to think long and hard about any alternatives before I signed off my opinion in support of an alternative.
I'm not sure about why not the 8th, but the 5thh and 14th was because the excessive fines were punitive in nature as established by the intention of the government. Courts in the past have limited the punitive nature of civil judgements as it is applying a penalty or punishment without the due process afforded to trials held to punish behavior (criminal).
So it would at least from the outside, seem prudent to include an argument about excessive fines with an argument that a judgement's excess is punitive in nature and therefor violated due process rights. Maybe it is the process or order of events? IIRC, the judgement was reduced once already but then restored on appeal or vacated by a new trial.
Nowhere in my post I had said that. I merely said that slavery was the issue which triggered Civil War, as opposed to states rights (which were a shibboleth for slavery in that particular context). I fully support respecting and extending states rights in today's context.
Hmm... I said the southern democrats shifted to the republican party because of much of the same reasons of the civil war and if you picked slavery you would be an idiot. Then jumped in, you claimed those reasons are slavery. Well, we all know slavery was one of the issues for the civil war, but it had been dead for almost 100 years when these democrats start moving. But you brought it up so I had to ask.
If that is the case, can you explain why most of the secession announcements from the states spoke at length about slavery, but not about any of those other things?
I don't have to explain that. Slavery was definitely part of the issue at the start of the civil war, It was not the only issue and slavery definitely was not an issue 100 years later- but the other issues still were there.
But yes, you're right that economics was the key issue. That's because the agrarian economics of Southern states that that time was wholly reliant on slavery as an institution. They could barely compete with the industrial North when their cotton was picked by slaves; they couldn't compete at all if slaves became workers that demanded a fair wage for their labor. Everything else was chump change in comparison to that single issue.
lol..South Carolina threatened to secede 3 times before actually doing it. John C. Calhoun wrote the South Carolina Exposition and Protest shortly before resigning from vice president of the US in protest. In it, he argues that the tariffs were protectionist in nature and was a pretext to further damaging the South's economy in favor or protecting the industrial interests of the north. He did bring up slavery in that context too, but this illustrates the complexity of the situation outside of just slavery. The entire south thought they were being used and abused to protect the north's economic interests without slavery even being part of the question. It is the entire big business runs government ordeal that we see today. Generations of making the civil war only about the slaves has allowed us to forget history and empower it to repeat itself.
The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of po
Like I said, this is history, look it up. Mousolini was in the communist socialist party in 1919 and didn't create fascism until 3 or 4 years later when he declared communist too impotent to implement his socialist ideals.
Go ahead and look it up, this is only established history that is very simple to check, you could have even done it before posting with as little as less then a minute involved.
That's interesting, and I think this highlights a fundamental difference between us that might explain why communicating is so difficult.
I actually believe strongly that you should teach the child this way. You shouldn't actually allow your child to get burned, but if you let them touch the stove before it's actually dangerous, or quickly enough that they can feel the heat without getting burned, they'll learn much better than if you just tell them not to do something.
Teaching a child to simply accept what you tell them, without allowing the child to understand why, through their own curiosity, experimentation, and their own thought processes, creates a child that is dependent upon other people telling them what's true. And that's how they'll live the rest of their life. No curiosity, and no ability to actually reason through what they're experiencing and draw their own conclusions, because they never learned to do it.
That would be foolish. Even if we ignore all the dangers out there that could simply kill the child, if it takes them 20 years to discover that 2+2=4 or 2*2+4 some other bit of knowledge, they could easily be way more retarded in their mental development then any understanding of any religious theory could possibly lead to under your insistence that they are incapable of segregating it from other things such as science. Instead, you impart what they need to know to be safe, you impart what they need to know to learn, and when they are capable of figuring it out on their own, they will do so. It does not make anyone independent on someone else to tell them everything the rest of their life unless there is a mental issue preventing them from learning which would negate your concept anyways,.
This is irrational when you consider that:
It is not more irrational then saying Usian Bolt runs faster then you do. It is no more irrational then pluto being a planet for 50+ years then all the sudden there being only 8 planets in the solar system,.
1. Other religions proclaim things in direct contradiction to each other, and your own religion. Since the same argument could be applied to every religion, that means each religion's claims about creation are equally rational and (presumably) all equally on the same footing as scientific consensus. With no rational differentiation between them, adherence to one at the exclusion of all others is inherently irrational.
I think you are forgetting that before there is scientific consensus there is hypothesis and testing that can be incorrect. If you expect everyone not to understand or believe something is true before there is a consensus, then all scientific advancement will stop at the point of consensus and never move forward again. But you are also forgetting a very simple example that is very logical, if the answer is 4, is it because 2+2 was the question or was it because 2*2 was the question or was it because 2n-2 where n=3 was the question. We already have fields of study that posit multiple ways of achieving the same answers and expect the child to competently learn and understand the differences. They are even expected to segregate the usage depending on the situation and environment. Your contention is completely over blown and lacks reason.
2. I could just make shit up that meets your requirements. I can claim that we are all elements of the imagination of a giant space lizard. This magic space lizard just made the entire universe to look like what it is, invented science and Al Gore. We can't see the lizard or test that he exists because he's outside our universe, thinking all of this up. You can't prove he doesn't exist, therefore I am rational believing he does.
And how is that any different then a child ready or watching a Harry Potter book/movie then getting on the computer and using the knowledge learned to play and complete a game? Quite a bit if the people w
I don't know of any reason behind what is happening. I only see what is happening and can see that no matter who is elected, it seems that only the names and names of objects will be different.
They both are socialist programs- Neither is socialized medicine per se more rightly socialized health care. The only difference is whether you pay a middle man first or not, but the government control and forced participation is there. The government is still in control of the treatment options.
Yes, astonishingly, if you stop right before the Republican party decided to pander to racists with the Southern Strategy, and invent some complete nonsense about Nixon and MLK in prison, why, it's completely inexplicable why black voters would have issues with Republicans! (1)
Yes, because the inverse is automagically true despite circumstances and the history surrounding the situation. The republicans lost the black vote well before either of the two major civil rights legislation was passed. The only thing invented is your mental processing in order to construe what you want instead of what was real.
So, let's stop immediately after the 1968 passage of the CRA, and be sure not to reach the racist dog-whistle claptrap that was the 1968 and 1972 presidential election. (Of course, at that time, many people outside the South couldn't hear the dog-whistles, so Nixon still got about 30% of the black vote.)
I hope you can realize that 1968 is quite a few years down the road from 1960 right? Or do you think 1968 all the sudden invented this grand racism strategy you want to persist. Here is a clue, The democrat who blocked black students from entering the school which caused the national guard to be employed, never left the democrat party until he attempted to destroy it. George Wallace created this racism connected to everything monkey you want to keep feeding bananas to.
The rest of what you say is pure nonsense.
1) BTW, the much vaulted 'higher percentage' is only like 15%. Something like 65%-70% of Democrats supported CRAs, and 80-85% Republicans, depending on which bill and house you're talking about. And it was introduced by Democrats and a Democratic president.
So what is your point? Mine was that a larger percent of the party voted in support of the acts. Are you trying to say that 80-85 percent of republicans seated in congress were racists except for when it came to signing onto legislation to promote and protect the civil rights of minorities? You must think it is some master rouge with the republicans pretending not to be racist when laws are being passed and all- but you how it really is, behind the scenes- not because the facts say anything about it, but because you believe it.
I understand where you are coming from and agree with the principle behind it. However, it should be noted that only a law could bar you from doing something. The natural rights of a person to be secure in their home do not necessarily have a legal meaning within the context of the law. Constitutional protections of these rights generally only bar government from violating them.
For instance, If a cop walks up the side walk, onto your drive way and up to your front door using only paths and expected routs that the public would be expected to use in an attempt to contact you, anything he can hear or see in the process is generally exempt from the 4th amendment process. Now if he leaves the path and looks through a window without a warrant or sufficient probable cause, then 4th amendment kicks in strongly. The same is the case with a citizen who isn't restricted by the US Constitution. If you hear or observe something in the same way, it is fair game. If however you leave the path, most state's have laws concerning peeping through windows (mostly aimed at perverts) and trespassing and so on that already bar this activity.
So we have laws that bar cops from something but doesn't necessarily bar citizens from doing it. The problem is that unless the law specifically bars you, you can assume your activities are legal. That is what happened here. A private company asked if a specific law specifically barred them from doing something and the court said that specific law does not specifically bar you because of X. That still doesn't mean it is legal because another law or regulation could bar that specific activity, just not the one questioned.
So you legitimately think "state's rights" is code for the republican's secrete desire to reinstall slavery?
I never said slavery wasn't part of the civil war, I said it wasn't the only part and if you think that was a part of the support the republican got in the south 100 years after the civil war, you would be an idiot.
Economics was the key issues. Like the federal government spending money to protect the north industrial interest at the expense of the south's largely agrarian interests. You had the tariffs issue where the north attempt to protect US made goods in the north from European Goods what were being imported and sold cheaper (especially in the south) along with the nullification crisis where South Carolina, the first state to secede, decided it didn't have to apply the federal tariffs. Many state's complained about the millions being spent to promote and prop up industrial fishing, including payments to a retirement fund for seamen. And many more examples where the feds seemed all to concerned with the north's interest at the expense of the south's.
Turn the stage 100 years later and you still had the north controlling the southern states over the mandates to recommit them to the union. Most of these mandates were unfunded and at the expense of the southern economies (slavery had been abolished almost a century before). The same crap was happening all over again (separate from the civil rights movements). If you think it was about slavery you are an idiot.
I think he's just trying to snake some experience under his belt without committing to a full time gig so he will have an advantage when he graduates.
Perhaps looking into charities who might need a one time thing done, seeing if he could get an internship from the regular people there if they already have staffing for it. Looking for internship or something like this at places family members work might be another job option. Even if its doing mundane drone crap that could probably be done in spare time like parsing logs with scripts or validating backups or something useless he would at least have some first hand experience in how stuff works in the real world.
I don't know what the laws are where he is from, but intern here usually mean little to no pay (definitely below scale) and no benefits. Its like a lower form of on the job training specifically for padding experience.
You do realize that most of the "socialized healthcare" law came straight out of the Republican recommendations of less than 10 years ago and, with the exception of providing vouchers(!) for those who are lower income to buy commercial insurance, is nearly identical to the right's plan as a counter to the Democrats call for a single payer system?
You do realize that rejected and failed plans from the past does not all the sudden mean universal support in the present right? There is a reason why it was just a plan and never a law. Even if all the elected politicians would have signed onto it (which they wouldn't have), they would have been replaced come next election (which is why they didn't).
Every time I see this brought up, I wonder how dense someone has to be to insist it is somehow valid as if no one is allowed to learn from their mistakes.
You don't think that "the government" forcing everyone to get insurance because it makes it cheaper in the long run for those already with insurance isn't socializing it? You don't think that increasing taxes and taking money from medicare in order to provide insurance for the poor isn't socializing it?
It may not be your ideal utopia of socialism but it isn't exactly not socialism either.
The US isn't "vendor locked" into two parties. The problem is that the third parties do not exist with enough backing to become major players. Sure, on the whole, they might have a couple million or more devoted followers in a country that has a population of over 300 million. But they are spread out within so many places that they are more like 1 in 10 or so or even less when it comes to districts and electoral votes.
One of the reasons this is true is because all too often the voter is in damage mode trying to protect themselves by eliminating the most evil candidate. This makes avid third party support at the ballot booth dangerous because if you don't vote against the person you like the least by voting for the person you think is most likely to win, you effectively allow the person you like the least to win. Another part of the reason is that the two major parties are big tent parties. They are not single issue parties and if an idea of concept or even grievance is popular enough, one of them (or both) will pick it up and incorporate it within their platforms.
These two reasons ensure that even if the parties disbanded, they would eventually form into the same shape again. In other areas, the parties do not tend to be so "big tent" and often differ on just a few topics.
By the very same logic, I can say that I could use my special knowledge and some lockpicks, and pick your door lock in only a couple of minutes.
Or more accurately, you could use a high gain parabolic microphone with amplifiers to record and listen to a conversation to far away to hear naturally and from a vantage point that allows your concealment from those under surveillance.
This is _not_ an easy black and white situation. Cops are allowed to go anywhere the public can go and often, if the public can go there, they can hide in other locations and conduct the surveillance without tripping over the 4th amendment even using technology to enable it because they could have been in or at the vantage point publicly accessible. This is even more muddled by the fact that it isn't the government doing the surveillance but a private company in attempts to use the information in a civil and not a criminal case. The 4th amendment might not even be in play which is why this was over federal wiretap laws. However, while this ruling says it is not wiretapping, Section 705 of the Communications Act â" âoeUnauthorized Publication of Communications.â makes it illegal to intercept communications for your own gain. It might still be in question as to whether the company can intercept the communications for the purpose of a law suit. This ruling just said it is not explicitly barred as wiretapping.
Not really. Otherwise the government could go to your ISP or even your computer and check your email on their servers with no probable cause or warrant if they weren't encrypted.
Encoding the email or even the transport layer is a good indication of an expectation of privacy. But the lack of that is not carte blanche for any snooping even though it is technically possible and easily done. As far as sysadmins, if the wire tap laws apply, they are only allowed to read the Emails as part of maintaining their network (unless it's a company email account as employment communications is different). There can still be an expectation of privacy when it is technically easy to spy on people.
The problem with unencrypted wifi is that there has been huge campaigns, even by the device and operating system manufacturers, to inform consumers that if you do not use one of the encryption services offered on the wireless devices, anyone can use the connection for anything including snooping on your network. This of course assumes that a normal person would be paying attention to the news and read the literature that comes with the devices and be somewhat informed of this. So does knowing that someone could intercept and read all communications from a device that isn't encrypted convey an expectation of privacy when it is used unencrypted? That was what the judge had to determine.
Her Alaska record says nothing about if she has a brain or to her intelligence levels. Perhaps you are confusing what you do not like with not intelligent. If that is indeed the case, get ready to not like a lot more as it will ensure you will see a lot of it.
You can make excuses all day long. At the end, we are still talking about nothing effective concerning jobs being done. Obama wasted a golden opportunity to enact his master plans to fix everything and instead used the time to snake through something that half the population didn't want and more then half didn't want in the form it was passed.
If you think that is a sign of a leader, you can vote for him. However, I think it is a sign of the same boss as the old boss and no real difference between the two. Keeping Obama is not going to change anything.
You seem to be implying that Palin doesn't. Not only would that be incorrect, it would be foolish to underestimate her.
Palin has been made to appear not as intelligent as she really is by Tina Fey's interpretation of her on Saturday Night Live. To this day, 4 years later, I still see people who attribute Tina Fey's comments as Palin's original statements. I doubt that would happen next time around as she would use her critics and the comedians to further her goals,
Dude, this is history not your isolated lateral line in a text book where you can insist something is a certain way despite reality. Mussolini was a socialist in 1919, fascism wasn't created around him until 1923 or so.
But you are right, it was Stalin not Mussolini. Working from memory lends itself to mistakes. I see that your corrections had nothing to do with the truth but attempts at insults. Good job at showing your own intelligence.
And you are clueless if you think "all dixiecrats" or "only dixiecrats" became republican. I never said no racist democrat ever turned republican, I said it wasn't just them because the move or shift with the southern democrats was about something other then racism-. Essentially, what has been done is someone said, the people who robbed the bank crossed the street at that corner so everyone who crosses the street there must be bank robbers. Of course that is false but you go ahead and believe anything you want and I will go ahead and notice/comment about how stupid people appear.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this might be a misnomer. Tig is more difficult than SMAW because you have more controls to muck about with, but it's kind of like driving a bicycle or a car. Once you get the hang of it, it's pretty damn simple (note, I'm not a professions welder and have no clue if my welds would pass any certifications but few of them fail to hold when I need them to).
I agree on the oxy acetylene completely though.
Auto darkening helmets make about any kind of electrical welding easier to get going. I suggest getting one even if you are going to watch someone else weld. They are relatively cheap now (the same helmet/a comparable one I spend almost $200 on 10 years ago costs about $50 out the door now)
Most of them have a dial that allows you to adjust the darkness a bit along with the delay and so on, so they are useful for different types of welding too. Just make sure that if you get one, that you can get the clear plastic lenses that fit in as a protection for the actual glass that takes the scratches instead of the costly part of the helmet. A neighbor got one online somewhere and couldn't find a source for the replacement lenses for 2 years. They get dulled up and scratched to the point you can barley see through them but don't dare weld without because the same thing will happen to the welding glass that darkens without it.
What is a glenn beck video?
Google will work for you, I've already checked those terms out and they are gold.
You should look up democratic socialism and Leninism.
That's sort of what I was thinking. The best use is to let people who need to use one and do not have one use it. Texas Instruments pretty much shut down most of the modding communities over the calcs but even if they do exist, I'm not sure you could do anything more useful or cool then helping someone finish their education.
I think that really is the question being asked even if it isn't known it was being asked. Is there a use for the calcs more cool or useful then helping students get through or finish parts of their education. There is no right or wrong answer to that I guess, but I would have to think long and hard about any alternatives before I signed off my opinion in support of an alternative.
I'm not sure about why not the 8th, but the 5thh and 14th was because the excessive fines were punitive in nature as established by the intention of the government. Courts in the past have limited the punitive nature of civil judgements as it is applying a penalty or punishment without the due process afforded to trials held to punish behavior (criminal).
So it would at least from the outside, seem prudent to include an argument about excessive fines with an argument that a judgement's excess is punitive in nature and therefor violated due process rights. Maybe it is the process or order of events? IIRC, the judgement was reduced once already but then restored on appeal or vacated by a new trial.
Hmm... I said the southern democrats shifted to the republican party because of much of the same reasons of the civil war and if you picked slavery you would be an idiot. Then jumped in, you claimed those reasons are slavery. Well, we all know slavery was one of the issues for the civil war, but it had been dead for almost 100 years when these democrats start moving. But you brought it up so I had to ask.
I don't have to explain that. Slavery was definitely part of the issue at the start of the civil war, It was not the only issue and slavery definitely was not an issue 100 years later- but the other issues still were there.
lol..South Carolina threatened to secede 3 times before actually doing it. John C. Calhoun wrote the South Carolina Exposition and Protest shortly before resigning from vice president of the US in protest. In it, he argues that the tariffs were protectionist in nature and was a pretext to further damaging the South's economy in favor or protecting the industrial interests of the north. He did bring up slavery in that context too, but this illustrates the complexity of the situation outside of just slavery. The entire south thought they were being used and abused to protect the north's economic interests without slavery even being part of the question. It is the entire big business runs government ordeal that we see today. Generations of making the civil war only about the slaves has allowed us to forget history and empower it to repeat itself.
Georgia wrote in it's reasons for secession
Like I said, this is history, look it up. Mousolini was in the communist socialist party in 1919 and didn't create fascism until 3 or 4 years later when he declared communist too impotent to implement his socialist ideals.
Go ahead and look it up, this is only established history that is very simple to check, you could have even done it before posting with as little as less then a minute involved.
That would be foolish. Even if we ignore all the dangers out there that could simply kill the child, if it takes them 20 years to discover that 2+2=4 or 2*2+4 some other bit of knowledge, they could easily be way more retarded in their mental development then any understanding of any religious theory could possibly lead to under your insistence that they are incapable of segregating it from other things such as science. Instead, you impart what they need to know to be safe, you impart what they need to know to learn, and when they are capable of figuring it out on their own, they will do so. It does not make anyone independent on someone else to tell them everything the rest of their life unless there is a mental issue preventing them from learning which would negate your concept anyways,.
It is not more irrational then saying Usian Bolt runs faster then you do. It is no more irrational then pluto being a planet for 50+ years then all the sudden there being only 8 planets in the solar system,.
I think you are forgetting that before there is scientific consensus there is hypothesis and testing that can be incorrect. If you expect everyone not to understand or believe something is true before there is a consensus, then all scientific advancement will stop at the point of consensus and never move forward again. But you are also forgetting a very simple example that is very logical, if the answer is 4, is it because 2+2 was the question or was it because 2*2 was the question or was it because 2n-2 where n=3 was the question. We already have fields of study that posit multiple ways of achieving the same answers and expect the child to competently learn and understand the differences. They are even expected to segregate the usage depending on the situation and environment. Your contention is completely over blown and lacks reason.
And how is that any different then a child ready or watching a Harry Potter book/movie then getting on the computer and using the knowledge learned to play and complete a game? Quite a bit if the people w
Interesting concept.
I don't know of any reason behind what is happening. I only see what is happening and can see that no matter who is elected, it seems that only the names and names of objects will be different.
They both are socialist programs- Neither is socialized medicine per se more rightly socialized health care. The only difference is whether you pay a middle man first or not, but the government control and forced participation is there. The government is still in control of the treatment options.
Yes, because the inverse is automagically true despite circumstances and the history surrounding the situation. The republicans lost the black vote well before either of the two major civil rights legislation was passed. The only thing invented is your mental processing in order to construe what you want instead of what was real.
I hope you can realize that 1968 is quite a few years down the road from 1960 right? Or do you think 1968 all the sudden invented this grand racism strategy you want to persist. Here is a clue, The democrat who blocked black students from entering the school which caused the national guard to be employed, never left the democrat party until he attempted to destroy it. George Wallace created this racism connected to everything monkey you want to keep feeding bananas to.
The rest of what you say is pure nonsense.
So what is your point? Mine was that a larger percent of the party voted in support of the acts. Are you trying to say that 80-85 percent of republicans seated in congress were racists except for when it came to signing onto legislation to promote and protect the civil rights of minorities? You must think it is some master rouge with the republicans pretending not to be racist when laws are being passed and all- but you how it really is, behind the scenes- not because the facts say anything about it, but because you believe it.
I understand where you are coming from and agree with the principle behind it. However, it should be noted that only a law could bar you from doing something. The natural rights of a person to be secure in their home do not necessarily have a legal meaning within the context of the law. Constitutional protections of these rights generally only bar government from violating them.
For instance, If a cop walks up the side walk, onto your drive way and up to your front door using only paths and expected routs that the public would be expected to use in an attempt to contact you, anything he can hear or see in the process is generally exempt from the 4th amendment process. Now if he leaves the path and looks through a window without a warrant or sufficient probable cause, then 4th amendment kicks in strongly. The same is the case with a citizen who isn't restricted by the US Constitution. If you hear or observe something in the same way, it is fair game. If however you leave the path, most state's have laws concerning peeping through windows (mostly aimed at perverts) and trespassing and so on that already bar this activity.
So we have laws that bar cops from something but doesn't necessarily bar citizens from doing it. The problem is that unless the law specifically bars you, you can assume your activities are legal. That is what happened here. A private company asked if a specific law specifically barred them from doing something and the court said that specific law does not specifically bar you because of X. That still doesn't mean it is legal because another law or regulation could bar that specific activity, just not the one questioned.
So you legitimately think "state's rights" is code for the republican's secrete desire to reinstall slavery?
I never said slavery wasn't part of the civil war, I said it wasn't the only part and if you think that was a part of the support the republican got in the south 100 years after the civil war, you would be an idiot.
Economics was the key issues. Like the federal government spending money to protect the north industrial interest at the expense of the south's largely agrarian interests. You had the tariffs issue where the north attempt to protect US made goods in the north from European Goods what were being imported and sold cheaper (especially in the south) along with the nullification crisis where South Carolina, the first state to secede, decided it didn't have to apply the federal tariffs. Many state's complained about the millions being spent to promote and prop up industrial fishing, including payments to a retirement fund for seamen. And many more examples where the feds seemed all to concerned with the north's interest at the expense of the south's.
Turn the stage 100 years later and you still had the north controlling the southern states over the mandates to recommit them to the union. Most of these mandates were unfunded and at the expense of the southern economies (slavery had been abolished almost a century before). The same crap was happening all over again (separate from the civil rights movements). If you think it was about slavery you are an idiot.
I think he's just trying to snake some experience under his belt without committing to a full time gig so he will have an advantage when he graduates.
Perhaps looking into charities who might need a one time thing done, seeing if he could get an internship from the regular people there if they already have staffing for it. Looking for internship or something like this at places family members work might be another job option. Even if its doing mundane drone crap that could probably be done in spare time like parsing logs with scripts or validating backups or something useless he would at least have some first hand experience in how stuff works in the real world.
I don't know what the laws are where he is from, but intern here usually mean little to no pay (definitely below scale) and no benefits. Its like a lower form of on the job training specifically for padding experience.
You do realize that rejected and failed plans from the past does not all the sudden mean universal support in the present right? There is a reason why it was just a plan and never a law. Even if all the elected politicians would have signed onto it (which they wouldn't have), they would have been replaced come next election (which is why they didn't).
Every time I see this brought up, I wonder how dense someone has to be to insist it is somehow valid as if no one is allowed to learn from their mistakes.
You don't think that "the government" forcing everyone to get insurance because it makes it cheaper in the long run for those already with insurance isn't socializing it? You don't think that increasing taxes and taking money from medicare in order to provide insurance for the poor isn't socializing it?
It may not be your ideal utopia of socialism but it isn't exactly not socialism either.
The US isn't "vendor locked" into two parties. The problem is that the third parties do not exist with enough backing to become major players. Sure, on the whole, they might have a couple million or more devoted followers in a country that has a population of over 300 million. But they are spread out within so many places that they are more like 1 in 10 or so or even less when it comes to districts and electoral votes.
One of the reasons this is true is because all too often the voter is in damage mode trying to protect themselves by eliminating the most evil candidate. This makes avid third party support at the ballot booth dangerous because if you don't vote against the person you like the least by voting for the person you think is most likely to win, you effectively allow the person you like the least to win. Another part of the reason is that the two major parties are big tent parties. They are not single issue parties and if an idea of concept or even grievance is popular enough, one of them (or both) will pick it up and incorporate it within their platforms.
These two reasons ensure that even if the parties disbanded, they would eventually form into the same shape again. In other areas, the parties do not tend to be so "big tent" and often differ on just a few topics.
Or more accurately, you could use a high gain parabolic microphone with amplifiers to record and listen to a conversation to far away to hear naturally and from a vantage point that allows your concealment from those under surveillance.
This is _not_ an easy black and white situation. Cops are allowed to go anywhere the public can go and often, if the public can go there, they can hide in other locations and conduct the surveillance without tripping over the 4th amendment even using technology to enable it because they could have been in or at the vantage point publicly accessible. This is even more muddled by the fact that it isn't the government doing the surveillance but a private company in attempts to use the information in a civil and not a criminal case. The 4th amendment might not even be in play which is why this was over federal wiretap laws. However, while this ruling says it is not wiretapping, Section 705 of the Communications Act â" âoeUnauthorized Publication of Communications.â makes it illegal to intercept communications for your own gain. It might still be in question as to whether the company can intercept the communications for the purpose of a law suit. This ruling just said it is not explicitly barred as wiretapping.
Not really. Otherwise the government could go to your ISP or even your computer and check your email on their servers with no probable cause or warrant if they weren't encrypted.
Encoding the email or even the transport layer is a good indication of an expectation of privacy. But the lack of that is not carte blanche for any snooping even though it is technically possible and easily done. As far as sysadmins, if the wire tap laws apply, they are only allowed to read the Emails as part of maintaining their network (unless it's a company email account as employment communications is different). There can still be an expectation of privacy when it is technically easy to spy on people.
The problem with unencrypted wifi is that there has been huge campaigns, even by the device and operating system manufacturers, to inform consumers that if you do not use one of the encryption services offered on the wireless devices, anyone can use the connection for anything including snooping on your network. This of course assumes that a normal person would be paying attention to the news and read the literature that comes with the devices and be somewhat informed of this. So does knowing that someone could intercept and read all communications from a device that isn't encrypted convey an expectation of privacy when it is used unencrypted? That was what the judge had to determine.
Her Alaska record says nothing about if she has a brain or to her intelligence levels. Perhaps you are confusing what you do not like with not intelligent. If that is indeed the case, get ready to not like a lot more as it will ensure you will see a lot of it.
You can make excuses all day long. At the end, we are still talking about nothing effective concerning jobs being done. Obama wasted a golden opportunity to enact his master plans to fix everything and instead used the time to snake through something that half the population didn't want and more then half didn't want in the form it was passed.
If you think that is a sign of a leader, you can vote for him. However, I think it is a sign of the same boss as the old boss and no real difference between the two. Keeping Obama is not going to change anything.
You seem to be implying that Palin doesn't. Not only would that be incorrect, it would be foolish to underestimate her.
Palin has been made to appear not as intelligent as she really is by Tina Fey's interpretation of her on Saturday Night Live. To this day, 4 years later, I still see people who attribute Tina Fey's comments as Palin's original statements. I doubt that would happen next time around as she would use her critics and the comedians to further her goals,
Dude, this is history not your isolated lateral line in a text book where you can insist something is a certain way despite reality. Mussolini was a socialist in 1919, fascism wasn't created around him until 1923 or so.
But you are right, it was Stalin not Mussolini. Working from memory lends itself to mistakes. I see that your corrections had nothing to do with the truth but attempts at insults. Good job at showing your own intelligence.
And you are clueless if you think "all dixiecrats" or "only dixiecrats" became republican. I never said no racist democrat ever turned republican, I said it wasn't just them because the move or shift with the southern democrats was about something other then racism-. Essentially, what has been done is someone said, the people who robbed the bank crossed the street at that corner so everyone who crosses the street there must be bank robbers. Of course that is false but you go ahead and believe anything you want and I will go ahead and notice/comment about how stupid people appear.