I don't think copper has to be refined - that's why it was the first metal fashioned into tools.
Agree that refining differences should be able to picked up in sophisticated analytical chemistry techniques - but copper is a special case. You might have to fire it, but if you use old coal, I'm not sure you'd introduce any new impurities.
what's the difference between copper that was dug up 2000 years ago and copper that was dug up yesterday?
I'm no expert, but if we're talking about non-organics, my guess is that the only way to tell the difference between authentic objects and fakes is workmanship - and since roman currency was made by pounding an ingot with a stamp - it seems reasonably easy to replicate that as well.
The other side contains a few people who "think the founding fathers were onto something," and a whole lot of people who couldn't tell you want the 10th amendment is and really just want an authoritarian government with an official religion that "keeps us safe" by any means necessary.
Your prognosticating is comical. FDR who was more interventionist than anyone but (maybe) Bernie Sanders in power today was president for 14 years, and was followed by another very progressive president and we didn't end up in the third world. In fact, we had the single longest uninterrupted economic expansion since the civil war. If the GOP can muster a populist uprising (with their 20% self identified republicans), it'll be to impose their moral values, not their fiscal ones.
The Congress shall have power...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
A couple of things. The federal sales tax is currently a uniform 0%.
SCOTUS could easily rule that Monday is Polka day, but I'm not sure how they'd couch that in the constitution or in case law.
The constitution gives congress the power to regulate interstate trade - not intra state trade - the 10th Ammendment therefore means that the states have the right to impose their own sales taxes.
Of course SCOTUS could also pull some tortured logic to argue that buisness entirely within a state is actually interstate commerce - and stop paying lip service to the 10th amendment all together.
I don't know about that. The clause in question reads: "The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"
So if congress passes a law that says states can collect taxes, then that should be ok - because congress has that power.
I'm not upgrading until the irony detector highlights all ironic posts by platinum members for non-platinum users - they're the ones I have the most trouble with... (and until they fix that bug where it keeps detecting Alanis Morissette irony.)
if you buy a Lexus of or Acura, you might not get better reliability (as distinct from quality), your buying better interiors (which is better quality), better styling, and of course a better badge. Whether those differences are worth the premium is a personal decision, sorta like buying a Mac.
On the other hand, I would never buy (another) VW - but depending on what I was in the market for I'd seriously consider buying an Audi - those two brands are worlds apart in virtually every metric, even if they're made by the same company.
I don't think that's it. Google has worked out with a deal with the AP which allows them to carry that news directly. This deal undoubtedly involved google giving money to the AP. If the newspapers are unhappy that their particular rehashing of an AP article doesn't make the top of the list, they can cry me a river. If the newspapers aren't happy with the deal they're getting from the AP they should end that relationship.
If a newspaper does it's own reporting google still links directly to the newspaper. No one knows exactly how googles ranking algorithm works, but suffice to say if you write the most popular article about a particular news story, you're going to be at or near the top of the list. There is a bit of a self reinforcing cycle here because as soon as google lists you at the top, you're going to become plenty more popular, but in theory as a story is breaking the news sources should be more or less on equal footing.
All that said, I'd like to add that while plenty of people are giddy about the death of old media, I'm a not nearly so sanguine. I'm worried about the future of investigative journalism, and I've got to think that for every investigative journalist that huffpo hires, 10 are laid off from the rocky mountain news. Blogging has done a lot to give stories perspective, but there's a value in having full time reporters that i don't self-publishing freelancers are likely to equal. I hope whatever the ultimate outcome is, it involves dispersed funding, and that the more newspapers don't become vanity presses like the Washington Times and the New York Post.
I'm certainly not going to disagree with that. Although I would add that you hardly have to be a religious zealot to think the banning of these particular images is in societies best interest. I'm a pretty progressively minded individual, and while I'll complain about the stupidity of charging teenagers with producing child porn of themselves, you're not going to find me arguing against the validity of child porn statutes.
Isn't the whole reason (excuse) for making some images illegal that a crime was committed in MAKING it
No. The reason for making some images are illegal is that we, as a society think that having such images floating around is a "real bad idea." Further, we can think of no redeeming value for allowing those images, so we ban them outright. That this helps (in theory) prevent child abuse is a bonus. If all we were interested in was preventing child abuse, we'd just outlaw child abuse. Taking, possessing, or distributing images sexually explicit pictures of children is something we've deemed as a bad thing in and of itself.
The idea that children should be punished for doing stupid things by themselves is hardly unbroken ground. It only enters the realm of asinine when you try to charge them as adults for an action that - by definition - they have to be children to commit.
It doesn't involve releasing the exploit per se - simply telling the vendor that you have an exploit and want to be paid could qualify. The implication is that you possess damaging information about the vendor - who knows what happens if money doesn't change hands. Even if you don't release it, you might be able to give your buddies hints on where to look.
USAToday isn't quite right either. All the questions labeled as illegal, would be more properly classed as questions which would be a real bad idea to ask.
In all these cases the thing that's actually illegal is basing hiring decisions on a protected class. Some questions point very strongly to discriminatory practices, but every case is different, and there simply are no hard and fast rules when it comes to discrimination.
Imagine during an interview there's a portion where you talk with someone who holds the position you're applying for. This person has no say in the hiring process itself - they aren't even consulted - they're only role in the hiring process is to answer your questions about the job. If during the course of conversation they ask you about your veteran status, even if it's recorded on tape, on that basis alone you're not likely to win if you bring a discrimination suit - especially if the company can point to a number of veterans and non-veterans on it's staff. If the question itself were illegal as USAToday states, that would be a slam dunk. (FWIW anyone with any interaction with job candidates should know not to ask any questions that lead to discussions about any protected class related topics.)
How about a belief in luck, fate, destiny? How about beliefs about our own importance? How about basically any belief or practice in social situations and sexual attraction? How about fears of heights, dogs, or darkness?
Humans are animals, and our brains are hard wired for survival, not for alignment with objective scientific realities. Anything that involves superstition or interaction with other animals are either survival or reproductive methods considerably older than the bronze age.
No it's not illegal to ask about anything in a job interview.
What it does do is open a giant door for a lawsuit. If you ask a candidate about religion, it makes it really easy for them to argue in court that you were using that information to illegally discriminate against religion - because why else would you ask about it.
If you give this type of questionnaire to prospective employees you better be very careful to document the rational for every hiring decision. In fact if you absolutely must give a psych screen (and there are very, very few jobs that would truly require this) you're better off contracting the testing out to a third party who only provides you their interpretation. Also you should probably have a good employment lawyer on retainer and lots of insurance.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think copper has to be refined - that's why it was the first metal fashioned into tools.
Agree that refining differences should be able to picked up in sophisticated analytical chemistry techniques - but copper is a special case. You might have to fire it, but if you use old coal, I'm not sure you'd introduce any new impurities.
that's why I buy all my pre-columbian artifacts on amazon's marketplace.
what's the difference between copper that was dug up 2000 years ago and copper that was dug up yesterday?
I'm no expert, but if we're talking about non-organics, my guess is that the only way to tell the difference between authentic objects and fakes is workmanship - and since roman currency was made by pounding an ingot with a stamp - it seems reasonably easy to replicate that as well.
The other side contains a few people who "think the founding fathers were onto something," and a whole lot of people who couldn't tell you want the 10th amendment is and really just want an authoritarian government with an official religion that "keeps us safe" by any means necessary.
Your prognosticating is comical. FDR who was more interventionist than anyone but (maybe) Bernie Sanders in power today was president for 14 years, and was followed by another very progressive president and we didn't end up in the third world. In fact, we had the single longest uninterrupted economic expansion since the civil war. If the GOP can muster a populist uprising (with their 20% self identified republicans), it'll be to impose their moral values, not their fiscal ones.
which makes the planting more reasonable than abolishment of copyright.
The Congress shall have power...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
authors, as opposed to musicians, typically hold the copyright to their work.
A couple of things. The federal sales tax is currently a uniform 0%.
SCOTUS could easily rule that Monday is Polka day, but I'm not sure how they'd couch that in the constitution or in case law.
The constitution gives congress the power to regulate interstate trade - not intra state trade - the 10th Ammendment therefore means that the states have the right to impose their own sales taxes.
Of course SCOTUS could also pull some tortured logic to argue that buisness entirely within a state is actually interstate commerce - and stop paying lip service to the 10th amendment all together.
I don't know about that. The clause in question reads: "The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"
So if congress passes a law that says states can collect taxes, then that should be ok - because congress has that power.
(as usual IANAConstitutional Scholar)
plenty. Those debating the point just don't like having their arguments framed that way.
I'm not upgrading until the irony detector highlights all ironic posts by platinum members for non-platinum users - they're the ones I have the most trouble with... (and until they fix that bug where it keeps detecting Alanis Morissette irony.)
you mean like this guy?
Except their nukes don't work either...
So Kim Jong Il's master plan is to send a duck of a missile somewhere near Japan with a fizzle capable warhead? Hey maybe he saw it in a movie...
agreed.
The blackmail-the-royals market needs to remain a domestic business.
if you buy a Lexus of or Acura, you might not get better reliability (as distinct from quality), your buying better interiors (which is better quality), better styling, and of course a better badge. Whether those differences are worth the premium is a personal decision, sorta like buying a Mac.
On the other hand, I would never buy (another) VW - but depending on what I was in the market for I'd seriously consider buying an Audi - those two brands are worlds apart in virtually every metric, even if they're made by the same company.
I don't think that's it. Google has worked out with a deal with the AP which allows them to carry that news directly. This deal undoubtedly involved google giving money to the AP. If the newspapers are unhappy that their particular rehashing of an AP article doesn't make the top of the list, they can cry me a river. If the newspapers aren't happy with the deal they're getting from the AP they should end that relationship.
If a newspaper does it's own reporting google still links directly to the newspaper. No one knows exactly how googles ranking algorithm works, but suffice to say if you write the most popular article about a particular news story, you're going to be at or near the top of the list. There is a bit of a self reinforcing cycle here because as soon as google lists you at the top, you're going to become plenty more popular, but in theory as a story is breaking the news sources should be more or less on equal footing.
All that said, I'd like to add that while plenty of people are giddy about the death of old media, I'm a not nearly so sanguine. I'm worried about the future of investigative journalism, and I've got to think that for every investigative journalist that huffpo hires, 10 are laid off from the rocky mountain news. Blogging has done a lot to give stories perspective, but there's a value in having full time reporters that i don't self-publishing freelancers are likely to equal. I hope whatever the ultimate outcome is, it involves dispersed funding, and that the more newspapers don't become vanity presses like the Washington Times and the New York Post.
I'm certainly not going to disagree with that. Although I would add that you hardly have to be a religious zealot to think the banning of these particular images is in societies best interest. I'm a pretty progressively minded individual, and while I'll complain about the stupidity of charging teenagers with producing child porn of themselves, you're not going to find me arguing against the validity of child porn statutes.
No. The reason for making some images are illegal is that we, as a society think that having such images floating around is a "real bad idea." Further, we can think of no redeeming value for allowing those images, so we ban them outright. That this helps (in theory) prevent child abuse is a bonus. If all we were interested in was preventing child abuse, we'd just outlaw child abuse. Taking, possessing, or distributing images sexually explicit pictures of children is something we've deemed as a bad thing in and of itself.
The idea that children should be punished for doing stupid things by themselves is hardly unbroken ground. It only enters the realm of asinine when you try to charge them as adults for an action that - by definition - they have to be children to commit.
It doesn't involve releasing the exploit per se - simply telling the vendor that you have an exploit and want to be paid could qualify. The implication is that you possess damaging information about the vendor - who knows what happens if money doesn't change hands. Even if you don't release it, you might be able to give your buddies hints on where to look.
You've got to be careful though, it could also be blackmail.
technically you've eaten steer.
No decently populated area is going to let you run cable willy-nilly between buildings. You could probably bury it, but that gets expensive fast.
USAToday isn't quite right either. All the questions labeled as illegal, would be more properly classed as questions which would be a real bad idea to ask.
In all these cases the thing that's actually illegal is basing hiring decisions on a protected class. Some questions point very strongly to discriminatory practices, but every case is different, and there simply are no hard and fast rules when it comes to discrimination.
Imagine during an interview there's a portion where you talk with someone who holds the position you're applying for. This person has no say in the hiring process itself - they aren't even consulted - they're only role in the hiring process is to answer your questions about the job. If during the course of conversation they ask you about your veteran status, even if it's recorded on tape, on that basis alone you're not likely to win if you bring a discrimination suit - especially if the company can point to a number of veterans and non-veterans on it's staff. If the question itself were illegal as USAToday states, that would be a slam dunk. (FWIW anyone with any interaction with job candidates should know not to ask any questions that lead to discussions about any protected class related topics.)
you're kidding right?
How about a belief in luck, fate, destiny? How about beliefs about our own importance? How about basically any belief or practice in social situations and sexual attraction? How about fears of heights, dogs, or darkness?
Humans are animals, and our brains are hard wired for survival, not for alignment with objective scientific realities. Anything that involves superstition or interaction with other animals are either survival or reproductive methods considerably older than the bronze age.
No it's not illegal to ask about anything in a job interview.
What it does do is open a giant door for a lawsuit. If you ask a candidate about religion, it makes it really easy for them to argue in court that you were using that information to illegally discriminate against religion - because why else would you ask about it.
If you give this type of questionnaire to prospective employees you better be very careful to document the rational for every hiring decision. In fact if you absolutely must give a psych screen (and there are very, very few jobs that would truly require this) you're better off contracting the testing out to a third party who only provides you their interpretation. Also you should probably have a good employment lawyer on retainer and lots of insurance.