I don't know, I'll go the high road here first... To what "extent" is "permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution?"
Now I'll go the low road... How flimsy of a reason do you think law enforcement bother with to substantiate their probable cause to believe that a person has "committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States?"
You are absolutely right. I would much rather prevent the children of these illegal immigrants from getting a quality education. I would much rather see these families lives insufferable lives back in Mexico with no hope, no future for their children. I would much rather see them get caught up in the drug trade.
You know it's funny, I'd be willing to bet that you are a descendant of an immigrant family. I'm willing to bet that you enjoy a reasonably comfortable life as citizen of the country where you now reside. I'm also willing to bet that your immigrant ancestors lived a seemingly cruel life relative to what you now enjoy and they chose to do that so that their children, and their children's children would have a better life. I wonder what might be going through the minds of these "illegal" immigrants?
You do realize the US has a high unemployment rate and a LOT of Americans would actually be happy to get any job at all?
False. Gainful employment would end unemployment benefits. The jobs filled by these "illegal" residents are available to legal ones. Why don't they apply?
You do ALSO realize those people you claim we "depend" on don't pay taxes to do those cheap jobs?
True. But then neither does anyone else making poverty wages. The US tax rate for those living below the poverty line is $0.
In fact, your taxes go to most of them who go on welfare and other government benefits, but they don't contribute shit.
Partly true. The same however, is true for anyone else making poverty wages. In fact it's much easier and common for legal residents who pay no taxes to acquire these government benefits.
You have a lot of hate the anger, but you have little understanding about the topic you rage about.
Well before the Greeks not sure about the Minoan bit, but earliest "battery" found near Baghdad from 250-225 BCE. However, evidence of electroplating exist from ancient Sumer dating back to at least 2,500 BCE.
The patent process takes longer to complete than the lifespan of most software products. Writing software patent applications would pull valuable engineering resources away from where they're needed most, engineering. If everything that "could" be patented "was" patented then no one would be able to write software without infringing upon someone else's patent. This is largely the case already. Most dev houses get away with infringement because they are either not big enough to bother frying and/or the infringement is non-obvious and they fly under the radar. The expense of patenting from authorship, to lawyers, to application, through to approval is prohibitive. Enforcement of patent rights is reserved for those with war chests large enough to field the researchers, lawyers and court costs, etc..
If I'm understanding things right, the largest portion of the supply problem involved Lotus not keeping pace supplying the bodies. This unfortunately is out of Tesla's control unless they are prepared to invest in their own facilities to produce the bodies. Tesla's leadership has long stated that the roadster was intended to bootstrap the company so that they could pursue things such as their S Model a.k.a. Whitestar (Babylon 5 fan I guess...). It has certainly accomplished that. Anyone mentioning failure doesn't know what they're talking about.
The Roadster may well just be going on hiatus for a time. From what I understand the Lotus plant that produces the body is being shut down for retooling. With no alternative for Tesla and already a shortfall of parts from Lotus, I don't think Tesla really has a choice but to stop production on it. I do hope that they bring back the Roadster. I personally will likely only be able to afford an S Model but the Roadster is inspiring for what an electric vehicle's potential is. If it wasn't for the Roadster I doubt we'd be seeing the present roll out of electric vehicles from other manufacturers.
There was absolutely nothing wrong with the roadster's sales. It was the supply side that had issues. There has never not been a waiting list to get one of those things. The problem was that they cannot keep up with demand. They might be priced outside the reach of the average middle-class American but that never hindered sales. A 6 month wait list hindered sales.
As I see it there are two types of IVR systems. Those systems that efficiently route you to a person or an automated task, and there are those systems that hide the CSRs way at the back and force you to wade through endless lists of "is this your issue?" menu options, with the hopes that somewhere buried within there will be an automated answer so they don't have to pay a CSR to handle your call. I hate the later, and I doubt I'm alone.
That would empower those with money. Big business could dance all over a smaller business' patent rights given that they could not afford to pay for the right to a large damage claim. A far more useful tool against trolls would be to have an expiration date on their time to file a defense against a company leveraging an aspect of their patent. This would eliminate the present game of waiting for a company to get big and more so-called damages to accrue before filing suit. It also might not be a bad idea to expire a patent should it's owner fail to produce and market a commercial product leveraging the claims therein after a period of time.
I think both camps smell like something right about now and it certainly ain't roses. That said, since this is coming from the House *cringe* I'm certain there's an easter egg for the Democrats in there somewhere.
Simple. They are making it easier for big business to clog the system with trash and ill-gotten patents. In so doing big business will have more leverage to enforce the status quo which aligns with conservative ideology.
Ok, so 20% of that then : 1 in 10 (Men) or 1 in 15 (Women) at risk of cancer and unemployed. You of course do realize that many people with cancer fail to maintain employment due to a variety of reasons which means even the "employed with health insurance" crowd will lose their job and subsequently their health insurance. We can of course play with the numbers by factoring out elderly, children, or whatever you feel like excluding, but then I'll just add another catastrophic malady that would make up the statistical difference. The point is, if I were an individual that fancied gambling I'd could place a most confident bet that at some point in a person's life a catastrophic medical condition will coincide with a lack of adequate medical insurance coverage.
Slashdot Mirror
Evidently I should have included a translation for the first part to have it's context understood.
I don't know, I'll go the high road here first... To what "extent" is "permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution?"
Now I'll go the low road... How flimsy of a reason do you think law enforcement bother with to substantiate their probable cause to believe that a person has "committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States?"
Hmm. That's interesting. I wonder why they keep hiring these "illegals" then?
You are absolutely right. I would much rather prevent the children of these illegal immigrants from getting a quality education. I would much rather see these families lives insufferable lives back in Mexico with no hope, no future for their children. I would much rather see them get caught up in the drug trade.
You know it's funny, I'd be willing to bet that you are a descendant of an immigrant family. I'm willing to bet that you enjoy a reasonably comfortable life as citizen of the country where you now reside. I'm also willing to bet that your immigrant ancestors lived a seemingly cruel life relative to what you now enjoy and they chose to do that so that their children, and their children's children would have a better life. I wonder what might be going through the minds of these "illegal" immigrants?
You do realize the US has a high unemployment rate and a LOT of Americans would actually be happy to get any job at all?
False. Gainful employment would end unemployment benefits. The jobs filled by these "illegal" residents are available to legal ones. Why don't they apply?
You do ALSO realize those people you claim we "depend" on don't pay taxes to do those cheap jobs?
True. But then neither does anyone else making poverty wages. The US tax rate for those living below the poverty line is $0.
In fact, your taxes go to most of them who go on welfare and other government benefits, but they don't contribute shit.
Partly true. The same however, is true for anyone else making poverty wages. In fact it's much easier and common for legal residents who pay no taxes to acquire these government benefits.
You have a lot of hate the anger, but you have little understanding about the topic you rage about.
I get your point but that's an epic logic fail there. Don't ever go into software development.
I don't know, do you figure the pasty white Scandinavian grandmother will be asked for documentation proving her status as a legal resident?
I don't feel a breeze. Do you feel a breeze?
Don't worry this worked well for Germany. "Was? Keine Papiere? Sie müssen ein Jude zu sein und sind verhaftet!"
No, no that's only for citizens.
Well before the Greeks not sure about the Minoan bit, but earliest "battery" found near Baghdad from 250-225 BCE. However, evidence of electroplating exist from ancient Sumer dating back to at least 2,500 BCE.
The patent process takes longer to complete than the lifespan of most software products. Writing software patent applications would pull valuable engineering resources away from where they're needed most, engineering. If everything that "could" be patented "was" patented then no one would be able to write software without infringing upon someone else's patent. This is largely the case already. Most dev houses get away with infringement because they are either not big enough to bother frying and/or the infringement is non-obvious and they fly under the radar. The expense of patenting from authorship, to lawyers, to application, through to approval is prohibitive. Enforcement of patent rights is reserved for those with war chests large enough to field the researchers, lawyers and court costs, etc..
If I'm understanding things right, the largest portion of the supply problem involved Lotus not keeping pace supplying the bodies. This unfortunately is out of Tesla's control unless they are prepared to invest in their own facilities to produce the bodies. Tesla's leadership has long stated that the roadster was intended to bootstrap the company so that they could pursue things such as their S Model a.k.a. Whitestar (Babylon 5 fan I guess...). It has certainly accomplished that. Anyone mentioning failure doesn't know what they're talking about.
The Roadster may well just be going on hiatus for a time. From what I understand the Lotus plant that produces the body is being shut down for retooling. With no alternative for Tesla and already a shortfall of parts from Lotus, I don't think Tesla really has a choice but to stop production on it. I do hope that they bring back the Roadster. I personally will likely only be able to afford an S Model but the Roadster is inspiring for what an electric vehicle's potential is. If it wasn't for the Roadster I doubt we'd be seeing the present roll out of electric vehicles from other manufacturers.
But they're a novel use of flags. Surely you can't tell me anyone has considered using flags to mark something as "privileged" before...
There was absolutely nothing wrong with the roadster's sales. It was the supply side that had issues. There has never not been a waiting list to get one of those things. The problem was that they cannot keep up with demand. They might be priced outside the reach of the average middle-class American but that never hindered sales. A 6 month wait list hindered sales.
As I see it there are two types of IVR systems. Those systems that efficiently route you to a person or an automated task, and there are those systems that hide the CSRs way at the back and force you to wade through endless lists of "is this your issue?" menu options, with the hopes that somewhere buried within there will be an automated answer so they don't have to pay a CSR to handle your call. I hate the later, and I doubt I'm alone.
How did the presentation go?
That would empower those with money. Big business could dance all over a smaller business' patent rights given that they could not afford to pay for the right to a large damage claim. A far more useful tool against trolls would be to have an expiration date on their time to file a defense against a company leveraging an aspect of their patent. This would eliminate the present game of waiting for a company to get big and more so-called damages to accrue before filing suit. It also might not be a bad idea to expire a patent should it's owner fail to produce and market a commercial product leveraging the claims therein after a period of time.
You know, from time to time I've wondered if it might not be faster to get upstream by propelling the country down.
I think both camps smell like something right about now and it certainly ain't roses. That said, since this is coming from the House *cringe* I'm certain there's an easter egg for the Democrats in there somewhere.
Simple. They are making it easier for big business to clog the system with trash and ill-gotten patents. In so doing big business will have more leverage to enforce the status quo which aligns with conservative ideology.
Great then it's business as usual. Next.
Ok, so 20% of that then : 1 in 10 (Men) or 1 in 15 (Women) at risk of cancer and unemployed. You of course do realize that many people with cancer fail to maintain employment due to a variety of reasons which means even the "employed with health insurance" crowd will lose their job and subsequently their health insurance. We can of course play with the numbers by factoring out elderly, children, or whatever you feel like excluding, but then I'll just add another catastrophic malady that would make up the statistical difference. The point is, if I were an individual that fancied gambling I'd could place a most confident bet that at some point in a person's life a catastrophic medical condition will coincide with a lack of adequate medical insurance coverage.
So you see, when you or anyone else lets go of this ball it will fall to the ground. But, for me it will sail to the heavens...
You omit the fact that most of it doesn't come into effect until 2012 and $1T isn't the annual cost why?