Gnobody Gnows.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?...
Despite a lack of evidence that peer review works, most scientists (by nature a skeptical lot) appear to believe in peer review. It's something that's held "absolutely sacred" in a field where people rarely accept anything with "blind faith," says Richard Smith, former editor of the BMJ and now CEO of UnitedHealth Europe and board member of PLoS. "It's very unscientific, really."

http://www.ecnmag.com/blogs/20...
As soon as we receive a paper, we publish it," after a cursory quality check. Peer review happens after publication, and in the light of day.

http://www.economist.com/news/...
The hallowed process of peer review is not all it is cracked up to be, either. When a prominent medical journal ran research past other experts in the field, it found that most of the reviewers failed to spot mistakes it had deliberately inserted into papers, even after being told they were being tested.

The people (or more accurately their representatives) made those laws. We can argue all day about the rational for any of them, but it's their choice as to what they want to permit or not in their state. Some would argue that legalized pot, or prostitution is victimless. Others would can counter, and claim both are not...society being the victim, or the young ladies. It mostly depends upon which side of the issue you stand.

Because it's not applied to all jobs. Certainly licensing is appropriately necessary for some positions. The argument here is that there's no reasonable reason for it in this case.

Isn't that a bit like saying that there's only a correlation between head shops and pot use?...Not that I'm against that, or strip clubs, mind you.

Really? You've got no more creativity than that? The problem you mentioned isn't even a problem for the vast majority of FB members. And in spite of allowing us to change settings to "Most Recent", FB continually switches itself back. Pure jackass move on their part.

No shit!

Right, because applying for a job is like being in a Nazi prison camp. Now it's all clear to me.

Seriously, come up with a real excuse.

Invasive?...no. Humiliating...doubtful unless you're very thin skinned. Unnecessary...possibly.

It seems not to be a problem for millions of those who've peed in the cups. Every one of them had the option of walking away.

For those working federal contracts, it's not an option for any company that works in the defense realm, to not do this kind of testing. No test, no clearance, no work. They don't give a shit what the state laws are.

So, they're just as much of a group as say the United Nations then?

Do you play the race card every time someone makes an off color joke about the president?

We got a little frisky the other night, and when she reached down and asked "what's this", I told her it was a 12" super collider.

This is like charging hookers with tax evasion for not filing. If prosecutors can't come up with a real charge then they need to be asking for a change in the law instead of this kind of bullshit.

This news brought to you by the same school that came out with cold fusion...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

NAFTA? That's ripe. I haven't heard anyone pull that out of their asses in ages. Detroit was on a death spiral long before that. The city's tax rates, and corrupt government helped force business out. My grandfather ran a tool & die shop there in the 60s...it was good times. Dad decided to move his box business to Rochester in the 70s because the city was going to hell back then. I personally left in the early 80s because of the massive unemployment...way before NAFTA.