Once it's built it will probably only employee low-paid assembly line workers and some managers.

(Which isn't STEM, but may still be an improvement on the way the USA has been hedded for the past few decades.)

A factory that makes giants.

Anyone can get a sweetheart deal in Nevada. Microsoft and Amazon are already firmly established their.

Nevada's economy is so weak that there was once serious consideration of reverting its rushed statehood.

Most people don't understand the compliance. There's good and bad, but there's no going back once your industry (candle makers, software writers, barbers, whoever) adapts a standard it invariably becomes a tool of an authority.

Good: What I like about it is that our certifications increase accountability by encouraging recording mistakes. The "routine" of flagging mistakes and finding root causes and formalizing "corrective and preventative action" has been good and improved our company.

Bad: These standards are adapted by many companies in order to reduce competition, take away via consensus unique individual methods for doing things. They become almost like a "union", punishing individual innovation via auditors that view the world inside a "box". Uniqueness and innovation are an increased cost and risk to the third party auditor, and the auditor is ready to adapt the majority interpretation - which is usually to increase barrier of entry into the field of competiton.

As Morris Kleiner, the AFL-CIO chair in labor policy at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota, put it "Occupational licensing has either no impact or even a negative impact on the quality of services provided to customers by members of the regulated occupation."

But dealing with reality is very logical.

If you don't want people to see pictures of you naked, don't take the pictures.
And if you do, don't put them on a computer.
And if you do, don't put them on a computer on the internet.
And if you do, don't put them on someone else's computer on the internet.

If they're out there, someone is going to get them.

Two of which are irrelevant for deciding constitutionally.

And if a higher court has already agreed that what they are using the Patriot Act to justify is constitutional, they need merely cite the case. Otherwise they're just trying to blow smoke up the judges' asses. Or arguing that Appeals Courts' opinions don't matter.

(I wouldn't think either was a good strategy for an argument in an Appeals Court, but maybe they think Appeals Courts' judges are stupid.)

Is this article some kind of joke I don't quite get?

I suspect people put too much emphasis on brain evolution as an explanation for technological innovation. Think how slow innovation would be coming now if the world population was 50,000 and we didn't have writing.

Our ancestors of maybe 10,000 years ago had a material culture closer to the apes than to us, but we probably hyaven't changed much during that period.

Probably I should learn to spell it, but if you got a laugh out of it, more power to you.

Low as my opinion of Obama is, I'd certainly vote for him again if he was running against the same two clowns as last time, or the two psychopaths from the time before.

I hardly imagine that that would matter, other than give his successor the "terrorism" excuse to do whatever he wanted.

Putin's cronies at the FSB put him into power. His successor isn't going to a have noticibly different agenda.

Which have been NATO countries for a decade. The Soviet^w^w Russia will have a bit more trouble getting them back.

In fact, Putin may be making his play for Ukrania now, lest it also slip permanently beyond his reach.

What is it with all these short leaders and their need for military conquests? Compensating for something less publically visible?

Well, it's a fact that hippies didn't have any money.