This seems like circular logic. First one has to define what a "Neanderthal" is before answering that question.

Drawing hard lines in the sand is perhaps not possible. Neanderthals would share a vast majority of our DNA just by being hominids. There are clusterings of genetic patterns, but a cluster is not a clear-cut distinction.

So by what metric are Neanderthals extinct, if there are Neanderthals who have living descendants with a measurable amount of their genetic makeup?

There is no living population, large enough to produce additional generations of viable offspring, with a full, or substantial, Neanderthal genome.

Actually if that is the reason for doing it then the hypocrisy has more to do with free trade and innovation than big government. The US keeps wanting to setup free trade agreements which export its IP laws "to protect US innovations" and (allegedly) promote free trade. At the same it is passing internal laws to exclude foreign competition and is so hell bent to do so it doesn't care if it damages some highly innovative US companies in the process. Mind you I'm not sure whether this is a case of double hypocrisy or just shooting yourself in the foot, twice.

Corporations are not just people, but protected people now.

Frequent inspections cost money; they ain't free. A biz would factor that into the cost when choosing between supplier A and B from the example.

Moral issues aside, this seems like a bad business move. If you are a device manufacturer choosing between chip A and chip B, and the vendor for chip B bricks their clones, then you would prefer chip A.

This is because if you accidentally get a bad shipment of clone chips, and put them into your devices, your devices will be subject to bricking, creating returns and bad PR.

Plus, having some cloners around gives you a spare option if the main company bellies up.

Ask.com still exists?

I don't know about the company, but their damned tool-bar still does.

And in another 100 years, we'll see a dupe.

And if the slick salesperson lies and says "yes, they are legit"?

It's a mistake in my opinion to dump this problem onto the consumer; it's not realistic for them to police all the parts of gizmos they buy.

Maybe my comment was misunderstood. I am referring to Parliment Hill itself and the grounds of parliment, which are pretty much a public commons. Anyone can just waltz onto parliment hill and have lunch.

Not quite the same ramifications as waltzing onto the south lawn.

The reason I pointed this out is because the summary above talks about the shooter "jumping the stone fence", I would hardly call it a fence.

You gain no privacy or right-mindedness by not letting mail "stay" on their servers.

The law disagrees. Stored e-mail is different than e-mail that passes through a server.

It's important for non-Canadians to realize that Parliment Hill is not the White House or US Senate. Parliment in Canada is a public commons. There is no security at all on the ground of Parliment and the space is routinely used for large scale public protests and demonstrations, less than a couple of dozen yards of Parliment itself. It's a different ball game.

Learn Cowboy Neal's Secret for ...

I get new ideas by cleaning out old files.