Apostrophe now! It's the beginning of the end!

Heh - you're cute. While many finished products don't have a tariff - arms aren't exactly in a small group of tariffed goods.

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
http://hts.usitc.gov/

That's not true at all. The top students at the top 10% of schools are worth far more than min wage even has freshmen summer interns. One, common sense is present or not at this stage. Two, many of these kids come from upper-middle or better backgrounds and know how to conduct themselves in business settings. Many have leadership experience from shift leads in high school jobs, clubs, sports, and even directing household help like the maid.

Upbringing isn't just education, much of our practical knowledge is set from our upbringing.

Because people that censor don't deserve our respect or compliance. Information wants to be free. And one day, so will the people of China.

You betcha. Isn't is nice of you to do that so he can consider maybe taking a part time job in IT this year?

100 years ago his factory job would have found his request for a soothing emotional atmosphere amusing.

Would you all shut up and buy more coins? I'm up almost 20% in the last 30 days and I want to see bitcoin hit 6 USD!

Actually - you're all wrong. In the US it's cracked 15%.

http://osxdaily.com/2011/03/18/mac-market-share-around-the-world-usa-15-canada-14-australia-14-and-more/

I know it's not as controlled, but letting actual people live in this town would have a few benefits.

1. Some people would get a place to live.
2. If you want simulation data for humans, why not just use humans?

Seriously, let people live there for free or nearly free and the deal is they have to let scientists into their homes whenever for testing and upgrades. They also give up privacy for all of their anonimized actions and give up certain privacy for identifiable information, like photos. Bonus round, let them run the businesses too. Seriously, in the days of the WPA there were all sorts of co op planned communities that went up all at once, like Greenbelt, MD. Many of them are still thriving.

From the article:

"He was a 17-year-old, and the curator of the museum was close, like a father to him," said Seattle attorney Daniel Harris, who is representing Anderson.

Like a father father, your statement is false, your argument is invalid. The moon rocks were given by Nixon to the various government bodies, not licensed by NASA or distributed with a EULA. NASA's interest ended, and they are using the only tools they have available, intimidation and shame. Can someone please explain to me why it is important that we collect every spec of dust brought back with that moon mission? We have some, and if we want more moon rocks, well we know where they are, right?

I couldn't disagree more vigorously with Ms. O'Neill, it's exactly what I expect of a professional educator. Mature thought is supposed to make us challenge our current assumptions, not change them, but at least think about them.

This teacher is making people think. And on a completely different note, this is standard practice in a security audit. Think like the bad guy.

Move along, the only story here is an administrator acting stupidly and hindering someone trying to practice their profession well.

Here OP, let me make an analogy to explain why Apple is not entirely responsible, only partially, for Foxconn.

Why should we let the OP (or any other poster) abdicate responsibility for their supply chain? If OP chooses to work with a grocery store, then OP is on the hook for ensuring the grocery store is a reputable and humane supplier.

Or is it okay to let a poster like OP accrue the benefits of outsourcing (i.e. not having to have a farm or barter with farmers directly) while ignoring negative consequences (i.e. environmental damage, inhumane working conditions, etc.)?

See how silly that sounds? Now, in reality responsibility scales proportionally to percentage of gross sales you make up for your supplier. OP to his grocery is a many to one relationship, giving him little responsibility. Apple to Foxconn is a few to one relationship, giving apple more, but not total responsibility. However, when a supplier has only one customer, that customer has total responsibility.

Actually even if there was a strong criminal / intentional exclusion on the policy it probably wouldn't matter. Business insurance policies have an innocent party carveback, so the policies would defend everyone who did not commit an intentional / criminal act. So, an individual who gave an order to ignore a safety regulation in violation of a criminal statute would not be defended against civil litigation individually, his company would still have the policy defend them unless the rest of the company knew / agreed to violate the law.