What percentage of people working at (or close to) minimum wage receive government assistance?
I read somewhere that the vast majority of people close to the minimum wage have moved up after a short time.
Noone I personally know who works for minimum wage receives government assistance. Most people
I personally know who work for minimum wage are single kids usually still living at home and getting
their first job. The problem I see with a high minimum wage is that it kills alot of entry level job so you
end up with a bunch of people who have no way of getting job experience. And you can't solve this
by making teenagers exempt from minimum wage as then companies have an incentive to only
hire inexperienced people and the few people who really do need minimum wage jobs are passed over
because they have a higher minimum wage.

Why would they charge more? Because it is technology? My guess is that when/if they start doing this
it will be so that they can see more patients in a given period of time and/or cut down on buildings,
staffing, etc... i.e. They will be doing it to save money. You might not see the saving but it doesn't
make sense that they would charge more for this service.

If you ignore the ability to restrict personal data to particular people, news feed with intelligent ranking that tries to guess who your real friends are so you don't have to upset people who post a lot by defriending them, the ability to tag people in photos, the lack of any need for meaningless URLs and a seamless way of organising events ...... then sure. Facebook is just like the web.

Connected to an email service.

With some automated responses (like) and mass mailing features.

Connected to some games

All held together by exclusivity That is, they won't let you someone's blog, email them, or get emails, unless you join them.

Well, I did leave some extra stuff out - but basically the other stuff is all the privacy killing back office things that no users wants - i.e. the ability to tag other people's photos, the ability to track people viewing, etc. etc.

If you make a distributed version of it, it's called THE INTERNET.

P.S. It already exists. Frankly, the entire thing is just a simplified way for non technical people to get involved on the internet. Not everyone realizes how useful a blog, mass mailings, etc. are so they packaged them up as a "Social Network" and suddenly people that never heard of a blog are blogging.

As other people have pointed out, not all of the fake chips have those markings—or any markings, for that matter. This tells me that some company special-ordered batches of chips that were silk screened with those markings, but that the part normally comes blank.

And who would want a 9" pianist figurine anyway?

No. You cannot say "we're a country of low violent crime except for all the violent criminals".

I'll bet you see the fallacy in that argument.

It's a bit of a chicken or egg thing. If women made up 90% of minecraft players, this probably wouldn't be happening/be permitted.

I hadn't seen that on the servers I played on (Madrealms) but maybe that's because I felt like I was with peter pan and the lost boys. There were no female players.

I was introduced to minecraft by a female player but she clearly couldn't comprehend the way I liked it. She was still spending 4 hours a day and building stuff when I was making redstone devices and spending 8+ hours a day on it. It was a serious addiction! (and it's running right now while I test some things for an adventure area in our survival server).

I don't expect a guarantee but I do expect them to not be DOA and I also don't expect someone to intentionally disable
them 6 months later. Accidently, then yeah, no big deal, I just buy a new one.

"damage to human welfare, the environment, the economy or national security in any country"

First note that it allows for damaging the national security in any country. So the UK is now the world police? Hey, I thought that was the USA's job! Also, does that mean they will protect ISIL? Or North Korea? Does that mean when the government of South Korea attempts to defend itself from a cyberattack from North Korea, they are violating the UK's law? It's damaging the National Security of North Korea by preventing them from undermining South Korea!

Human welfare, the environment, the economy or National security pretty much covers ANYTHING. And the word damage is similarly vague.

When I use Hack BP's computer and find out they are illegally dumping oil in Scotland, isn't that damaging the economy by revealing BP's crime?

When the FBI pretends to be a criminal on Facebook, isn't that damaging the 'welfare" of the human criminal?

This is a law designed to let the UK selectively arrest anyone who does anything on a computer that is 'unauthorised'.

Worst law ever

I want them to have the tools that they might realistically need

I do too. I just don't want them to have those tools be less obtrusive or noticeable.

There's already some statistics on departments that have started using wearable cams for their officers, and the drop in police use of force, and in citizens' complaints about police abuse, are quite remarkable.

If police behave better when there are eyes on them, I don't want to take ears off them.

I realize your argument is more reasonable, by the way. Just so you know I'm aware of that. I'm just still a little raw from a summer with so many examples of the negative results when local municipal police officers become Tommy Tactical. I'm not talking about SWAT teams, I'm talking about regular rank and file officers.

I live two blocks from the Chicago Police Academy - walk the dog around the campus every day - and after decades of seeing the department start to hire more professional men and women, it's disheartening to see ex-Blackwater commandos training them in urban warfare.

First, there's no such thing as "illegal access to software". The customer may be violating a licensing agreement, but as a rule, that's not a criminal offense.

Second, I'm pretty sure there are third-party FTDI drivers out there. So you really can't make the argument that the clone chip vendors don't have an alternate driver. The best you can do is state that if a clone gets bricked, it means that the commercial FTDI driver was loaded at least once by the customer for some reason (possibly with the intent to use it with the clone hardware, but possibly to use it with some other device), and that it matched the clone because it was attached while that driver was loaded.

Besides, they aren't FTDI's chips, so FTDI's statement about what uses their chips are certified for is irrelevant.

Actually, if you sell it as a "USB/Serial converter", then you are, because the USB mark is trademarked.

Only if they use the USB trident mark. The letters "USB" are likely to be held as descriptive.

If some medical device manufacturer uses a consumer-grade FTDI chip - counterfeit or not - in a medical appliance, then that manufacturer is the one who would be liable, as FTDI has already made it clear that these chips are not certified for such uses.

Liability is not binary. If the failure were accidental, you'd be correct. Because it is deliberate, at best, both companies would be held liable—the medical device vendor for choosing an unsuitable part and FTDI for deliberately breaking it, and at worst, FTDI would be held solely liable for deliberately breaking it.