Its largely a coya situation. Whether you are a complete imbecile or the grand daddy of all neck beards who shared part of creating computers, the cert is the only way a mid level manager is going to be able to pass the blame on you not doing it corectly rather than himself for hiring you if something goes wrong. It likely allows them to escape punitive damages if sued over it too- of course qe hired a qualified person, ignore the fact he's the owners neighbor's kid, he has all these certs.

It might be wise to release a press statement warning of the scam in your points 1 and 2 and state that they are "cooperating" with regulators and authorities to catch the scammers.

I put cooperate in quotes because trechnically it is true as long as it is reported to them whether they act or not.

But it seems that one of the ways this works is the legitimate number being used to trick people. Well, if the news runs a story about it, that element goes away.

You mean birther types. There are plenty or Tea Party types who do not challenge his birth- which is a premise originating from democrats.

This difference is significant unless your goal is to make shit up that you know little about and hope it sticks. Perhaps you are just the ignorant target of someone like that.

From what i saw, it doesn't appear that it would tip over easily unless you placed something tall on it to chang its center of gravity substantially.

The point seems to be to pass the design on and make parts availible to those without the machining tools or skills neccesary to get a scalable, proven design operational. There ate itherkits similar availible but i think their niche here is the ability to keep teaction in rough enviroments and not be thrawted by a stick on the ground or curb or whatever.

You are correct. That is what i was attempting to say but after looking my post over, i realized i failed in doing so. Nonetheless, i think you explained it better than i could.

You can stop reading whenever you want. All it does is makes you an uninformed fool. I suspect you do that a lot in life.

Your own link says he is " strongly critical of conservatism and the Republican Party" that he is a regular mouth piece on democrat talk shows and news programs " MSNBC and Current TV news program, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and The Randi Rhodes Show". Well, currently only the ones who didn't go out of business because nobody watched or listened to them. IF this is not a democrat, I don't know what is. This no true scottsman fallacy of yours will only convince the people who do not ad 2+2 together and come up with 4.

lol.. I love that series.

Nixon, Bush, and Reagan are all serving, or did ,serve prison terms for their illegal speech right?

No.. Do you think they were or are you being rhetorical?

Each of these guys are also in authoritative positions which can require people to follow their whims, unlike the person TFA discusses who is not in an authoritative position.

There is little to no clear evidence that they told anyone to do anything but the circumstantial indications are that they did. For Reagan, there was no criminal punishment for the Iran Contra affair- for bush, no laws were seen to be violated, and for Nixon, obstructing congress by deleting 18 or so minutes of a recording is the only thing linked to him outside the testimony of a known democrat (Dean) who was getting favorable treatment for that testimony. And since Nixon, it would seem that the white house regularly tells congress to STFU by claiming executive privilege which is about the same because they still do not get what they asked for. This all impacts the ability to prosecute if any laws are known to have been broken.

I don't think you can compare the two (or four) situations. Maybe a more accurate comparison would be all the accountants who devise schemes to dodge and defeat tax obligations. Whether right or wrong, a law exists that allows prosecution of someone who conspires to commit fraud on the government and they his teaching for the specific purpose of defeating FBI employment polygraphs seems to fit that description. Typically conspiracy charges crosses from free speech to criminal when someone takes steps further than talking about it. For instance, if you and a friend were sitting around smoking a joint talking about how easy it would be to rob a bank, it would be free speech. If you or your friend started staking banks out and purchasing supplies you discussed, it can become a criminal conspiracy whether you actually robbed the bank or not. Of course either of you would have to be aware the other was taking steps to make it stick.

So perhaps this is a good thing that this guy is being prosecuted. Perhaps it is going to end up changing the law or how it is applied in the future which seems to be misguided or misapplied in this case. Perhaps it is going to end the reliance of lie detectors for government. I think either of those would be a good thing. I'm just sorry that one guy will have to shoulder the brunt of the work.

And once again, the truth is a flame. Its interesting how many people can't handle the truth.

Speech zones were created by the democrats after the chicago riots at their convention.

Anyways, the IRS had attempted to stop free speech by those not politically alaigned with the current administration. And yes, the included liberal groups as well as conservative groups/people. I'm not entirely sure it will stay alive and i have doubts about how well it is.

It would likely silence the speech you just made too.

If you think silencing speech you do not like or agree with is proper, you need to consider how long it would take to silence yourself. I'm sure there are people who do not agree with you.

Oh noes.. when will we be able to get wikicondums and how would that work?

Which is ancient magic compared to the power of hashtags. ... #duh

And when it does, we can connect it. It just isn't at this point. The op in the article is using established laws to protect himself from actions that have been already established by law as bad. If politics did come into play at this point, it should/could be the state AG collecting evidence to file charges/protection suit on behalf of the state's citizens.

But if more people took their experiences to the courts, regulatory boards, and states attourneys offices, i do not think Net Neutrality would be an issue.

This is probably the reality. The genetics seem to foster the growth and sustainability of certain microbes so depending on how strong of an effect it maintains throughout life, it should likely revert back to the genetic normal.

However, if the gut microbes could be administered several times as needed, it might defeat this as the length of time it might take to revert could be longer than shorter. What I mean is, if the microbes could be inserted by capsule and take a year before they are replaced or overcome by other microbes, then a yearly pill or perhaps shot might be sufficient. People smarter than me will have to figure that out though.