Now you've turned a 1kg micro-experiment which consists of some seeds stuck to nutrient-soaked tissue paper inside a clear plastic panel with a webcam attached, bolted onto the side of someone else's lander, into something that requires perhaps a cubic metre of volume, lights, heaters, an irrigation system, months of air, and a power-source that can survive 14 days of continuous darkness every month, and almost certainly a dedicated launch (and lander).
If the work is 'forged' how can we trust it?
With an even temper.
And those whining about Spotify want to treat "plays" as if they were purchases.
The number of representatives in Congress is based on the population of the state as given by the Census. It is not based on the number of actual or eligible voters. So giving the slaves any value as "persons" increased the number of representatives of the slave states, even if the slaves couldn't vote.
But what's interesting about the 3/5ths clause is that it's the slavers at the founding who wanted to have slaved counted as "whole persons" (for the purpose of the Census and subsequent portioning of representation in Congress), while the non-slave states didn't want them counted at all (being property.) However, stupidly, the non-slave states wanted slaves counted as whole persons for the purposed of taxation (and now the slavers said not persons, property). The compromise was to adopt 3/5th for both. However, had the non-slave states instead insisted on slaves being counted as property (for both tax and representative purposes), the slave states would have lost the numbers in Congress long before they did, and long before the two controversies that led to the Civil War arose (the slave-status of the new territories, and the power given to slave states to run possés into non-slave states to essentially kidnap any black person into slavery on the sworn statement of any slave-owner that they are a "runaway slave", regardless of how long they have lived free (which in some cases was over 20 years.)) Therefore by the time these issues did arise, the south would have long gotten used to the humiliation of its weakened position, and, instead of throwing a tantrum like spoiled children and nearly wrecking the whole country when they didn't get their way, they'd shut the fuck up lest they gave the abolitionists cause to end slavery once and for all.
[Or maybe not. It's been 150 years and the old slave states still throw tantrums and nearly wreck the country when they don't get their way.]
Interestingly, if you don't copy the name or logo of the brand, you can sell a perfect replica (or "unsafe cheap junk") without any "intellectual property" laws standing in your way. Only trademarks are considered IP in fashion. All of fashion, much larger than all the copyright industry put together, survives with rampant "piracy" and no laws to stop it, let alone massively abused over-regulation like DMCA.
Hell, the shoe industry alone is 40% larger than the entire global music industry.
[Actually footwear probably has tech patents in addition to trademarks.]
It's bizarre how much the copyright industry has convinced people that it is this huge important thing that must be protected, when actually it's pretty trivial. I say nationalise the whole industry, then kill copyright entirely. Bam! Done. All that angst, all that fussing, all goes away. And one by one, without the US lobby constantly at them, other countries will follow. Global freedom.
Some achievement tracking is justified and useful (and even necessary) for the project itself.
Apparently the system they use to assess students and teachers is based on "stacked ranking", an employee performance system that Gates introduced at Microsoft, and continued under Ballmer for a decade, but which Microsoft has more recently dropped utterly.
Importantly, this policy has already been introduced in over 30 states for teacher assessment, thanks to Gates' donation to the Obama administration, and the administration tying the adoption of the system to education grants. Teacher job satisfaction in the affected states has dropped from 62% to 39% in four years. With such a sharp drop in morale, and apparently high level of stress created by the program, you can imagine how actual teacher performance would have suffered.
"Stacked ranking effectively crippled Microsoft's ability to innovate. Every current and former Microsoft employee I interviewed—every one—cited stack ranking as the most destructive process inside of Microsoft. It leads to employees focusing on competing with each other rather than competing with other companies." Or in the case of teachers, leads to them undermining each other rather than focus on doing the best for their own students.
And now Microsoft has completely eliminated the "stacked rank" policy. That's easy for a company to do, but how long do you think it will take to unwrap it from national and state education policies?
Throw in the fact that Microsoft has now completely dropped the employee training and assessment policy that BG is basing his education programs around. Yet one of the main arguments used to support introducing it into schools is that it was successful at "knowledge companies" like Microsoft. The problem is that, unlike a company, once it's got its claws into education policy you can't remove it by putting a new person in charge (as at Microsoft HR), it'll be a decade after there's a general consensus from educators that it has failed before any senior decision-maker will dare make a change on the same scale.
Long, long after.
It's what everyone else calls a mobile.
I'm already down to trying to figure out how to uninstall carrier bloat.
It's nuts that I may have to upgrade my perfectly functional phone which gets 5-6 days standby to one that gets 2-3 days, because of recent upgrades.
(Does anyone how small Cyanogen can get and still be practical?)
I see your fancy "flip phone", and raise you the Easycall.
Oversized buttons. Large font on the display. Actual physical switch to lock/unlock the keypad. A torch (also with physical switch), so you can find your reading glasses so you can find your TV glasses. Voice reads out the numbers as you dial. Voice also announces the name of the person calling when it rings or "texts" (and optionally reads out the texts, if the grandkids set it up for you.)
But wait, there's more. Flick this switch (again, physical) and it's an FM radio. Woo. Modern. (No headphones required, which is actually better than my so-called "smart" phone.) And the recharger on the newest model is a cradle, not a fiddly little plug that never goes in properly.
(Flip this switch on the back and it's a personal alarm and emergency pager alert. "Help. I have fallen and I can't get up.")
Actually got my Dad to buy one of these yesterday. Something went wrong with his old slider-phone, and I couldn't get there to set up a new handset. This was the only way I could be sure he could at least make and receive calls.
Apparently also pushed white supremacist groups, believing that the US was on the brink of a race war.
The bags are light enough to blow out of bins and away from landfill. They are also a form of litter that tends not to stay where it was littered. Again, it's the nature of the material, not just the tonnage.
O, and the car is in an underground garage.
I concede the point, m'lord, though I confess the tune escapes me.
How about making the tax a deposit-refund scheme? Return a bunch of qualifying/specially marketed bags to a recycling centre, get money. Every bin-scab and hobo in the region will be scouring land-fills, parks and storm-drains looking for bags. Worked brilliantly for drink containers in my state.
[Although the same state banned the thin-type shopping bags, rather than piss around with fees.]
I'm actually OK with being charged for the bags if the money collected is allocated to a system that actually addresses a direct bag created issue such as upgrading recycling facilities
No. Any additional funding that comes from a specific levy always results in a reduction in funding from general taxation. In effect it's as if the levy just went into general revenue anyway. Single purpose levies rarely result in an actual increase in funding for the target item. (And given the administration cost of the levy is taken from the levy, you sometimes end up with a net reduction in funding.) Either you accept the levy in its own right, or you don't. Never be tricked into accepting a levy your don't agree with to fund something you do. It's a classic politicians' con.