It's based on AGI, rather than gross income so you can make in the 70s before the deduction is phased out. It's a nice deduction but if you make that much you can probably afford your payments without much trouble. I have 33k in stafford loans and my payment is only around $150 a month on the 30 year plan. I was lucky an consolidated at 2.6%, but even if the payment was three times as much it wouldn't be that big a deal at this income level.

Isn't a scan just a photocopy that hasn't yet been printed?

Yes, 1000 years from now the discs may not be terribly useful. But if there was some fantastic info on them my guess is that some creative person would be willing to build a system to read them.

But really, lets put aside 1000 years. Lets just think of 100 years, or 200. DVDs now can't be relied upon to last 100 years, but I'm confident that if someone wanted to maintain an archive of info 100 years from now they would find a way to read the discs and put them on the latest generation archival material. And this seems reasonable, we still occasionally find old films from the early 20th century and we have the equipment necessary to read, restore, and digitize the info. I suspect this trend will continue. And there are lots of people interested in maintaining huge archives of information...like google, who would love to digitize every book and other scrap of human knowledge they can get their hands on.

To me, archival isn't the question anymore. No one needs to throw obscure information into a vault to be rediscovered 100 years from now, you can digitize it and have it available forever. The real risk is what happens if Google ever goes south? It would be a shame for a disaster or a bankruptcy or something to have them just shut down and throw away their data. Seems unlikely for a bankruptcy, storage is cheap enough to justify buying almost any digitized info. But it would only take 1 extremely disruptive natural disaster, or war, or cultural revolution, etc to lose a lot of info now that it is so concentrated into a few hands.

AT&T / Yahoo DSL does this. I really despise it...first, they seem to "lose" DNS entries for sites at times. And second when it redirects you due to a minor typo the address bar get changed and you can't easily correct a single letter typo.

Then put it this way, what counts as "paid editing?" If I work for Microsoft am I simply banned from editing any article relevant to my industry? Can I edit things informally if not a specific job duty? Does whether I use my home or work computer matter? What about university researchers who are surely writing about their research? They may be one of only a few people qualified to write on many topics. Without their contributions there may simply be no information available on a subject. But researchers are highly invested in the acceptance of their ideas both financially and in terms of reputation. I doubt any reasonable set of criteria in the grey area could be agreed upon.

Paid editing in inevitable. If you think companies, celebrities, etc aren't having employees routinely edit articles relevant to them you're dreaming. And wikipedia allows anonymous edits. Therefore, it doesn't really matter if it is or isn't allowed. The only question is whether the edits are good contributions or not.

You've misunderstood, it means the IDENTIFICATION CARD must be resistant to fraud, tampering, exploitation, etc. The government issued a federal standard for HSPD-12 compliant ID cards called FIPS 201. There are a lot of requirements but they are all specific to the card...for example, it must have a smart card chip that meets security standards for a cryptoprocessor (FIPS 140), it must use an identity applet on the card with various requirements on PIN policy, certificates, etc. The physical card has to meet anti-tamper requirements and have security features like an agency seal printed with optical variable ink (holographic ink).

And on it goes. But the criteria for issuing an ID card to an individual? That's got absolutely nothing to do with HSPD-12.

I wonder if this method of averaging is then intended...it makes a bit of sense. When you first start blowing you might have recently had a sip of alcohol or something. But I think the idea is that when you do a sustained blow near the end you will only be getting the alcohol that is being released from the blood into your lungs in real time. In that sense weighting the most recent samples would make sense.

I don't know if there is an accepted standard way that breathalyzers are supposed to condense data from multiple samples into a single value, but this method actually seems to be biased towards a lower reading rather than a higher one.

We're talking about employers here. They're often not willing to spend years and tens of thousands of dollars working on getting their employees green cards. The US system requires extensive work by the employer, not just the individual.

And frankly, US citizenship is not so valuable that it should be dramatically harder to obtain than an EU, UK, or Australian citizenship. But it is.

[quote]They can use the evidence you gave them, but they can't force you to give them more evidence which is what this is about.[/quote]

Of course they can. If they have a warrant they can force you to give them access to your property. No different from a warrant to search your house or your briefcase or your safe. The warrant must be based on probably cause, once they've got that probably cause you must comply with the warrant.

The whole point of a search warrant is to find more evidence, if you could just decline them they wouldn't even exist because there would be no point.

Uhhh...actually it's because they use that term on TV shows and in movies. Use in media is a pretty common way to popularize a term is it not? How does the use of an acronym make someone a gutless Fighting Keyboarder blah blah blah? I honestly don't understand the glee with which some members of the military denigrate civilians.

Signs that say no weapons on these premises seem quite specifically directed at those carrying guns. I don't see how you can imagine it was not intended for them.