The same international treaty which prevented the U.S. from claiming sovereignty over the Moon, gives the U.S. (and other "State Parties") jurisdiction over the activities of "non-governmental entities" in outer space. Said treaty says that "the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty".
I am assuming you are referring to early colonial times. However, if that is the case, what law, of what nation were they violating? I have often heard the claim made that the early European settlers were illegal immigrants, yet I have never heard anybody cite the law that they were supposedly violating.
Are you trying to claim that the colonists who settled in what is now Massachusetts should have made a treaty with Native Americans living in what is now Ohio before they started thinking that the land they had a valid agreement to settle on the land in what is now Massachusetts? Because that is what your post reads like.
Well, you sort of remember correctly. The U.S. had entered into a treaty in 1967 that expressly denies any country the right to appropriate the Moon or other celestial bodies by means of claims of sovereignty. That is the U.S. agreed not to claim sovereignty over the Moon before the Moon landings took place (and while there was still some question as to whether they would beat the Soviets to the Moon).
I don't understand why you think it is necessary for the news to mention the party affiliation of a corrupt politician when that affiliation is the Democratic Party. Are there Democratic politicians who aren't corrupt? The news media obviously does not think so, since they do not believe there is any reason to tell people what party a corrupt politician is affiliated with if that party is the Democratic Party. While on the other hand, it is important to point out those rare examples of corrupt Republican politicians because they are so rare. I mean after all, the news media does not have a bias in favor of one party or the other (at least they keep telling us that).
You misunderstand. It is news when a corrupt politician is a Republican. When a corrupt politician is a Democrat that is no more news than when the sun comes up in the east. What makes this story news is that the FBI arrested him, not the fact that he is a corrupt Democratic politician, so there is no reason to mention his party affiliation.
There is no evidence that at any time in history the majority of the population believed the world was flat. In addition, there is evidence that suggests that the majority has always believed that the world is round.
Also, Greenpeace would never accept money from Apple as it is a corporation.
I know that Greenpeace says that they will not accept money from corporations, but they do not reveal where their money actually comes from, so we only have their word for that.
Plenty of stock used to pay dividends and is no longer even around, mainly because they kept paying dividends even when they were losing money,...
And even more stock that never paid dividends is no longer around because the company never actually made any money, it just cooked its books to look like it was (or like it at least might).
Companies that pay dividends cannot play fancy accounting games to make themselves look profitable when they are losing money (e.g. Enron). Basically what this means is that if a company does not pay dividends you do not know if it is truly profitable unless you are one of the big-time investors
Which just means that they would corrupt it to the advantage of whoever is in power in any given country and would implement controls which make it harder for people to develop workarounds to government control.
Not to be pedantic, but I believe you meant to say, "Not to be pedantic,..." I am not sure that a person can be "semantic" by any reasonable usage of the word.
No. He never has and will not run as a "third-party" candidate.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Ron Paul ran as a "third-party" candidate for President in 1988 on the Libertarian Part ticket. So, while he may not run as a third party candidate this year (and I don't think he will), he has done so in the past.
Now, consider that the effective interest rate after inflation on US government debt is currently negative, meaning investors are paying the government to hold on to their money for a while.
Except that for the last couple of years the biggest purchaser of US government debt has been the Federal Reserve, which buys the government debt with money that didn't exist until they used it to buy the T-bills.
I have watched the moderation and I have observed that you are wrong. I have noticed that the moderation on any given topic tends to skew according to which side gets on with mod points first.
What you are missing is that that car is now not available to be sold for $2,000 because it costs more than that to repair it. That $4,000 to replace the airbags removes a significant number of used cars from the market because it costs more to replace the airbag than the car is worth. This results in the cost of used cars rising.
I would agree that the free market would solve it, except that our government has a history of overriding the free market when it comes to automobile "safety". What makes you think you are going to have the option of buying a car with manual override? Have you been listening to how loudly the proponents of this have been saying it will make the roads safer? Have you heard the people who are talking about making a built-in breathalyzer mandatory in cars, one where the car won't start until you blow into it and come back with a BAC below the legal limit?
Which will likely cost you more over the life of an automobile (for current automobiles) than it would to buy an automobile. This won't matter to the guys who replace their cars with a new one every five years or less, they will probably break even.
Slashdot Mirror
The same international treaty which prevented the U.S. from claiming sovereignty over the Moon, gives the U.S. (and other "State Parties") jurisdiction over the activities of "non-governmental entities" in outer space. Said treaty says that "the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty".
Europeans illegally emigrated to the Americas.
I am assuming you are referring to early colonial times. However, if that is the case, what law, of what nation were they violating? I have often heard the claim made that the early European settlers were illegal immigrants, yet I have never heard anybody cite the law that they were supposedly violating.
Are you trying to claim that the colonists who settled in what is now Massachusetts should have made a treaty with Native Americans living in what is now Ohio before they started thinking that the land they had a valid agreement to settle on the land in what is now Massachusetts? Because that is what your post reads like.
Well, you sort of remember correctly. The U.S. had entered into a treaty in 1967 that expressly denies any country the right to appropriate the Moon or other celestial bodies by means of claims of sovereignty. That is the U.S. agreed not to claim sovereignty over the Moon before the Moon landings took place (and while there was still some question as to whether they would beat the Soviets to the Moon).
I don't understand why you think it is necessary for the news to mention the party affiliation of a corrupt politician when that affiliation is the Democratic Party. Are there Democratic politicians who aren't corrupt? The news media obviously does not think so, since they do not believe there is any reason to tell people what party a corrupt politician is affiliated with if that party is the Democratic Party. While on the other hand, it is important to point out those rare examples of corrupt Republican politicians because they are so rare. I mean after all, the news media does not have a bias in favor of one party or the other (at least they keep telling us that).
You misunderstand. It is news when a corrupt politician is a Republican. When a corrupt politician is a Democrat that is no more news than when the sun comes up in the east. What makes this story news is that the FBI arrested him, not the fact that he is a corrupt Democratic politician, so there is no reason to mention his party affiliation.
No, the government allowed AT&T to have their monopoly on phone service because one big company is easier to control than a bunch of small companies.
I am pretty sure that I can find more big government Republicans at the national level than you can find small government Democrats at the same level.
Personally I would use Nuclear for base load,...
The problem with that is that current projections say that production of fissionable material will drop below current demand by sometime in 2013.
In what way have CFL's lowered costs? Care to give me a citation that actually shows this and not one that does it by projecting based on assumptions.
There is no evidence that at any time in history the majority of the population believed the world was flat. In addition, there is evidence that suggests that the majority has always believed that the world is round.
Also, Greenpeace would never accept money from Apple as it is a corporation.
I know that Greenpeace says that they will not accept money from corporations, but they do not reveal where their money actually comes from, so we only have their word for that.
Plenty of stock used to pay dividends and is no longer even around, mainly because they kept paying dividends even when they were losing money, ...
And even more stock that never paid dividends is no longer around because the company never actually made any money, it just cooked its books to look like it was (or like it at least might).
Companies that pay dividends cannot play fancy accounting games to make themselves look profitable when they are losing money (e.g. Enron). Basically what this means is that if a company does not pay dividends you do not know if it is truly profitable unless you are one of the big-time investors
Which just means that they would corrupt it to the advantage of whoever is in power in any given country and would implement controls which make it harder for people to develop workarounds to government control.
...the FCC has utterly destroyed any possibility of it doing anything by treating the Internet as not a communication system.
Please explain what you mean by that?
The fact that he did so in 1988 means that the phrase "never has" is false... or did you miss that part of the post I replied to?
Not to be semantic,...
Not to be pedantic, but I believe you meant to say, "Not to be pedantic,..." I am not sure that a person can be "semantic" by any reasonable usage of the word.
No. He never has and will not run as a "third-party" candidate.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Ron Paul ran as a "third-party" candidate for President in 1988 on the Libertarian Part ticket. So, while he may not run as a third party candidate this year (and I don't think he will), he has done so in the past.
Now, consider that the effective interest rate after inflation on US government debt is currently negative, meaning investors are paying the government to hold on to their money for a while.
Except that for the last couple of years the biggest purchaser of US government debt has been the Federal Reserve, which buys the government debt with money that didn't exist until they used it to buy the T-bills.
as the town and the school where ??? named after Bishop Berkeley
Where what was named after Bishop Berkeley?
If you are going to be pedantic, spell your post correctly.
I have watched the moderation and I have observed that you are wrong. I have noticed that the moderation on any given topic tends to skew according to which side gets on with mod points first.
What you are missing is that that car is now not available to be sold for $2,000 because it costs more than that to repair it. That $4,000 to replace the airbags removes a significant number of used cars from the market because it costs more to replace the airbag than the car is worth. This results in the cost of used cars rising.
I would agree that the free market would solve it, except that our government has a history of overriding the free market when it comes to automobile "safety". What makes you think you are going to have the option of buying a car with manual override? Have you been listening to how loudly the proponents of this have been saying it will make the roads safer? Have you heard the people who are talking about making a built-in breathalyzer mandatory in cars, one where the car won't start until you blow into it and come back with a BAC below the legal limit?
It can also mean a rental delivered to your door.
Which will likely cost you more over the life of an automobile (for current automobiles) than it would to buy an automobile. This won't matter to the guys who replace their cars with a new one every five years or less, they will probably break even.