The only reason this is getting appealed is because it was originally for the Spanish American War (Remember the Maine!). It was a humourous enough example to get someone in Congress to actually repeal this tax.
Generally, taxes never die. So be very cautious about adding a new one.
Pennsylvania still has the "Jonestown Flood Tax". A 18% excise tax on alcohol meant to raise funds for the flood that occured in 1889 or something like that.
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species," 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.170)
I'm detecting a few problems in your thinking. You are confusing evidence for a particular theory and my argument, which was that irreducible complexity would be how you would falsify the theory. It may be that there are no irreducibly complex biological systems.
Secondly, theoretically I only have to find one irreducibly complex system.
Finally, natural selection alone does not give you the neo-Darwinist mechanism which includes random mutation. How would I falsify that mechanism beyond the means Darwin and the ID people specify? The mechanims Darwin suggested and I suggest isn't science.
The difference between micro and macro evolution would be significant if random mutation and natural selection cannot explain a natural phenomenon. If you cannot add up a bunch of small changes into a larger change within that framework, that would be a major challenge for Darwinism. You would then have a back and forth about a particular phenomenon to attempt to explain how it could be explained.
That is if Darwinistic theories are falsifiable. If not, you would then just get a faith commitment to materialism. "It happened by random mutation because it cannot be other way according to my philosophical presuppositions."
The Intelligent Design concept of irreducible complexity would be how you falsify Darwinism. But that isn't science, so Darwinism must not be either.
I hope the Bush-bashers will take note of the date.
And, no, Bush didn't build a time machine. And even if time travel is possible, he isn't smart enough. Or is today a day where he is an evil genius? Keeping track of the dunce/evil genius paradigm is too hard.
Anyone can use the code. You can only call yourself "Java" if you hit certain specs and pass some tests. In other words, if you can prove that you meet the Java standards (with API support etc), you can call yourself Java and use the source code. If not, you aren't Java. Feel free to use the source code.
This may not be a GPL license, but that's alright.
Is there any reason why such an approach wouldn't work?
First, anyone who wants to be president (pretty much every senator) doesn't want to mess around with Iowa farmers since they have an early caucus. Reducing tarriffs almost always makes sense, economically. Not politically. For example, steel tarriffs make the steel workers happy. But they increase the price of domestic toasters, cars, etc.
Someone mentioned tarriffs on sugar. The National Review (a conservative magazine) did a front cover article on this a few months ago. Similar political situation but with La. farmers. It costs America a lot of jobs in food industries which require sugar. That's why they use corn syrup. It's cheaper relative to sugar, but only because of the tarriffs.
I can give an opinion on why conservatives backed off the DoJ's prosecution of Microsoft.
1) Conservatives notice that many (not all) liberals tend to pick on successful companies due to their philosophies and predispositions. This causes many conservatives to tune out legitimate anti-trust complaints. Those claims become part of the background noise of complaints against anything capitalistic in general. 2) How many of the general population of liberals or conservatives know enough to make an intelligent determination about Microsoft trade practices.
There are exceptions. Robert Bork helped Netscape in their legal dealings against Microsoft if memory serves.
Less money on software should mean lower taxes or tax money used in other areas. That should be the main argument for open source. There would be other benefits, like avoidance of vender lock-in.
In determining how the government should run itself, fairness is lower on the list. For me at least.
This seems like a straightforward extradition. He is not an enemy combatant caught on a battlefield. As such, there is next to no reason to think you'll see him in Cuba.
If they wanted him down in Gitmo they would grab him in the middle of the night and fly him there. They would not go through the normal legal system for civilians.
His lawyer should know this. He is only trying to get people who dislike holding enemy combatants in Gitmo on his side for something completely unrelated. Well played, but no one should buy the schtick.
In regards to capitalism, I've been thinking a lot about the role of open source. It helps eliminate inefficiencies. In other words, you can get the same thing for free. And that will benefit a particular company and the overall economy. There will be more money for other things, allowing a company to get into more markets, pay higher salaries, do more R&D.
Given high ticket prices and other factors, movies which truly deserve to be seen on the big screen are the ones that get my theater-watching priority.
I think you missed my point. They pulled the trimester thing out of the air because it was convenient. There is nothing in legal precedant or the Constitution that would cause one to use that. In other words, it is a clear indication that the judiciary was acting as a legislature.
We need to be able to discern when the Court is upholding laws or ruling them unconstitutional and when they start getting into the realm of legislating. Roe also gets into issues of natural rights in those amendments you mentioned.
Slashdot Mirror
The only reason this is getting appealed is because it was originally for the Spanish American War (Remember the Maine!). It was a humourous enough example to get someone in Congress to actually repeal this tax.
Generally, taxes never die. So be very cautious about adding a new one.
Pennsylvania still has the "Jonestown Flood Tax". A 18% excise tax on alcohol meant to raise funds for the flood that occured in 1889 or something like that.
So you're a fan of Carson Daly too?
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
(Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species," 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.170)
I'm detecting a few problems in your thinking. You are confusing evidence for a particular theory and my argument, which was that irreducible complexity would be how you would falsify the theory. It may be that there are no irreducibly complex biological systems.
Secondly, theoretically I only have to find one irreducibly complex system.
Finally, natural selection alone does not give you the neo-Darwinist mechanism which includes random mutation. How would I falsify that mechanism beyond the means Darwin and the ID people specify? The mechanims Darwin suggested and I suggest isn't science.
Then Darwinism, specifically the random mutation and natural selection mechanism, is unfalsifiable.
The difference between micro and macro evolution would be significant if random mutation and natural selection cannot explain a natural phenomenon. If you cannot add up a bunch of small changes into a larger change within that framework, that would be a major challenge for Darwinism. You would then have a back and forth about a particular phenomenon to attempt to explain how it could be explained.
That is if Darwinistic theories are falsifiable. If not, you would then just get a faith commitment to materialism. "It happened by random mutation because it cannot be other way according to my philosophical presuppositions."
The Intelligent Design concept of irreducible complexity would be how you falsify Darwinism. But that isn't science, so Darwinism must not be either.
I hope the Bush-bashers will take note of the date.
And, no, Bush didn't build a time machine. And even if time travel is possible, he isn't smart enough. Or is today a day where he is an evil genius? Keeping track of the dunce/evil genius paradigm is too hard.
Anyone can use the code. You can only call yourself "Java" if you hit certain specs and pass some tests. In other words, if you can prove that you meet the Java standards (with API support etc), you can call yourself Java and use the source code. If not, you aren't Java. Feel free to use the source code.
This may not be a GPL license, but that's alright.
Is there any reason why such an approach wouldn't work?
This post makes a good point. Let me add to it.
Who elected the reporters and gave them this authority? No one? Are they a law unto themselves?
If you do this, looking at your phone calls is mild.
you have to take into account unintended consequences.
And another Enron may not be as bad as the cost on the economy. Maybe not. But maybe so.
I've also heard people argue that rogues will be rogues no matter what law you implement. This just punishes corporations which are already ethical.
In other words, we have to think it through.
First, anyone who wants to be president (pretty much every senator) doesn't want to mess around with Iowa farmers since they have an early caucus. Reducing tarriffs almost always makes sense, economically. Not politically. For example, steel tarriffs make the steel workers happy. But they increase the price of domestic toasters, cars, etc.
Someone mentioned tarriffs on sugar. The National Review (a conservative magazine) did a front cover article on this a few months ago. Similar political situation but with La. farmers. It costs America a lot of jobs in food industries which require sugar. That's why they use corn syrup. It's cheaper relative to sugar, but only because of the tarriffs.
Hopefully, identity theft for biometrics won't be too gruesome.
I can give an opinion on why conservatives backed off the DoJ's prosecution of Microsoft.
1) Conservatives notice that many (not all) liberals tend to pick on successful companies due to their philosophies and predispositions. This causes many conservatives to tune out legitimate anti-trust complaints. Those claims become part of the background noise of complaints against anything capitalistic in general.
2) How many of the general population of liberals or conservatives know enough to make an intelligent determination about Microsoft trade practices.
There are exceptions. Robert Bork helped Netscape in their legal dealings against Microsoft if memory serves.
Maybe all yes-men drink coffee.
At that point in time it was hard enough to get a printer and a Windows 95 box to work together. Let alone Macs with intergallactic hardware.
Why do people think executive salaries and not supply and demand are the cause of the high prices?
Increased demand mean high prices from which high salaries can be derived.
And you know what? Supply and demand works. People will use less gas. High prices are the market's way of saying "use less of this", more or less.
There are no shortages because of this mechanism.
That's a long way around the barn to say: look for supply and demand causes first. The other stuff second.
Less money on software should mean lower taxes or tax money used in other areas. That should be the main argument for open source. There would be other benefits, like avoidance of vender lock-in.
In determining how the government should run itself, fairness is lower on the list. For me at least.
This seems like a straightforward extradition. He is not an enemy combatant caught on a battlefield. As such, there is next to no reason to think you'll see him in Cuba.
If they wanted him down in Gitmo they would grab him in the middle of the night and fly him there. They would not go through the normal legal system for civilians.
His lawyer should know this. He is only trying to get people who dislike holding enemy combatants in Gitmo on his side for something completely unrelated. Well played, but no one should buy the schtick.
Just to clarify, I was pointing out that the output from the Sun may have increased.
Just a consideration.
I believe that is the term for what you are thinking about.
In regards to capitalism, I've been thinking a lot about the role of open source. It helps eliminate inefficiencies. In other words, you can get the same thing for free. And that will benefit a particular company and the overall economy. There will be more money for other things, allowing a company to get into more markets, pay higher salaries, do more R&D.
Given high ticket prices and other factors, movies which truly deserve to be seen on the big screen are the ones that get my theater-watching priority.
they hire live cover bands to follow them around 24/7 while feeding them grapes by hand.
I think you missed my point. They pulled the trimester thing out of the air because it was convenient. There is nothing in legal precedant or the Constitution that would cause one to use that. In other words, it is a clear indication that the judiciary was acting as a legislature.
We need to be able to discern when the Court is upholding laws or ruling them unconstitutional and when they start getting into the realm of legislating. Roe also gets into issues of natural rights in those amendments you mentioned.