Hillsong ain't exactly money-in-the-hat church - they've had number 1 albums, after all. I don't think your down-the-road church has the ability to record, produce and distribute music on quite that scale.
You've got to factor in the bias of the poll - the people likely to be looking around on the forums and especially at items related to the upgrade are likely to be those who have issues. A user who has updated without any hitches is likely to get on with whatever they want to do with the computer, not go to the forums and respond to a poll.
As a fellow Pratchett shelf owner, I can say I sympathise, but the WoT series is good... until book 3. After that, you mostly stick around because of a sick self-abusive desire to see the story through to its end.
Hong Kong - having land is a liability, unless you spend to make it productive. The "growth" since the 50s was mostly fuelled by super cheap labour - something New York used to have, before standards of living lifted it to being impossible. Hong Kong has caught up, which is why Shenzhen is now the cheap labour location in the vincinity. Skyscrapers are built by corporations or land developers, not government.
I'm not sure how many other city-states you know of, but the only other ones I can think of are Singapore, Monaco and Vatican City, neither of which have a particularly low standard of living.
And therefore it is better to put someone in debt without their permission?
Without their permission? You voted them in, you tacitly gave permission to spend as they see fit to do best for the country.
I'm using "You" in a generic sense there; in a democracy, you must live by the will of the majority, and even if you specifically didn't, the American people chose their government. Let it also be said the majority of the spending programs in the US were already in place before Obama was in executive power ($700bn bailout, Iraq war, Afghan war, unaffordable tax cuts).
Actually, most of the countries on that list are highly undesirable, but take note that Hong Kong is quite low, and they have on of the longest, fastest growing economies - and no resources!
... and no land, and no infrastructure to maintain, and no industry beyond financial & services, and limited government bound by China. The tax rate there is 16% because the government rules a city-state that doesn't need much ongoing investment. Your comparison is faulty.
The only contradiction I can cite is Australia, with net debt around 15%, and that's mostly because of a hard-line conservative party ruling for 11 years cutting spending in order to pay down the sceptre of debt - and neglecting infrastructure spending while they were at it.
Wait, are you assuming it'll need to pay itself off in a year? That's not how long term projects work. I'd suggest it's probably going to be targeted for 20 - 30 year return period, so you'd be looking at a far different cost base.
The reason the government is doing it is because they're the only ones that can take a 20 - 30 year timescale. It's called building infrastructure, and it's what governments are supposed to do with our taxes.
Because it isn't just about the home and personal use. It's about businesses and utilities such as hospitals, schools, fire, police, etc.
Business contributes a significant chunk of our tax take - corporate tax take increase is what is responsible for all our tax cuts over the last 10 years, after all - and more efficient utilities reduces spending.
The difference is that business doesn't vote, people do - so while the backbone will be there for business, the fringe cases of getting it to the homes will get the votes.
And before you object to public money being spent on private enterprise, that's because it's infrastructure. The government builds roads and rail and ports because very few single businesses can afford to pay for it themselves (BHP & Rio being exceptions). This is what governments are supposed to do, a fact too many have forgotten.
Few countries have the landmass to compare to the US.
Uh... Australia does...
9.6 million sq km or 3.7 million sq mi for the US, 7.7 million sq km or 2.9 million sq mi for Australia. If you take out Alaska (1.7 million sq km or 0.7 million sq mi) you're very much in the same ballpark.
The US does have the population density edge when taken over the whole country, but I think Australia is more urbanised.
Within the military community, you're absolutely correct, but politicians are rarely held to the same standard. If Joe Biden shot someone without provocation, Obama wouldn't face any problems but pressure to fire Biden and have him stand trial.
wait, so what happened with Bush & Cheney when Cheney did shoot someone?
Just because we don't find them in earth-bound surface-accessible "nature" doesn't mean they don't exist somewhere in the universe - perhaps somewhere out there was a heavier supernova that produced element 114 or higher.
Yeah, but part of the issue in the financial world was that the people who understood the risk inherent in the instruments weren't working at the regulatory bodies, and that was a very simple monetary equation - if you understood it, why would you not go to the other side and get paid obscene salaries; financial innovation let them get away with a whole lot more than would be allowed if the rules were able to be applied.
One would hope though that any regulatory oversight of the energy sector would at least have a few who understood the risks.
Slashdot Mirror
Hillsong ain't exactly money-in-the-hat church - they've had number 1 albums, after all. I don't think your down-the-road church has the ability to record, produce and distribute music on quite that scale.
Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister, has said he's concerned too, and wants to see the material before calling a full inquiry.
It's a sudden outbreak of common sense in the House in the Hill, that's for sure.
Ever think it's because Google's marketing department knows how to get the word out more effectively at the right target audience?
I think you're confusing "most humans" with "most Californians."
One might suggest that if people are dying, you'd want to be more than up in arms, before people end up in trees.
(thanks, I'll be here all week)
You've got to factor in the bias of the poll - the people likely to be looking around on the forums and especially at items related to the upgrade are likely to be those who have issues. A user who has updated without any hitches is likely to get on with whatever they want to do with the computer, not go to the forums and respond to a poll.
How's your education system going? Any improvements?
Obviously not, or he'd know that there are more than 4 countries in the world.
Or that Europe's not a country?
Will it install on a clean hard drive?
Yes.
I'm honestly curious here; from what I understand, even the "full retail" version won't.
No.
If that's the case, then I think it's an upgrade, regardless of what the box says.
The box doesn't say it's an upgrade or not an upgrade.
As a fellow Pratchett shelf owner, I can say I sympathise, but the WoT series is good... until book 3. After that, you mostly stick around because of a sick self-abusive desire to see the story through to its end.
*sigh*
Re government debt & Australia - have a read of this: http://www.smh.com.au/business/no-infrastructure-unless-you-borrow-20091030-hps3.html
Hong Kong - having land is a liability, unless you spend to make it productive. The "growth" since the 50s was mostly fuelled by super cheap labour - something New York used to have, before standards of living lifted it to being impossible. Hong Kong has caught up, which is why Shenzhen is now the cheap labour location in the vincinity. Skyscrapers are built by corporations or land developers, not government.
I'm not sure how many other city-states you know of, but the only other ones I can think of are Singapore, Monaco and Vatican City, neither of which have a particularly low standard of living.
And therefore it is better to put someone in debt without their permission?
Without their permission? You voted them in, you tacitly gave permission to spend as they see fit to do best for the country.
I'm using "You" in a generic sense there; in a democracy, you must live by the will of the majority, and even if you specifically didn't, the American people chose their government. Let it also be said the majority of the spending programs in the US were already in place before Obama was in executive power ($700bn bailout, Iraq war, Afghan war, unaffordable tax cuts).
Actually, most of the countries on that list are highly undesirable, but take note that Hong Kong is quite low, and they have on of the longest, fastest growing economies - and no resources!
... and no land, and no infrastructure to maintain, and no industry beyond financial & services, and limited government bound by China. The tax rate there is 16% because the government rules a city-state that doesn't need much ongoing investment. Your comparison is faulty.
The only contradiction I can cite is Australia, with net debt around 15%, and that's mostly because of a hard-line conservative party ruling for 11 years cutting spending in order to pay down the sceptre of debt - and neglecting infrastructure spending while they were at it.
Wait, are you assuming it'll need to pay itself off in a year? That's not how long term projects work. I'd suggest it's probably going to be targeted for 20 - 30 year return period, so you'd be looking at a far different cost base.
The reason the government is doing it is because they're the only ones that can take a 20 - 30 year timescale. It's called building infrastructure, and it's what governments are supposed to do with our taxes.
Because it isn't just about the home and personal use. It's about businesses and utilities such as hospitals, schools, fire, police, etc.
Business contributes a significant chunk of our tax take - corporate tax take increase is what is responsible for all our tax cuts over the last 10 years, after all - and more efficient utilities reduces spending.
The difference is that business doesn't vote, people do - so while the backbone will be there for business, the fringe cases of getting it to the homes will get the votes.
And before you object to public money being spent on private enterprise, that's because it's infrastructure. The government builds roads and rail and ports because very few single businesses can afford to pay for it themselves (BHP & Rio being exceptions). This is what governments are supposed to do, a fact too many have forgotten.
Because countries at the bottom of that list are paragons of the world economy, aren't they?
Few countries have the landmass to compare to the US.
Uh... Australia does...
9.6 million sq km or 3.7 million sq mi for the US, 7.7 million sq km or 2.9 million sq mi for Australia. If you take out Alaska (1.7 million sq km or 0.7 million sq mi) you're very much in the same ballpark.
The US does have the population density edge when taken over the whole country, but I think Australia is more urbanised.
9th November? Surely you mean 11/09/2001?
On the other hand, that is Miranda Devine, who is well renowned for opinion page trolling in Sydney, so I wouldn't put too much store by that.
Within the military community, you're absolutely correct, but politicians are rarely held to the same standard. If Joe Biden shot someone without provocation, Obama wouldn't face any problems but pressure to fire Biden and have him stand trial.
wait, so what happened with Bush & Cheney when Cheney did shoot someone?
I seem to remember another big blue-logo company who tried to go for dominance of that very market...
Kindle still does - it's Barnes & Nobel's Nook that uses AT&T.
Region coding. The PAL vs. NTSC is determined by the player, which will output for the local standard - it's not coded in the DVD.
Good thing this ain't the Fedora forum, then.
Apart from the part where the physicist actually published a paper with their arguments for peer review.
Just because we don't find them in earth-bound surface-accessible "nature" doesn't mean they don't exist somewhere in the universe - perhaps somewhere out there was a heavier supernova that produced element 114 or higher.
Yeah, but part of the issue in the financial world was that the people who understood the risk inherent in the instruments weren't working at the regulatory bodies, and that was a very simple monetary equation - if you understood it, why would you not go to the other side and get paid obscene salaries; financial innovation let them get away with a whole lot more than would be allowed if the rules were able to be applied.
One would hope though that any regulatory oversight of the energy sector would at least have a few who understood the risks.