Russia's space history is impressive in some areas, but not Mars. I don't think I'd sign up to be an astronaut for this mission when Russia hasn't landed anything on the surface, and most of the orbital probes have failed. The Martian Defense Network takes a toll on everyone, but seems to take special delight in shooting down Russian craft.
I have to assume that it didn't work very well back then though, since no one else adopted it. In fact, if you look at their page on how these were recreated, you can see that before computers did contrast and color adjustment, the image is pretty muddy. We certainly owe him a debt of gratitude for making these images, but it seems likely that his contemporaries were not impressed.
(As an aside, anyone else feel like they're looking at some sort of a reenactment, like Disneyland's Frontiertown or something? I'm just so used to B&W=old that these brilliant color images really throw me for a loop)
As plenty of people have pointed out elsewhere in this topic, it's far easier to decontaminate fresh water than to desalinate. If there were polluted freshwater available, I'm sure they would use it.
I recall there being a genetically engineered plant in Larry Niven's Ringworld capable of attacking people using light beams. I haven't read the series since high school, but as I remember it, the plants grew large flowers with reflective surfaces, which would reflect sunlight at any moving object. One plant was fairly harmless, but an entire field of them could be a devastating weapon, acting like a magnifying glass over an ant.
Frankly, if you're willing to grant that the plants could be engineered to have a sufficiently reflective surface, and the ability to track moving objects, I'm not sure that fully fledged organic laser rifles are any less believable, but it was still an interesting idea.
The various levels of government are too intertwined today (I believe this is referred to as the "marble cake" in political science), Congress would not let the states lose a major source of revenue, because it would mean huge budget crises, which the federal government would be called upon to solve somehow. So I DO think that they would get the necessary 2/3rds.
Also, you are assuming that every state that is drawing these sales has no sales tax. What if they merely have less of a sales tax?
I assumed no such thing. It is my understanding that legally you are not required to pay sales tax outside your state (which is why a website based in California doesn't have to charge sales tax to people ordering from Oregon). The fact that telling a minimum wage cashier this will get you nothing more than a blank stare doesn't mean you're not legally entitled to make the purchase without sales tax.
The "offended" states should study the open market's behavior and find out what they are doing wrong.
If you read my original post, you'll note that I never say that I believe the states have a legitimate right to collect sales tax, but I believe the courts will disagree with me (and with most of you), and I believe their reasoning will be something similar to what I outlined, that it is not an import duty if in state goods are taxed the same way. That being said, your argument against is not terribly convincing. What they are doing "wrong" is collecting sales tax, because charging tax for in state items but not for out of state items automatically makes them less competitive. So you are arguing that the advent of the Internet makes collecting sales tax unconstitutional. I just don't see that happening, sorry.
And as an aside, I too have read the Constitution, and indeed gone to some fascinating lectures given by lawyers who know a hell of a lot more about the Constitution than most people will ever learn. So bite me.
A lot of people on here have been making that argument, and while IANAL, I don't think it's going to hold up. Here's why: if you buy something in your own state, you pay tax. If you buy something from out of state, and don't pay tax, you're paying LESS than you would in state. That would seem to me to be a subsidy for out of state purchases, and an inteference with interstate commerce.
Either way though, it really doesn't matter. If I'm right, the courts will say so if someone trys to appeal. If I'm wrong, then the constitution will be ammended within a matter of days (most (all?) states ratify federal ammendments with a vote of the state legislature, bypassing the general population entirely).
The property tax thing is a common myth. Yes, it is true that property taxes do not increase when the value of your property increases. HOWEVER, average property tax per person is higher in California than the national average, because the rate is much higher, more than offsetting the effects of constant valuation.
Sorry, no two ways about it, California gets raped as far as taxes go. The only good thing is that local governments cannot impose income tax (Detroit did a pretty good job of running itself into the ground by imposing a sizable income tax several decades ago).
What about your credit card records? I imagine that'd be quite easy for the government to lay their hands on. I imagine any amazon.com entries would get you busted pretty quick.
IANAL, but generally the laws say that the it's based on intended use. So if you intend to use it before you move, you pay MD tax, if you don't intend to use it until after you move you pay MI tax (which definately includes everything shipped to MI, but would also include anything you might have had shipped to MD but not opened or used until you got to MI)
Yeah, that's illegal, and always has been. Every once in a while people get busted on big purchases (car purchases are pretty routinely caught, because the authorities know which dealerships are just on the other side of the border, and there's all the registration and whatnot).
I don't think it's out of date, either. If you look at his link, it goes back as far as 2000, and there were only a few more deaths. How on earth did we go from 1,500/year to 38/year in about 7-12 years? Hell, even if we built 50 new coal plants per year (not including replacements for decomissioned plants) and your information is 15 years old, the death rate among coal miners still had to fall by 95%!
I'm pretty sure you were just talking out your ass, and I really think you ought to be man enough to admit it. Even if there has been this massive revolution in coal mining safety, that still invalidates your original point, because your point was based around people dying from extracting coal.
Quite sensible fiscal policy, actually. It seems that you'll soon be in the eviable position of being able to sell a valuable comodity while not consuming any (very little) of it yourselves.
...and having provided the world with free R&D so that they can move away from oil as well. Sorry, but that line of logic really doesn't make any sense. ANY switch from oil to a clean alternative is going to have the effect of driving down oil prices. Don't get me wrong, I'm hearitly in favor of renewable energy (I'm especially in favor of Europe freely deciding to bear the cost while America still reaps the benefits, but that's neither here nor there), but the justification is not fiscal, it's environmental.
Were you deliberately misunderstanding what the guy said? The OP says that it seems unlikely that the average home only uses 500 watts of electricity. The guy after that correctly points out that 500 watts is actually a lot, when you consider that 500 constant watts add up to 12 kWh/day. Then you come in and claim he's wrong because of vague grammar.
A good story from the Back to the Future DVDs: apparently when they first showed the movie to test audiences, who had no idea what kind of movie it was going to be, there was a gasp of shock when Doc (who the audience only knows so far as a crazy mad scientist) makes the car with his dog inside burst into flames and disappear. When he reappeared, there was a huge sigh of relief that this was not going to turn out to be a movie that involved killing dogs.
I think it's good to have at least a general idea what the movie's about, so you have some sense of what sort of a mood is appropriate. I enjoyed Road to Perdition more than my father, because I knew it was based on a comic, and so my suspension of disbelief setting was at the max. My father, who did not know that, was bugged by the implausibility of the bank robbery subplot.
Wouldn't you rather go into Spinal Tap knowing that it's not a documentary?
No, actually it was Carter who reinstated Selective Service. Yeah, next time someone tries to tell you how peace loving and good hearted he is, you can remind them of that little fact.
That's definately correct, it was believed almost up until the last minute that the series would be cancelled after the 4th season. There was enough time to film a new season 4 closing episode, but that was it (the season 5 closer was originally slated as the season 4 closer, which is why it has Ivanova).
As I recall, the 5th season only got made because a cable station (TNN maybe? Can't remember) picked up the show for its last season, which meant substantial pay cuts for the cast members (cable rates are much lower than broadcast).
Of course, the Japanese realized that sometimes you don't even need airplanes to bomb your enemies. (Okay, so the only documented casualties were from a curious family that found an undetonated bomb on the ground, but it's still kind of interesting)
There's actually a triumvirate of "rational" religious beliefs: atheism, agnosticism, and deism. All three say that, by looking at the world in an impartial manner, it is clear that there (is not/may be/is) some divine figure. Deism isn't very popular anymore, but many of the founding fathers of the US were Deist (there's a reason that they "hold these truths to be self evident").
Not anymore. They used to do that, but after losing a court case, they are now filing lawsuits agains "John Doe" defendants, and getting actual subpoenas.
No, what happened was that the first judge to hear the case made a lot of massive errors, talking with reporters about how Microsoft is evil for example. So when MS appealed the decision, the higher court found that the judge had been biased, tossed out the decision, and resentenced them with a slap on the wrist. Some of the prosecuters saw which way the winds were blowing and settled early rather than wait for the court to issue their new sentence.
Slashdot Mirror
Russia's space history is impressive in some areas, but not Mars. I don't think I'd sign up to be an astronaut for this mission when Russia hasn't landed anything on the surface, and most of the orbital probes have failed. The Martian Defense Network takes a toll on everyone, but seems to take special delight in shooting down Russian craft.
Wasn't that John Galt's invention in Atlas Shrugged?
(As an aside, anyone else feel like they're looking at some sort of a reenactment, like Disneyland's Frontiertown or something? I'm just so used to B&W=old that these brilliant color images really throw me for a loop)
Actually, yes: $10.55. It's still up from where it was before this whole mess started, but Wall Street's catching on :)
As plenty of people have pointed out elsewhere in this topic, it's far easier to decontaminate fresh water than to desalinate. If there were polluted freshwater available, I'm sure they would use it.
Frankly, if you're willing to grant that the plants could be engineered to have a sufficiently reflective surface, and the ability to track moving objects, I'm not sure that fully fledged organic laser rifles are any less believable, but it was still an interesting idea.
Also, you are assuming that every state that is drawing these sales has no sales tax. What if they merely have less of a sales tax?
I assumed no such thing. It is my understanding that legally you are not required to pay sales tax outside your state (which is why a website based in California doesn't have to charge sales tax to people ordering from Oregon). The fact that telling a minimum wage cashier this will get you nothing more than a blank stare doesn't mean you're not legally entitled to make the purchase without sales tax.
The "offended" states should study the open market's behavior and find out what they are doing wrong.
If you read my original post, you'll note that I never say that I believe the states have a legitimate right to collect sales tax, but I believe the courts will disagree with me (and with most of you), and I believe their reasoning will be something similar to what I outlined, that it is not an import duty if in state goods are taxed the same way. That being said, your argument against is not terribly convincing. What they are doing "wrong" is collecting sales tax, because charging tax for in state items but not for out of state items automatically makes them less competitive. So you are arguing that the advent of the Internet makes collecting sales tax unconstitutional. I just don't see that happening, sorry.
And as an aside, I too have read the Constitution, and indeed gone to some fascinating lectures given by lawyers who know a hell of a lot more about the Constitution than most people will ever learn. So bite me.
Either way though, it really doesn't matter. If I'm right, the courts will say so if someone trys to appeal. If I'm wrong, then the constitution will be ammended within a matter of days (most (all?) states ratify federal ammendments with a vote of the state legislature, bypassing the general population entirely).
Sorry, no two ways about it, California gets raped as far as taxes go. The only good thing is that local governments cannot impose income tax (Detroit did a pretty good job of running itself into the ground by imposing a sizable income tax several decades ago).
What about your credit card records? I imagine that'd be quite easy for the government to lay their hands on. I imagine any amazon.com entries would get you busted pretty quick.
IANAL, but generally the laws say that the it's based on intended use. So if you intend to use it before you move, you pay MD tax, if you don't intend to use it until after you move you pay MI tax (which definately includes everything shipped to MI, but would also include anything you might have had shipped to MD but not opened or used until you got to MI)
Yeah, that's illegal, and always has been. Every once in a while people get busted on big purchases (car purchases are pretty routinely caught, because the authorities know which dealerships are just on the other side of the border, and there's all the registration and whatnot).
I'm pretty sure you were just talking out your ass, and I really think you ought to be man enough to admit it. Even if there has been this massive revolution in coal mining safety, that still invalidates your original point, because your point was based around people dying from extracting coal.
Were you deliberately misunderstanding what the guy said? The OP says that it seems unlikely that the average home only uses 500 watts of electricity. The guy after that correctly points out that 500 watts is actually a lot, when you consider that 500 constant watts add up to 12 kWh/day. Then you come in and claim he's wrong because of vague grammar.
I think it's good to have at least a general idea what the movie's about, so you have some sense of what sort of a mood is appropriate. I enjoyed Road to Perdition more than my father, because I knew it was based on a comic, and so my suspension of disbelief setting was at the max. My father, who did not know that, was bugged by the implausibility of the bank robbery subplot.
Wouldn't you rather go into Spinal Tap knowing that it's not a documentary?
It doesn't matter why they ruled that way. All that matters is what they SAID their motives were. Now it's precedent, and lower courts will follow it.
No, actually it was Carter who reinstated Selective Service. Yeah, next time someone tries to tell you how peace loving and good hearted he is, you can remind them of that little fact.
I think a cone small enough to fit in a speaker requires a hell of a lot more pliability than the gentle curve of a canoe.
As I recall, the 5th season only got made because a cable station (TNN maybe? Can't remember) picked up the show for its last season, which meant substantial pay cuts for the cast members (cable rates are much lower than broadcast).
Of course, the Japanese realized that sometimes you don't even need airplanes to bomb your enemies. (Okay, so the only documented casualties were from a curious family that found an undetonated bomb on the ground, but it's still kind of interesting)
There's actually a triumvirate of "rational" religious beliefs: atheism, agnosticism, and deism. All three say that, by looking at the world in an impartial manner, it is clear that there (is not/may be/is) some divine figure. Deism isn't very popular anymore, but many of the founding fathers of the US were Deist (there's a reason that they "hold these truths to be self evident").
Actually, the latter is true. America was infamous in the 18th and 19th centuries for balatantly violating copyrights and patents from Europe.
Not anymore. They used to do that, but after losing a court case, they are now filing lawsuits agains "John Doe" defendants, and getting actual subpoenas.
No, what happened was that the first judge to hear the case made a lot of massive errors, talking with reporters about how Microsoft is evil for example. So when MS appealed the decision, the higher court found that the judge had been biased, tossed out the decision, and resentenced them with a slap on the wrist. Some of the prosecuters saw which way the winds were blowing and settled early rather than wait for the court to issue their new sentence.