It's only progressive assuming the rich spend more, which they don't have to and certainly wouldn't prefer to do in a location with such a tax system. This would cause a massive offshoring of wealth to places with minimal sales tax, giving the rich the best of both worlds. In terms of taxes that you would be practically forced to pay on necessities, it's regressive.
And even with the best attempts to hack a regressive tax into a progressive one with the "prebate" system, at best it's even less progressive than the current tax system:
Fuck Fair Tax forever, and other sales taxes too. They're inherently regressive. I know, you've said it's not, but you've only really demonstrated that you don't understand the meaning of the word or the underlying concept.
It would make the US the world's new top sweatshop destination, I'll give you that, and it would bring the Bangladesh slum lifestyle too.
Would the average person even receive any of the additional wealth generated by ignoring global warming? The lower classes haven't gained anything since the '80s.
I can't help you with your inability to find indications that AGW is better addressed now. Many studies are available for your perusal. I'm sure others have tried to lead you to water...
The anti-environmentalists are the biggest environmental absolutists of them all: They think anything short of returning to a caveman lifestyle isn't enviro-friendly enough. That's what they think environmentalists want.
I also enjoy the theory that we're using up their oil so they can't use it themselves in the future, but I think that's a dumb plan in every way so I hope it's not true.
That's so stupid that I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.
No it's easy, you just accept that all cultures are not equal, you can accept that those which embrace these horrible practices are clearly some of the worst without trying to rank them all.
No I know where I side with the actual issue at hand. The religious nutjobs happen to be on the right side here. But handing them victory here is not clearly a good thing because it would further entrench and legitimize the special treatment of religious beliefs. Will atheists who just don't want to wear these things get to turn them down or will you have to say that Sky Dad doesn't want you to wear them?
He's just a dick throwing a hissy fit to make a statement. Every right-wing employer either does this or fantasizes about it, depending on how much they can afford to lose on said hissy fit.
Still cleaner unless it's 100% coal or very close to it. A dirtier electric car is only possible in a few places in the US and China. In most places they would be FAR cleaner.
That would be tricky (and dorky-looking, at best it might look like the current prototype), but there should be no problem replacing the flat panes in these glasses with actual lenses.
And yet in 20 years we've gone from dead-nuts-basic cell phones the size of a house brick (with batteries bigger than today's phones) to having far superior phones built into computer watches that cost about the same as a comparable standalone device. Yet a modest size decrease in these glasses is impossible?
I could see all the electronics being built into the front of the glasses frame and the batteries being in the arms, even using today's battery tech. They might look a bit like hipster glasses but they would be normal glasses. If today's bleeding-edge battery tech was on the shelf, battery life would easily beat today's smartphones.
I'll admit there are upsides and downsides vs. today's smartphones, but look at today's smartphones and tablets, inferior to other options on the market but still wildly popular.
If I were to get such a device I would use it as a companion device to a smartphone. It would replace a bluetooth notification bracelet, bluetooth headset, and give me a second camera and convenient non-dorky use of AR.
That's not the problem, the problem is that Chrome requires five steps to change to *any other search engine,* so Google isn't being unfair to DDG in particular.
Slashdot Mirror
It's only progressive assuming the rich spend more, which they don't have to and certainly wouldn't prefer to do in a location with such a tax system. This would cause a massive offshoring of wealth to places with minimal sales tax, giving the rich the best of both worlds. In terms of taxes that you would be practically forced to pay on necessities, it's regressive.
And even with the best attempts to hack a regressive tax into a progressive one with the "prebate" system, at best it's even less progressive than the current tax system:
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_the_FairTax_burden#Progressive_.2F_regressive_debate
Fuck Fair Tax forever, and other sales taxes too. They're inherently regressive. I know, you've said it's not, but you've only really demonstrated that you don't understand the meaning of the word or the underlying concept.
It would make the US the world's new top sweatshop destination, I'll give you that, and it would bring the Bangladesh slum lifestyle too.
Was just pointing out an example.
Would the average person even receive any of the additional wealth generated by ignoring global warming? The lower classes haven't gained anything since the '80s.
I can't help you with your inability to find indications that AGW is better addressed now. Many studies are available for your perusal. I'm sure others have tried to lead you to water...
I'm not an American. If I was, it wouldn't affect me, if anything I'd be happy about the decreased fossil fuel extraction.
Retail margins are so slim that they don't allow it.
On MS Office, of all pieces of software? LOLOLOL
The Chinese take care of their women's rights problems in advance.../goingtohell
The anti-environmentalists are the biggest environmental absolutists of them all: They think anything short of returning to a caveman lifestyle isn't enviro-friendly enough. That's what they think environmentalists want.
I also enjoy the theory that we're using up their oil so they can't use it themselves in the future, but I think that's a dumb plan in every way so I hope it's not true.
That's so stupid that I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.
No it's easy, you just accept that all cultures are not equal, you can accept that those which embrace these horrible practices are clearly some of the worst without trying to rank them all.
Totally glassed over:
http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/ancient-weapons-of-mass-destruction-and-the-mahabharata/
No I know where I side with the actual issue at hand. The religious nutjobs happen to be on the right side here. But handing them victory here is not clearly a good thing because it would further entrench and legitimize the special treatment of religious beliefs. Will atheists who just don't want to wear these things get to turn them down or will you have to say that Sky Dad doesn't want you to wear them?
D'oh, that's Freiburg. I put Munich in my search Google!!!
Look at it this way, can it be worse than Microsoft's switch to a ribbon interface? (And now brace for tiles...)
You remember right:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/16/207227/german-city-says-openoffice-shortcomings-are-forcing-it-back-to-microsoft
Overbearing authority or religious nutjobs...
He's just a dick throwing a hissy fit to make a statement. Every right-wing employer either does this or fantasizes about it, depending on how much they can afford to lose on said hissy fit.
Still cleaner unless it's 100% coal or very close to it. A dirtier electric car is only possible in a few places in the US and China. In most places they would be FAR cleaner.
natural gas to use which burns without emitting CO2
LOLWUT?
It's a fossil fuel, CO2 emissions from it are relatively low but still present. And the extraction process is highly questionable at best...
That would be tricky (and dorky-looking, at best it might look like the current prototype), but there should be no problem replacing the flat panes in these glasses with actual lenses.
And yet in 20 years we've gone from dead-nuts-basic cell phones the size of a house brick (with batteries bigger than today's phones) to having far superior phones built into computer watches that cost about the same as a comparable standalone device. Yet a modest size decrease in these glasses is impossible?
I could see all the electronics being built into the front of the glasses frame and the batteries being in the arms, even using today's battery tech. They might look a bit like hipster glasses but they would be normal glasses. If today's bleeding-edge battery tech was on the shelf, battery life would easily beat today's smartphones.
I'll admit there are upsides and downsides vs. today's smartphones, but look at today's smartphones and tablets, inferior to other options on the market but still wildly popular.
If I were to get such a device I would use it as a companion device to a smartphone. It would replace a bluetooth notification bracelet, bluetooth headset, and give me a second camera and convenient non-dorky use of AR.
That's not the problem, the problem is that Chrome requires five steps to change to *any other search engine,* so Google isn't being unfair to DDG in particular.
I played AR games on my Treo. I'm sure you can find many for any modern smartphone.
Why can't they be indistinguishable from normal glasses? Google's prototypes are pretty close to normal glasses already:
http://blog.sitestogo.biz/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/google-glasses.jpg
You think that thick part can't be integrated into the frame and the screen can't be part of the main lens?
Constructing a set of protective condom-nets I imagine.