It's not an "acceptable" number. It's just the same number of drivers who will push it until they do crash is the same . So it will just take them a little longer to reach the tipping point:)
So I'm solvent because though I have some expenses coming up for several thousands of dollars I have some mortgage backed securities that I can cash in to cover them? SS is not indepedant of the budget because it is forced to loan all its money to the government. Sure in theory. But theories are irrelevant. And no I didn't claim SS was insolvent and going to go broke next year anyway.
Here's a hint, SS has no money. It has some IOUs from the government. In order to pay those IOUs the government will have to tax the current workers or borrow more money from overseas (and have the future workers pay more taxes to pay that). Thus SS is welfare - you take money from current tac payers and you pay it out to other people. Sure, in theory it isn't. And if the government wasn't running trillion dollar deficits for fun it would be as you said. But practice and theory have diverged.
Also it's just an implementation detail. It makes no difference that it's a "don't pay in, don't get out" system. It's still a system in which what you get out has no relation to what you put in. It's a nice way of keeping it off to the side on the books. But it's just an implementation detail - it's a welfare system just like all the others.
Note: there's nothing wrong with welfare system. I happen to think the US method is just about the worst way you could possibly implement one, but I'm not against them in general.
social security == big government. In that context it's about spending.
I didn't claim the government imploding would be a good thing. I said those two groups would take it in order to get their goals.
See the tea partiers and the recent debt ceiling crap. They would certainly take government default in order to reduce government spending.
I'm pretty sure the occupy wall street folks would also take destroying the economy just to punish the rich. That is after all what the mainsteam says would happen if you didn't bail out wallstreet.
And Jane Smith will just say, see here where Bob Jones signed that he has an annual income of $120,000. How was I supposed to know he was lying? It's a legal document, it'd be mortgage fraud for him to lie.
How about we end the war on drugs and decriminialise all of that. Let all the people in jail purely for drug possession/use crimes out and lock up all the people who committed mortgage fraud? And yes if you can prove that the mortgage agent broke the law (which will be a little harder that proving that those who clearly lied on a legal document that states that lying is crime did so) lock them up as well. I'm sure it'll be easy to get a bunch of the mortgage agents - they'll turn on each other after all and I recall seeing a bunch of web sites reporting on bank memos that seemed to encourage illegal activity back in 2005.
But not doing so would mean that someone who happens to be a poor minority wouldn't be able to buy a house which would be evil.
It's everyone's fault from the guy who took out the loan he couldn't afford, to the mortgage originator who knew he wouldn't be able to pay in the future, to the government agency or wall street firm that bought the debt, to the idiots who bought the packaged securities, to those keeping interest rates at absurdly low levels, to the biggest morons insuring^Wswapping that debt.
But that wasn't the start of the crisis. This is still the same game as the tech stock crash over a decade ago. A housing bubble is what saved the economy from a collapse due to the tech implosion (and also 9/11 a year later). A bond bubble is what saved the economy from a collapse due to the housing implosion. Who knows what form the next can kicked down the road will take.
The Tea Party was always anti-government. It's in the damn name - that tea in the harbor thing was a protest against the government and a corporation not just a corporation.
They have very different agendas - they just happen to overlap on a few areas effectively at random.
The Tea Party folk wants small government, meaning low taxes and low spending. Low regulation, small military, no social security, etc.
The Occupy Wall Street folk want big government, high taxes and high spending. High regulation, lots of social security.
It just happens that there are some things the Occupy Wall Street follk would like the government to do less of: military spending, corporate subsidies, and bank bailouts. Since the Tea Party want the government to less of everything of course they are going to agree on those points - but that's just random anything they want the government to spend less on they'll agree with the Tea Party with...
I think this is how revolutions start in democracies. You have two groups of people who will *never* agree. The Tea Party wants small government and are perfectly willing to destroy the current system to get it. They're find with the government defaulting on its debt and and the economy completely inploding because the pain is worth gain at the end. The Occupy Wall Street want a bigger government in terms of welfare and taxes, but smaller in terms of military and corporate subsidies/bailouts. They are also willing to collpase the economy in order to get the welfare system they want. And neither group sees compromise as an option.
So two groups willing to destroy the current system but who will never agree with each other on what the desired end point is.
They're too small to matter right now, but that can change.
If you did then he would be ahead of the rest of the children. That would mean the other children would be "left behind". That is against government decree. Hence he will have to be dragged back so that no one is left behind.
Chances are he doesn't need such schooling anyway - from the summary (yeah,yeah that's all I skimmed) he's motivated enough not to need a school environment to learn in. Just find some venue for him to learn the non-scholastic stuff we also expect people to pick up in school ("playing nice with others", "coping with idiots in authority", "meeting girls", etc).
If a court order tell your to do X then you do X. You don't do X in spirit, you do to the letter what they said. Well assuming you are contesting the order in some way anyway.
In this case you block the names they said to block. Blocking more just opens you up to being sued by the name holder.
The court can update the order/make another one, if they didn't actually mean what they said.
So an illegal search which results in a murder conviction and lethal injection. What damages are you proposing the searcher pays? Do we need anohter court case with a jury deciding if just how much difference that search made? I predict no jury ever convicts anyone for it and the police trample rights even more than they do now.
The doctrine is fine as it is. The cost of letting a guilty person go free is far far lower than the poice ignoring the rights of the people. Said guilty person can still be convicted of any future crimes they commit anyway.
And yet you moved there so clearly high speed internet isn't as important as other factors to you. So the rest of us should pay so that you can have something that you clearly don't prioritize that highly anyway.
I live in the middle of a big city... no backyard... in the middle... in the god damn middle. It's about time there was a government subsidy to supply me with a backyard, a fishing stream, and a corn field for the kid to walk through.
That seems a remarkably stupid way to do such a thing.
Why subsidize companies who might or might not provide access when the government could just directly spend the money to build the infrastructure in the first place? They can then lease it out to the broadband companies to provide actual service. Though really that should be a state level decision, heck maybe you'd get different states trying different things and we'd all benefit from the resulting innovation (or even just from the resulting examples of what works and what doesn't).
because astrologers are one group of people who do give a shit about historic timezone information and hence keep a database of it that they claim was copied.
I want to fly first class whenever I fly from New York to Los Angeles, but I only want to pay $50. I doubt any airlines are going to make more money by supplying what I want.
Ah, but they do offer such a ticket it is just price you say?
I want to watch on DVD format in the comfort of my living room whatever the new movie is on the day it is released in the cinemas. I doubt the movie studios are going to make more money supplying such a thing given the revenue they'll lose on the cinema release side.
The media industry doesn't have to provide you with what you want. They'll do what they think will make them more money. They certainly don't want people downloading their stuff (and them not acting as gatekeepers). Maybe they would rather the TV stations pay them more money for broadcast rights than dealing with downloads - it doesn't matter how dumb you might think they are being it's their stuff to do what they want with.
You can buy a DVD watch it and then throw it in the garbage if you don't want the inconvenience of storing it, for all they care. Or sell it - though they'd rather you shredded and binned it obviously.
So you can't put a murderer in prison? That causes the loss of liberty (the second right listed in the UN declaration of human rights, after life). The right to freedom of movements and residence is also lost.Plus the loss of their right to peacful assembly and association. Hard to have free choice of employment when in prison too. A little hard to freely participate in cultural life too.
Slashdot Mirror
that's wht "from licensing" means.
It's not an "acceptable" number. It's just the same number of drivers who will push it until they do crash is the same . So it will just take them a little longer to reach the tipping point :)
So I'm solvent because though I have some expenses coming up for several thousands of dollars I have some mortgage backed securities that I can cash in to cover them? SS is not indepedant of the budget because it is forced to loan all its money to the government. Sure in theory. But theories are irrelevant. And no I didn't claim SS was insolvent and going to go broke next year anyway.
Here's a hint, SS has no money. It has some IOUs from the government. In order to pay those IOUs the government will have to tax the current workers or borrow more money from overseas (and have the future workers pay more taxes to pay that). Thus SS is welfare - you take money from current tac payers and you pay it out to other people. Sure, in theory it isn't. And if the government wasn't running trillion dollar deficits for fun it would be as you said. But practice and theory have diverged.
Also it's just an implementation detail. It makes no difference that it's a "don't pay in, don't get out" system. It's still a system in which what you get out has no relation to what you put in. It's a nice way of keeping it off to the side on the books. But it's just an implementation detail - it's a welfare system just like all the others.
Note: there's nothing wrong with welfare system. I happen to think the US method is just about the worst way you could possibly implement one, but I'm not against them in general.
social security == big government. In that context it's about spending.
I didn't claim the government imploding would be a good thing. I said those two groups would take it in order to get their goals.
See the tea partiers and the recent debt ceiling crap. They would certainly take government default in order to reduce government spending.
I'm pretty sure the occupy wall street folks would also take destroying the economy just to punish the rich. That is after all what the mainsteam says would happen if you didn't bail out wallstreet.
And Jane Smith will just say, see here where Bob Jones signed that he has an annual income of $120,000. How was I supposed to know he was lying? It's a legal document, it'd be mortgage fraud for him to lie.
How about we end the war on drugs and decriminialise all of that. Let all the people in jail purely for drug possession/use crimes out and lock up all the people who committed mortgage fraud? And yes if you can prove that the mortgage agent broke the law (which will be a little harder that proving that those who clearly lied on a legal document that states that lying is crime did so) lock them up as well. I'm sure it'll be easy to get a bunch of the mortgage agents - they'll turn on each other after all and I recall seeing a bunch of web sites reporting on bank memos that seemed to encourage illegal activity back in 2005.
But not doing so would mean that someone who happens to be a poor minority wouldn't be able to buy a house which would be evil.
It's everyone's fault from the guy who took out the loan he couldn't afford, to the mortgage originator who knew he wouldn't be able to pay in the future, to the government agency or wall street firm that bought the debt, to the idiots who bought the packaged securities, to those keeping interest rates at absurdly low levels, to the biggest morons insuring^Wswapping that debt.
But that wasn't the start of the crisis. This is still the same game as the tech stock crash over a decade ago. A housing bubble is what saved the economy from a collapse due to the tech implosion (and also 9/11 a year later). A bond bubble is what saved the economy from a collapse due to the housing implosion. Who knows what form the next can kicked down the road will take.
The Tea Party was always anti-government. It's in the damn name - that tea in the harbor thing was a protest against the government and a corporation not just a corporation.
They have very different agendas - they just happen to overlap on a few areas effectively at random.
The Tea Party folk wants small government, meaning low taxes and low spending. Low regulation, small military, no social security, etc.
The Occupy Wall Street folk want big government, high taxes and high spending. High regulation, lots of social security.
It just happens that there are some things the Occupy Wall Street follk would like the government to do less of: military spending, corporate subsidies, and bank bailouts. Since the Tea Party want the government to less of everything of course they are going to agree on those points - but that's just random anything they want the government to spend less on they'll agree with the Tea Party with...
I think this is how revolutions start in democracies. You have two groups of people who will *never* agree. The Tea Party wants small government and are perfectly willing to destroy the current system to get it. They're find with the government defaulting on its debt and and the economy completely inploding because the pain is worth gain at the end. The Occupy Wall Street want a bigger government in terms of welfare and taxes, but smaller in terms of military and corporate subsidies/bailouts. They are also willing to collpase the economy in order to get the welfare system they want. And neither group sees compromise as an option.
So two groups willing to destroy the current system but who will never agree with each other on what the desired end point is.
They're too small to matter right now, but that can change.
If you did then he would be ahead of the rest of the children. That would mean the other children would be "left behind". That is against government decree. Hence he will have to be dragged back so that no one is left behind.
Chances are he doesn't need such schooling anyway - from the summary (yeah ,yeah that's all I skimmed) he's motivated enough not to need a school environment to learn in. Just find some venue for him to learn the non-scholastic stuff we also expect people to pick up in school ("playing nice with others", "coping with idiots in authority", "meeting girls", etc).
Most likely yes. The $30 million they are paying Dreamworks to stream Shrek would pay for a lot of postage (and DVDs).
Sure, but you can probably get a basic professional job.
They already exist. So not creating them isn't an option obiously. But don't let that stop you being retarded.
Named based virtual hosting like almost every other web site in existance.
If a court order tell your to do X then you do X. You don't do X in spirit, you do to the letter what they said. Well assuming you are contesting the order in some way anyway.
In this case you block the names they said to block. Blocking more just opens you up to being sued by the name holder.
The court can update the order/make another one, if they didn't actually mean what they said.
So an illegal search which results in a murder conviction and lethal injection. What damages are you proposing the searcher pays? Do we need anohter court case with a jury deciding if just how much difference that search made? I predict no jury ever convicts anyone for it and the police trample rights even more than they do now.
The doctrine is fine as it is. The cost of letting a guilty person go free is far far lower than the poice ignoring the rights of the people. Said guilty person can still be convicted of any future crimes they commit anyway.
which makes for a even smaller footprint, assuming you aren't setting it on fire....
Just hoping that it doesn't insert keypresses as well as log them and start shooting at friendlies. Or fly across the border into China or Iran
And yet you moved there so clearly high speed internet isn't as important as other factors to you. So the rest of us should pay so that you can have something that you clearly don't prioritize that highly anyway.
I live in the middle of a big city... no backyard... in the middle... in the god damn middle. It's about time there was a government subsidy to supply me with a backyard, a fishing stream, and a corn field for the kid to walk through.
That seems a remarkably stupid way to do such a thing.
Why subsidize companies who might or might not provide access when the government could just directly spend the money to build the infrastructure in the first place? They can then lease it out to the broadband companies to provide actual service. Though really that should be a state level decision, heck maybe you'd get different states trying different things and we'd all benefit from the resulting innovation (or even just from the resulting examples of what works and what doesn't).
I wouldn't be surprised since that's what I said, though with less words and hence more vaguely.
because astrologers are one group of people who do give a shit about historic timezone information and hence keep a database of it that they claim was copied.
Not really.
I want to fly first class whenever I fly from New York to Los Angeles, but I only want to pay $50. I doubt any airlines are going to make more money by supplying what I want.
Ah, but they do offer such a ticket it is just price you say?
I want to watch on DVD format in the comfort of my living room whatever the new movie is on the day it is released in the cinemas. I doubt the movie studios are going to make more money supplying such a thing given the revenue they'll lose on the cinema release side.
So throw out the DVD player so and put the spindle of DVDs where it was. Problem solved!
The media industry doesn't have to provide you with what you want. They'll do what they think will make them more money. They certainly don't want people downloading their stuff (and them not acting as gatekeepers). Maybe they would rather the TV stations pay them more money for broadcast rights than dealing with downloads - it doesn't matter how dumb you might think they are being it's their stuff to do what they want with.
You can buy a DVD watch it and then throw it in the garbage if you don't want the inconvenience of storing it, for all they care. Or sell it - though they'd rather you shredded and binned it obviously.
The UN made it up, not the poster. Why does your opinion of what is a right have more weight than theirs?
So you can't put a murderer in prison? That causes the loss of liberty (the second right listed in the UN declaration of human rights, after life). The right to freedom of movements and residence is also lost.Plus the loss of their right to peacful assembly and association. Hard to have free choice of employment when in prison too. A little hard to freely participate in cultural life too.