Do you have an non-anecdotal evidence for your theory?
http://content.healthaffairs.o... seems to contradict your claim with actual data - though it's data is getting old, so maybe you have something newer rather than just making up theories in your head with no actual evidence for them?
Your linked source says nothing about "promising to ensure Ukraine's sovereignity and territorial integrity". Did you link the wrong source? Did you just make it up?
From your link:
Russia, the U.S., and the UK confirmed that they would:
1. Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
4. Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.
The US us respecting Ukrainian independence and sovereignty. The US is not threatening or using force against Ukraine. The US is not (that I've heard anyway) using economic pressure to influence Ukrainian politics. Nuclear weapons haven't been used against Ukraine so there's nothing to seek. The US hasn't used nuclear arms against Ukraine. And I'm sure the US doesn't have any questions about those commitments.
So the US is meeting all their obligations and keeping their word.
He was convicted of computer fraud and embezzlement. There was no claim made that he was felon due anything related to content, copyright of intellectual property.
Sure, if you just ignore that when a plane you aren't on crashes that information can then be used to make the plane you fly on in the future safer. Which some people would consider a benefit of greater than ZERO.
Given the amount of borrowing the government does in order to fund its spending you really can't make the argument that since they spend so much they must tax so much.
Oh not "your" sorry, and now that I actually read the problem I didn't care about before I see that your response doesn't apply to that either so I'm not sure what subsidies resulting in higher prices has to do with any of them.
I was referring to your second problem, which I thought was clear because the first problem has nothing to do with the proposal in question and hence reading the slightest bit of detail wouldn't have helped with that.
No it wouldn't, which you'd know if you read the slightest bit of detail about the proposal in question. But I guess that would require engaging your brain instead of your default biases which is too difficult for someone of your mental stature.
Sure, if you ignore than under this scheme there is no "price". The college isn't getting to decide a fee and charge the student. The college gets 3% of what the student ends up earning in the 20 years after they graduate. So unless you think that colleges control wages across the board they have no say in what they are charging under this proposal.
It would be a US for a state level tax, since states can't tax your income once you live and work in another state. And since this is in fact a state level proposal it has exactly the same avoidance issue - in fact it's magnified since is is dramatically easier to move states than it is to move countries.
Nuclear fuel will stretch out for 30,000 years if the political/military/terrorist problems of breeder reactors can be worked out. You either have a higher expectation of the span of our civilization than I do, or a higher expectation of how long we'd expect to use todays power sources for.
No he isn't. Microsoft's own calculator ( http://www.microsoft.com/inves... ) says that if you invested in MS stock on 1/1/2000 and reinvested all dividends back into them then you've managed a -14.71% return (ignoring inflation).
If you had waited until 1/1/2001 on the other hand you would have managed a 129.18% return (again ignoring inflation).
Of course I'm sure that has nothing to with the dot.com boom and bust or anything...
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have an non-anecdotal evidence for your theory?
http://content.healthaffairs.o... seems to contradict your claim with actual data - though it's data is getting old, so maybe you have something newer rather than just making up theories in your head with no actual evidence for them?
Your linked source says nothing about "promising to ensure Ukraine's sovereignity and territorial integrity". Did you link the wrong source? Did you just make it up?
From your link:
Russia, the U.S., and the UK confirmed that they would:
1. Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
4. Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.
The US us respecting Ukrainian independence and sovereignty. The US is not threatening or using force against Ukraine. The US is not (that I've heard anyway) using economic pressure to influence Ukrainian politics. Nuclear weapons haven't been used against Ukraine so there's nothing to seek. The US hasn't used nuclear arms against Ukraine. And I'm sure the US doesn't have any questions about those commitments.
So the US is meeting all their obligations and keeping their word.
I take it you were (and would be now) perfectly happy with a Russian naval/air base in Cuba? Or Mexico?
arrested != convicted, but that's was the starting of what led to the computer fraud conviction I believe.
It's not, but it's standard "see that guy is a bad".
If he was a convicted (or even just accused) child molester you can be sure that would get a mention too.
He was convicted of computer fraud and embezzlement. There was no claim made that he was felon due anything related to content, copyright of intellectual property.
Sure, if you just ignore that when a plane you aren't on crashes that information can then be used to make the plane you fly on in the future safer. Which some people would consider a benefit of greater than ZERO.
So what?
You are distributing the microscope not the tools to make it.
their non-orbiting satellites?
If that's how you are going to account for it, then how much did facebook's shares go down in price due to this purchase?
Sure, maybe that's why I didn't make that argument.
I also didn't argue that they weren't already taxing more than a small bit of the wealth. Just that the logic used to argue that point was flawed.
You're going to have to explain for us stupid people.
How does transferring $19 billion from Facebook to 50 people with less money that Facebook possibly increase inequality?
The richer party now has less. The poorer parties now have more. Isn't that a decrease in inequality?
Given the amount of borrowing the government does in order to fund its spending you really can't make the argument that since they spend so much they must tax so much.
Because automatics don't change gears automatically or anything like that.
Oh not "your" sorry, and now that I actually read the problem I didn't care about before I see that your response doesn't apply to that either so I'm not sure what subsidies resulting in higher prices has to do with any of them.
I was referring to your second problem, which I thought was clear because the first problem has nothing to do with the proposal in question and hence reading the slightest bit of detail wouldn't have helped with that.
No it wouldn't, which you'd know if you read the slightest bit of detail about the proposal in question. But I guess that would require engaging your brain instead of your default biases which is too difficult for someone of your mental stature.
Sure, if you ignore than under this scheme there is no "price". The college isn't getting to decide a fee and charge the student. The college gets 3% of what the student ends up earning in the 20 years after they graduate. So unless you think that colleges control wages across the board they have no say in what they are charging under this proposal.
It would be a US for a state level tax, since states can't tax your income once you live and work in another state. And since this is in fact a state level proposal it has exactly the same avoidance issue - in fact it's magnified since is is dramatically easier to move states than it is to move countries.
Nuclear fuel will stretch out for 30,000 years if the political/military/terrorist problems of breeder reactors can be worked out. You either have a higher expectation of the span of our civilization than I do, or a higher expectation of how long we'd expect to use todays power sources for.
And at some point the sun runs out of it's nuclear fuel making solar and wind "technically, non-renewable" so what is your point?
Maybe not to the same degree as nuclear fuel is. But solar and wind is NOT unlimited.
Beneath the surface means exactly nothing when picking up a one night stand.
No he isn't. Microsoft's own calculator ( http://www.microsoft.com/inves... ) says that if you invested in MS stock on 1/1/2000 and reinvested all dividends back into them then you've managed a -14.71% return (ignoring inflation).
If you had waited until 1/1/2001 on the other hand you would have managed a 129.18% return (again ignoring inflation).
Of course I'm sure that has nothing to with the dot.com boom and bust or anything...
The topic is 40 year old D&D, no?
And yes 1e and 2e are broken (though less so that 3.5 and 4th). The D&D sweet spot is a just prior to 1e.
Speed chess is like that. Playing it against someone with the "feel" that a grandmaster has would make lasting 9 moves be an achievement...