Why wouldn't it? Is "had an abortion" on the restricted list along with race, color, religion, sex and national origin (I don't keep up with that stuff)?
Of course it counts, as does the right of the employer to not employ them. Win win, as they say. Nurse gets to not get vaccinated, hospital gets to hire someone else.
It's hardly an obscure law. But yes it's not there for this purpose.
But it's the way the government should be creating money in the first place. And it isn't just shuffling numbers on a balance sheet, it's paying off debt with newly minted currency - the debt isn't just moved around and hidden. Such monetization of debt should lead to a lot of inflation, but it has been happening in slightly less blatant fashion for a while now...
But you didn't point out how silly the idea was. Since the idea wasn't to mint a coin with a trillion dollars of platinum in it. And it isn't an accounting trick, the US hasn't been on a gold (or silver or platinum) standard for a while now, if a legitimate coin says it is worth $10 then it is worth $10 as legal tender no matter if it has 5c of metal in it or $300 of metal in it. No scam or con involved.
Even without the "trillion dollar coin" the Mint could issue 10 billion $100 teeny-tiny gold coins, each with a bullion content of $1, and put them on deposit with the treasury.
No they couldn't. Just because you make something doesn't actually make it true. The law is clear on what Treasury can do when minting gold coins and that isn't one of the options.
The constitution gives congress the power to mint coins. They have delegated that through leglislation to the Treasury, but that legislation places a bunch of restrictions on what can be minted. It happens to have a free for all clause in the platinum coin section.
Treasury can't mint a tin-iron-manganese undecillion dollar coin because the law doesn't say they can.
I have personally said (and done) exactly that. The after tax money the extra hours I was offered to work would have paid wasn't worth spending those hours working, so I didn't take them. At a lower tax rate I would have worked them (not that I bothered trying to work out what the cutoff would be - less than where I was at anyway).
You are claiming that as crime rates fell people began to worry about more mundane things and so they went back in time 20 years to regulate lead use?
And I guess also that as crime rates when up people began to worry less about more mundane things and so they went back in time 20 years and told them about a great anti-knocking additive?
I grew up in london in the 1970s which had millions of cars running on leaded vehicles. Yet strangely I didn't go out mugging old ladies or robbing banks or rioting.
Since you clearly know nothing about statistics why do you feel the need to comment on them?
Did a reduction in colour TV use also correlate with a reduction in violent crime? Did the rise and fall in number of space launches correlate with the rise and fall of violent crime levels?
Show your correlation if you really think it matches as well as this one.
Of course correlation doesn't prove causation, but you don't disprove it by pointing out a bunch of other things that don't correlate at all.
Why would is it absurd that a substance which has been shown to cause increased aggression and lower impulse control and lower intelligence would have any effect on "violent crime"?
Sure it's not a proven fact, but absurd seems a stretch.
It's not a simple correlation. It's a correlation that matches in multiple countries, at different times, and at different scales. It also has support from individual data (higher lead exposure also correlates with higher aggression in children). And higher lead exposure in childhood correlates with loss of brain volume in the prefrontal cortex in adulthood - an area of the brain that deals with impulse control.
A random chance correlation seems pretty unlikely. A common cause a bit more likely, though I'm not sure what could be common about the use of an anti-knock chemical and violent crime a couple of decades later would be and of course a common cause of the reduction of the use of an anti-knock chemical and violent crime a couple of decades later would be.
Yes he was. But shareholders are allowed to be evil. If I want to sell my lynchpin of the community business to someone who is going to knock it down and build a garbage dump and destroy the entire community so that I have a few more dollars to retire with, that's my right. The community can try and raise a larger amount of money and out bid the guy or they can try and get zoning laws/etc changed to stop me. But I own it I can sell it if I want to.
Whereas management doing things that the owner doesn't like is not only possible "evil" in terms of the community, but also in terms of the owners.
If the extra fleet generates more additional revenue than the additional maintenance/wages/etc costs and the loan payments (lets not go all the way into depreciation of the assets and so on) then borrowing is better (in terms of profit anyway) than building up the funds first.
If I run a corner store and decide that I'm not making enough money for it to be worthwhile then selling my corner store for as much as I can even if that buyer is going to sack the employees, knock down the building, and build a car park. That's my choice. Whether wanting to be able to afford to retire makes me an asshole or not is unrelated to the fact that being an jerk should be my choice.
Shareholders in larger company are the same - if they want to exit and get as much money as they can for the business that's their choice.
That other arbitrarily sized unit system is what the rest of the world uses (OK, there's a couple of exceptions). Since the entire idea is communication why wouldn't that be a benefit?
Because we don't usually deal with temperatures at which nitrogen is a liquid or solid at normal pressures, and hence those would be pretty useless arbitrary choices.
1. She drugged her parents so she could use the damn internet after 10pm. 2. Her parents considered "maybe our daughter drugged us" as an option the next morning. 3. It was a serious enough option to go to a police station and get drug test kit to test themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
I take it those people don't eat or breathe too?
And if all their members were from Wyoming then it wouldn't be a small number for a state group. But they aren't so it's irrelevant.
Why wouldn't it? Is "had an abortion" on the restricted list along with race, color, religion, sex and national origin (I don't keep up with that stuff)?
Of course it counts, as does the right of the employer to not employ them. Win win, as they say. Nurse gets to not get vaccinated, hospital gets to hire someone else.
It's hardly an obscure law. But yes it's not there for this purpose.
But it's the way the government should be creating money in the first place. And it isn't just shuffling numbers on a balance sheet, it's paying off debt with newly minted currency - the debt isn't just moved around and hidden. Such monetization of debt should lead to a lot of inflation, but it has been happening in slightly less blatant fashion for a while now...
But you didn't point out how silly the idea was. Since the idea wasn't to mint a coin with a trillion dollars of platinum in it. And it isn't an accounting trick, the US hasn't been on a gold (or silver or platinum) standard for a while now, if a legitimate coin says it is worth $10 then it is worth $10 as legal tender no matter if it has 5c of metal in it or $300 of metal in it. No scam or con involved.
No they couldn't. Just because you make something doesn't actually make it true. The law is clear on what Treasury can do when minting gold coins and that isn't one of the options.
The constitution gives congress the power to mint coins. They have delegated that through leglislation to the Treasury, but that legislation places a bunch of restrictions on what can be minted. It happens to have a free for all clause in the platinum coin section.
Treasury can't mint a tin-iron-manganese undecillion dollar coin because the law doesn't say they can.
So you think a $1 coin has $1 worth of metal in it?
Were you born that dumb, or did it require effort?
Really?
I have personally said (and done) exactly that. The after tax money the extra hours I was offered to work would have paid wasn't worth spending those hours working, so I didn't take them. At a lower tax rate I would have worked them (not that I bothered trying to work out what the cutoff would be - less than where I was at anyway).
income taxes != all taxes.
So you agree that shareholder being evil is OK then?
Just to make sure i get this right.
You are claiming that as crime rates fell people began to worry about more mundane things and so they went back in time 20 years to regulate lead use?
And I guess also that as crime rates when up people began to worry less about more mundane things and so they went back in time 20 years and told them about a great anti-knocking additive?
I'm pretty sure it isn't. I don't recall the population density collapsing when lead was banned from most fuels.
Since you clearly know nothing about statistics why do you feel the need to comment on them?
Did a reduction in colour TV use also correlate with a reduction in violent crime? Did the rise and fall in number of space launches correlate with the rise and fall of violent crime levels?
Show your correlation if you really think it matches as well as this one.
Of course correlation doesn't prove causation, but you don't disprove it by pointing out a bunch of other things that don't correlate at all.
Why would is it absurd that a substance which has been shown to cause increased aggression and lower impulse control and lower intelligence would have any effect on "violent crime"?
Sure it's not a proven fact, but absurd seems a stretch.
It's not a simple correlation. It's a correlation that matches in multiple countries, at different times, and at different scales. It also has support from individual data (higher lead exposure also correlates with higher aggression in children). And higher lead exposure in childhood correlates with loss of brain volume in the prefrontal cortex in adulthood - an area of the brain that deals with impulse control.
A random chance correlation seems pretty unlikely. A common cause a bit more likely, though I'm not sure what could be common about the use of an anti-knock chemical and violent crime a couple of decades later would be and of course a common cause of the reduction of the use of an anti-knock chemical and violent crime a couple of decades later would be.
Yes he was. But shareholders are allowed to be evil. If I want to sell my lynchpin of the community business to someone who is going to knock it down and build a garbage dump and destroy the entire community so that I have a few more dollars to retire with, that's my right. The community can try and raise a larger amount of money and out bid the guy or they can try and get zoning laws/etc changed to stop me. But I own it I can sell it if I want to.
Whereas management doing things that the owner doesn't like is not only possible "evil" in terms of the community, but also in terms of the owners.
If the extra fleet generates more additional revenue than the additional maintenance/wages/etc costs and the loan payments (lets not go all the way into depreciation of the assets and so on) then borrowing is better (in terms of profit anyway) than building up the funds first.
Riskier of course, but that's a different issue.
But that's how it should be.
If I run a corner store and decide that I'm not making enough money for it to be worthwhile then selling my corner store for as much as I can even if that buyer is going to sack the employees, knock down the building, and build a car park. That's my choice. Whether wanting to be able to afford to retire makes me an asshole or not is unrelated to the fact that being an jerk should be my choice.
Shareholders in larger company are the same - if they want to exit and get as much money as they can for the business that's their choice.
That other arbitrarily sized unit system is what the rest of the world uses (OK, there's a couple of exceptions). Since the entire idea is communication why wouldn't that be a benefit?
Because we don't usually deal with temperatures at which nitrogen is a liquid or solid at normal pressures, and hence those would be pretty useless arbitrary choices.
My joke meter seems broken. Are you trying to be funny? Or are you seriously referencing the lapine?
You might find their article on the Republicans trying to ban super soakers to curb school shootings, just as informative as that one.
1. She drugged her parents so she could use the damn internet after 10pm.
2. Her parents considered "maybe our daughter drugged us" as an option the next morning.
3. It was a serious enough option to go to a police station and get drug test kit to test themselves.
Things were fucked up before this event.