That's not really the case here in the UK either, so not Napoleon's doing.
I'm glad your original post got some insightful mods, Troll was just wrong. Also Napoleon wasn't that bad. Unless you're a free trader like me. He did propagate the metric system though.
Belgium uses the civil law system, otherwise known as the Napoleonic code. The majority of American states use English common law system*, which relies a lot more on judicial judgement and precedent (which have the same force as law itself, effectively allowing courts to legislate). Our common law actually has a lot in common with Shari'a in terms of how it works.
*CA, for example, doesn't. Neither does Scotland, hence English.
Ever heard of Hans-Martin Tillack? His office was raided and his equipment seized by Belgian police because he had the audacity to protect a whistle-blower in a fraud case. He eventually got compensation, but as far as I'm aware he hasn't re-gained his possessions. I would bet money on the whistle-blower having been sacked by now. The whole sorry saga is here. In the mean time the accounts have not been signed off for the thirteenth year running (the Tories are reporting a fourteenth).
I hate it when we Europeans pretend to be so vastly superior to those ghastly Americans out of sheer ignorance.
p.s. I am a Europhile, I just don't think this kind of thing should be covered up out of misguided solidarity with the European Project.
2. Stock is declared void. Stockholders get a 1-time eminent domain payment of (value of company assets)-(cost to taxpayers for bailout)/(# shares outstanding). Frankly the stockholders should be happy they don't end up owing money which is what the math certainly will work out to.
Under UK law eminent domain purchases have to be at market value. Since the shares in a failed company are worthless, isn't the market value zero? In other words, I think shareholders should get nothing because if a bank needs a state to bail it out, its shares are worthless.
Incidentally, I believe your scheme is how it works in Scandinavia now. I vaguely remember something in the Economist about it...
Er, the price of the fuel would be the same anyway, so if you removed the taxes petrol would cost half as much at the pump and profits wouldn't increase (except as a function of increased demand).
Whether that's actually desirable or not, particularly if you want to discourage car use, is a separate matter to oil company profits.
For example, they don't want the bottom to fall out of the market of their other cars, because they know that this would be their top #1 seller, and most of their other cars would become a lot less popular.
I call bullshit. If they don't sell it, someone else will and the market will fall out of their cars anyway. Not selling this tech and taking the market makes no sense in any conceivable business strategy, even in an oligopoly.
I think diesel distribution is the real reason, it could limit the market for it in the States enough to prevent it selling enough. No such issues in Europe.
Astounding how anyone would want to emulate Windows.
Did the thought occur that emulating windows might be one of the best ways to provoke its downfall? As to motivations less sinister; windows native is the default for software these days, despite repeated "years of linux on the desktop". I use OS X most of the time now, Windows for gaming, Linux for playing.
Er, if you look at the topic title of this whole thread I was saying how it was *different* in the UK to what you were describing. At no point did I say you were wrong or lying.
If your experience is typical, the FCC has managed a frak-up of truly epic proportions.
Re-united with the rest of my sentence the quote doesn't sound anywhere near as bad as you made it sound there. Especially since I was quoting you indirectly in the first place.
The FCC's discontinuation of analog in favor of digital broadcasting is yet another government-sponsored frakup.
Over half those countries are in NATO and are hence covered by the nuclear umbrella of the US/Britain/France. Aside from that, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea are all obvious candidates for countries which could develop nukes but have little motive for actually doing so, due to third party protection. That leaves about 15 (at a generous guess) nations which have the capacity to develop nukes but have chosen not to. At a guess the majority of those will be in South America, where there remains little incentive to have a nuclear weapon at the moment (except Venezula, perhaps?).
The second point about nuclear states needing to disarm was more or less what I was driving at in the first place.
They claim ethical reasons. Basically China had nukes and a sometime-hostile attitude to India, so India decided to develop its own nukes. If India had them, Pakistan had to, so they refused to sign the treaty. Israel also refused to sign as part of its on-going policy of deliberate ambiguity about its nukes.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is built on three pillars; non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful use of nuclear technology. Only the third has had any real success; proliferation continues, with Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea having gained nukes and South Africa, Libya and Iran having got most of the way. Existing nuclear powers have yet to disarm in any significant way, with the Brits making the most progress (fewest nukes out of any of the official powers) and we've still voted to renew our "deterrent".
The only thing remaining in the NPT for non-nuclear nations is some help on power generation. I can't see it lasting long; we may see countries withdrawing en masse in the future.
I know exactly what we're talking about; terrestrial Digital Video Broadcasting(DVB) through the air. The stuff you breathe, with antennae and no cables or dishes.
The only tuning you have to do is press autotune and the rest just happens. I've never had to fiddle around with the antenna on digital TV. Same with Digital Audio Broadcasting(DAB), though I have more signal problems with that.
I love the fact that a self-confirmed resident of Pennsylvania, USA has the audacity to tell me how my TV works from the other side of the Atlantic. You may have seen pictures of the boxes; I've owned and used one. This is why I think the FCC has conducted such an epic fail, if what you've said is accurate.
It seems like your operator is breaking the rules, or at least being very, very creative in its interpretation of them. You may wish to complain, referencing the act (EC 717/2007).
The imposition of caps was probably necessary, but not very market friendly. I admired the compulsory information sharing because it's very market-savvy.
My experience with digital TV in the UK is going from analogue at 4.5 channels (5 was not available in about half the places I went) to digital with far too many to count. The signal strength, picture and sound quality went through the roof with the transition too. Plus, no messing around with tuning at all, it just pulls channels, names and schedules out of the ether.
If your experience is typical, the FCC has managed a frak-up of truly epic proportions.
Of course, with all the new channels there's still nothing on worth watching, but that's a problem with the culture, not the technology.
I use "state" because, for example, England and Scotland are different countries and nations but are governed by the same state (the United Kingdom). Member states is the accepted phrase in English because states are what sign up to the European Union, and in Europe state, country and nation do not overlap. You can't even be more specific than 'state' as there are several different types of government in the EU.
I can't see how even the average Daily Mail reader can object to EC cartel-busting. But people never remember the good bits of the European Union (free movement of people, goods and services anyone?), they only remember (the admittedly myriad) bad.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not really the case here in the UK either, so not Napoleon's doing.
I'm glad your original post got some insightful mods, Troll was just wrong. Also Napoleon wasn't that bad. Unless you're a free trader like me. He did propagate the metric system though.
CA=California. Quebec and Florida use some aspects of Civil law too, from what I remember. No major surprises really.
Belgium uses the civil law system, otherwise known as the Napoleonic code. The majority of American states use English common law system*, which relies a lot more on judicial judgement and precedent (which have the same force as law itself, effectively allowing courts to legislate). Our common law actually has a lot in common with Shari'a in terms of how it works.
*CA, for example, doesn't. Neither does Scotland, hence English.
Ever heard of Hans-Martin Tillack? His office was raided and his equipment seized by Belgian police because he had the audacity to protect a whistle-blower in a fraud case. He eventually got compensation, but as far as I'm aware he hasn't re-gained his possessions. I would bet money on the whistle-blower having been sacked by now. The whole sorry saga is here. In the mean time the accounts have not been signed off for the thirteenth year running (the Tories are reporting a fourteenth).
I hate it when we Europeans pretend to be so vastly superior to those ghastly Americans out of sheer ignorance.
p.s. I am a Europhile, I just don't think this kind of thing should be covered up out of misguided solidarity with the European Project.
Neologism, not neoterm. The word you were looking for already conveniently exists.
Maybe he was exited? Who are we to say what he was doing at the time?
2. Stock is declared void. Stockholders get a 1-time eminent domain payment of (value of company assets)-(cost to taxpayers for bailout)/(# shares outstanding). Frankly the stockholders should be happy they don't end up owing money which is what the math certainly will work out to.
Under UK law eminent domain purchases have to be at market value. Since the shares in a failed company are worthless, isn't the market value zero? In other words, I think shareholders should get nothing because if a bank needs a state to bail it out, its shares are worthless.
Incidentally, I believe your scheme is how it works in Scandinavia now. I vaguely remember something in the Economist about it...
Nope, free. We have competition in telecommunications in Europe.
Er, the price of the fuel would be the same anyway, so if you removed the taxes petrol would cost half as much at the pump and profits wouldn't increase (except as a function of increased demand).
Whether that's actually desirable or not, particularly if you want to discourage car use, is a separate matter to oil company profits.
Ours in the UK is similar (to the US gallon). Over 50% of that price is various taxes.
For example, they don't want the bottom to fall out of the market of their other cars, because they know that this would be their top #1 seller, and most of their other cars would become a lot less popular.
I call bullshit. If they don't sell it, someone else will and the market will fall out of their cars anyway. Not selling this tech and taking the market makes no sense in any conceivable business strategy, even in an oligopoly.
I think diesel distribution is the real reason, it could limit the market for it in the States enough to prevent it selling enough. No such issues in Europe.
Astounding how anyone would want to emulate Windows.
Did the thought occur that emulating windows might be one of the best ways to provoke its downfall? As to motivations less sinister; windows native is the default for software these days, despite repeated "years of linux on the desktop". I use OS X most of the time now, Windows for gaming, Linux for playing.
Er, over here in the UK 'film' means 'movie'. Or 'flick' if you're a twat.
What do you call them? Cinematograms? Moving Pictures?
No, Israeli nukes (if they exist *cough cough*) are independently developed.
Yeah. This scheme strikes me as sheer lunacy. Solve one problem by creating a bigger one.
I think you may have hit the nail on the head. I can't remember the last time I saw rabbit-ear aerials here and I'm a student.
Er, if you look at the topic title of this whole thread I was saying how it was *different* in the UK to what you were describing. At no point did I say you were wrong or lying.
If your experience is typical, the FCC has managed a frak-up of truly epic proportions.
Re-united with the rest of my sentence the quote doesn't sound anywhere near as bad as you made it sound there. Especially since I was quoting you indirectly in the first place.
The FCC's discontinuation of analog in favor of digital broadcasting is yet another government-sponsored frakup.
Over half those countries are in NATO and are hence covered by the nuclear umbrella of the US/Britain/France. Aside from that, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea are all obvious candidates for countries which could develop nukes but have little motive for actually doing so, due to third party protection. That leaves about 15 (at a generous guess) nations which have the capacity to develop nukes but have chosen not to. At a guess the majority of those will be in South America, where there remains little incentive to have a nuclear weapon at the moment (except Venezula, perhaps?).
The second point about nuclear states needing to disarm was more or less what I was driving at in the first place.
They claim ethical reasons. Basically China had nukes and a sometime-hostile attitude to India, so India decided to develop its own nukes. If India had them, Pakistan had to, so they refused to sign the treaty. Israel also refused to sign as part of its on-going policy of deliberate ambiguity about its nukes.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is built on three pillars; non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful use of nuclear technology. Only the third has had any real success; proliferation continues, with Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea having gained nukes and South Africa, Libya and Iran having got most of the way. Existing nuclear powers have yet to disarm in any significant way, with the Brits making the most progress (fewest nukes out of any of the official powers) and we've still voted to renew our "deterrent".
The only thing remaining in the NPT for non-nuclear nations is some help on power generation. I can't see it lasting long; we may see countries withdrawing en masse in the future.
I probably *could* count them, but there's sufficiently many that I can't be arsed.
I know exactly what we're talking about; terrestrial Digital Video Broadcasting(DVB) through the air. The stuff you breathe, with antennae and no cables or dishes.
The only tuning you have to do is press autotune and the rest just happens. I've never had to fiddle around with the antenna on digital TV. Same with Digital Audio Broadcasting(DAB), though I have more signal problems with that.
I love the fact that a self-confirmed resident of Pennsylvania, USA has the audacity to tell me how my TV works from the other side of the Atlantic. You may have seen pictures of the boxes; I've owned and used one. This is why I think the FCC has conducted such an epic fail, if what you've said is accurate.
See Wikipedia and Europa itself.
It seems like your operator is breaking the rules, or at least being very, very creative in its interpretation of them. You may wish to complain, referencing the act (EC 717/2007).
The imposition of caps was probably necessary, but not very market friendly. I admired the compulsory information sharing because it's very market-savvy.
My experience with digital TV in the UK is going from analogue at 4.5 channels (5 was not available in about half the places I went) to digital with far too many to count. The signal strength, picture and sound quality went through the roof with the transition too. Plus, no messing around with tuning at all, it just pulls channels, names and schedules out of the ether.
If your experience is typical, the FCC has managed a frak-up of truly epic proportions.
Of course, with all the new channels there's still nothing on worth watching, but that's a problem with the culture, not the technology.
I use "state" because, for example, England and Scotland are different countries and nations but are governed by the same state (the United Kingdom). Member states is the accepted phrase in English because states are what sign up to the European Union, and in Europe state, country and nation do not overlap. You can't even be more specific than 'state' as there are several different types of government in the EU.
I can't see how even the average Daily Mail reader can object to EC cartel-busting. But people never remember the good bits of the European Union (free movement of people, goods and services anyone?), they only remember (the admittedly myriad) bad.