The problem with that is though the person may not directly use the freeway, as in driving on it, may still benefit from it through things like better emergency service access and better commerce access. It is very difficult to discern indirect use. People also benefit from laws and regulations they may not want to pay for. For example people who breath air in the US may not want to pay taxes but still benefit from the Clean Air Act and the courts the enforce it.
Maybe there should be an option to "ignore" an article or "report as duplicate". The second option would require someone to react to it so it may not work.
Both of which have nothing at all to do with GMO plants and whether or not they have been rejected by any country in Europe. The citations are about bacteria and not plants. Good information but wrong topic
The Principle: As all political association must be voluntary
You exercise that right by choosing where to live. If you don't like the governance then leave the country. Sorry but it is impossible to individually secede without leaving the country. You will still breath air which is governed by the Clean Air Act. You will still have a job which is regulated by OSHA. You will us medications regulated by the FDA. Government regulation enters every facet of our lives and in almost all cases it is a good thing.
Transitional Action: As a transition step, we support the right of political entities, private groups and individuals to renounce their participation in any government program, and to be exempt from the obligations imposed by that program, while in turn accepting no benefit from the program from which they seceded.
To paraphrase, we wont pay for something until we need it. Sorry but governance is a package deal. I am a man so I shouldn't support female contraception. I am not disabled so I should not support accessibility in government buildings. I don't use parks so I won't pay for parks. Managing something like that would be impossible. Every person would have a different tax rate.
Apparently you have never seen a subdivision or shopping center where the developer puts in those features.
How do you get between those shopping centers and subdivisions? On public roads built and maintained by taxes. Even maintenance costs tax money. Who maintains the intra-city highways?
Police - I guess you have never heard of private security either
Do you really want to go back to the time of private police like the Pinkertons? They upheld the law for those who paid them the most. Private security is afforded by companies not individuals. How does a middle or lower income person pay for their policing? Who pays for the courts? Is it going to be "you only get as much justice that you can afford"? If someone killed you who would catch the killer and put them in jail with you not around to pay the police?
Fire Departments - If insurance companies didn't get a free ride from government funded fire departments reducing their losses, they would pay for them themselves.
Or fire insurance would just go away like it does now in areas with no fire protection. There are quite a few insurance companies and they would have to get together to create a fire department or an number of fire departments which would increase costs due to duplication.
Parks - See developers again, or charitable fundraising to buy land and build a park.
Developers pay for parks initially and hand them over to the local government for maintenance.
Who pays for schools? Look at the cost of private schools and think about how many middle and lower income people that can afford it. It bet very few.
What you seem to forget is that the more people pay into the same pot the lower the costs. A perfect example is the US healthcare system which was funded by private insurance and the Canadian Health care system which is funded publicly. The costs in Canada are much lower than the costs in the US.
Another part is that, as individuals, people are very short sighted. Why should an individual invest in a project that could take 20 years to build (like the the Big Dig)? As individuals we look at what wee need right now. Large public projects would never happen.
I am all for spending tax money better but doing away with taxes is not the answer. No Taxes = no government = anarchy = the death of millions. We only survive because the government keeps us from becoming angry mobs.
You need to understand the process of making law. You don't think what ever party is in opposition would not object to the law and publicize it? It would be their best bet for winning the next election.
Are you willing to risk the live of billions of people in an experiment. Without governments, laws and regulations millions of people would die due to illness and starvation due to the lac of safe trade.All anarchy boils down to is might makes right. The human race is not advanced enough to rely on a society where everyone looks out and helps everyone else because it is human nature to look out for one's own self first.
Never? Maybe maybe not. Sure sounds better than the violent thuggery we have now.
It may sound better but do you really want "Thunderdome" on a huge scale?
Unless you think that all voting is fixed, we vote these people into office. When we get back to regulations and voting for regulators we will be right back where we are right now except with different people in power. Anarchy is never a solution to regulation where society is involved.
On the liertarian front, If you want to stop paying taxes then stop using government services including police, roads, passports, water systems, sewer systems, disaster relief, etc or anything regulated by governments such as medications, insurance, telephone networks, etc. There are too many "libertarians" that want to use the fruits of taxes but not pay those taxes. The next time something bad happens to "libertarians" they shouldn't run to the government to help them if they don't want to pay for that government.
To me "libertarian" is close to "short sighted narcissist"; regulations are bad until I need them.
Ever heard of "throwing the baby out with the bath water"? While some regulators and regulations are bad, some are also good. For example the FDA regulations that state that medications must have effects and safety proven before they can be marketed. Without those regulations many useless and unsafe medications would be taken by unsuspecting people. Sure you can find examples of bad regulations but generalizing that all regulations are bad is not valid.
Now that they're in the process of centralizing health care, how long will it be before people's transactions for alcohol, tobacco, fast food, etc., is tracked, and possibly declined because their health isn't good enough?
To answer you question directly, it will never happen.
Parts of Canada has had universal health care since 1946 and that kind of tracking hasn't happened yet. Any government that proposed it would never be voted in at the next election.
You don't attack the process you attack the value. It seems that China has started. If that kind of devaluation happens a few more times then all confidence in Bitcoins may be lost and the value drop to 0. It is irrelevant if people can use Bitcoins if their value is 0.
So I guess you don't use roads, sewers, police, fire departments, or any other government service that taxes go to pay for. I am not saying that there is not a lot of waste but with no taxes there are no government services. Tax evasion just passes the burden to those who pay taxes.
Biofuel from food crops (food crops being things like corn, sugar beets, etc); Bad idea as it takes up arable land and the food produced is not going into the food supply causing food price increases.
Biofuel from non-food crops (non-food crops being things like hay, trees, etc that are planted and harvested) If this uses land that could produce food then it is no better than using food crops as less food enters the food chain. If it uses land that is unsuitable for growing food than it is very good. Care must be taken to limit the amount of upkeep such as watering and fertilizing. A good example of this is a bamboo farm in rocky ground. One could even fertilize it with sewage plant waste for an additional boost.
Buifuels from waste; This is the best option as in many cases,such as corn stalks and cobs (corn removed), energy has been spent to creating it and it is good to get it back. It also does not divert resources from feeding people. The issue is that most waste is cellulose and we haven't cracked that problem yet. Maybe if we de-emphasize food crop biofuels some of the research money going into optimizing that process will go into cellulose biofuels research.
I stand corrected. Another poster pointed out that soap does not kill bacteria but removes it from the skin. That leaves the bacteria in the waste water and therefore less of a breeding ground for superbugs.
The clinical studies are pertinent to the soaps that are in the studies. Every different soap company has a different formulation for their antibacterial soaps. Some are probably more effective than others. Calling all antibacterial soaps effective because they contain antibacterial ingredients is similar to stating all tablets containing aspirin are effective for treating headaches. What if the tablet only contains one milligram of aspirin? It is not just the presence of certain ingredients but the dose that matters. If the soaps do not contain enough antibacterial they would be no more effective than plain soap.
The article seems to refer to two interesting statements that when combined have an interesting outcome. 1. Antibacterial soaps are only killing weak bacteria thereby leaving superbugs to grow unchecked 2. Soap kills the same bacteria as antibacterial soaps.
If you combine the two the outcome seems to be the following Since soap kills the same bacteria as antibacterial soaps the use of soap is contributing to the growth of superbugs.
It would seem that one of those initial premises are probably incorrect.
I think that some antibacterial soaps are better than regular soap but the manufacturer needs to show proof before claiming it.
the Food and Drug Administration also does not believe that there is any evidence to support that the antibacterial agents in soaps are any more effective at killing germs than simply washing with soap and water.
It is a given that soap kills bacteria. It is also a given that antibacterial agents kill bacteria. What the FDA want is proof that soap with additional antibacterial agents kill more bacteria than soap alone. It could be that the soap and the anti bacterial agent would kill the same bacteria leaving the same bacteria alive. In that case there would be no difference between regular soap and antibacterial soap.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with that is though the person may not directly use the freeway, as in driving on it, may still benefit from it through things like better emergency service access and better commerce access. It is very difficult to discern indirect use. People also benefit from laws and regulations they may not want to pay for. For example people who breath air in the US may not want to pay taxes but still benefit from the Clean Air Act and the courts the enforce it.
Maybe there should be an option to "ignore" an article or "report as duplicate". The second option would require someone to react to it so it may not work.
Your idea of a "right to succeed" is also personal opinion. Calling something a right does not make it so.
And I notice you didn't show how one can succeed and still live in the country when you will always benefit from some regulations and services.
Both of which have nothing at all to do with GMO plants and whether or not they have been rejected by any country in Europe. The citations are about bacteria and not plants. Good information but wrong topic
Citation needed. I haven't found any specific strains rejected as not being safe.
On the other hand.
The Principle: As all political association must be voluntary
You exercise that right by choosing where to live. If you don't like the governance then leave the country.
Sorry but it is impossible to individually secede without leaving the country. You will still breath air which is governed by the Clean Air Act. You will still have a job which is regulated by OSHA. You will us medications regulated by the FDA. Government regulation enters every facet of our lives and in almost all cases it is a good thing.
Transitional Action: As a transition step, we support the right of political entities, private groups and individuals to renounce their participation in any government program, and to be exempt from the obligations imposed by that program, while in turn accepting no benefit from the program from which they seceded.
To paraphrase, we wont pay for something until we need it. Sorry but governance is a package deal. I am a man so I shouldn't support female contraception. I am not disabled so I should not support accessibility in government buildings. I don't use parks so I won't pay for parks. Managing something like that would be impossible. Every person would have a different tax rate.
I really like this quote from the article:
The agency called on US authorities to tighten controls to ensure unapproved strains are not sent to China.
This reminds me of a saying my friend regularly uses;
Pot,Pot, this is Kettle, Kettle, colour check, over.
Apparently you have never seen a subdivision or shopping center where the developer puts in those features.
How do you get between those shopping centers and subdivisions? On public roads built and maintained by taxes. Even maintenance costs tax money. Who maintains the intra-city highways?
Police - I guess you have never heard of private security either
Do you really want to go back to the time of private police like the Pinkertons? They upheld the law for those who paid them the most. Private security is afforded by companies not individuals. How does a middle or lower income person pay for their policing? Who pays for the courts? Is it going to be "you only get as much justice that you can afford"? If someone killed you who would catch the killer and put them in jail with you not around to pay the police?
Fire Departments - If insurance companies didn't get a free ride from government funded fire departments reducing their losses, they would pay for them themselves.
Or fire insurance would just go away like it does now in areas with no fire protection. There are quite a few insurance companies and they would have to get together to create a fire department or an number of fire departments which would increase costs due to duplication.
Parks - See developers again, or charitable fundraising to buy land and build a park.
Developers pay for parks initially and hand them over to the local government for maintenance.
Who pays for schools? Look at the cost of private schools and think about how many middle and lower income people that can afford it. It bet very few.
What you seem to forget is that the more people pay into the same pot the lower the costs. A perfect example is the US healthcare system which was funded by private insurance and the Canadian Health care system which is funded publicly. The costs in Canada are much lower than the costs in the US.
Another part is that, as individuals, people are very short sighted. Why should an individual invest in a project that could take 20 years to build (like the the Big Dig)? As individuals we look at what wee need right now. Large public projects would never happen.
I am all for spending tax money better but doing away with taxes is not the answer. No Taxes = no government = anarchy = the death of millions. We only survive because the government keeps us from becoming angry mobs.
You need to understand the process of making law. You don't think what ever party is in opposition would not object to the law and publicize it? It would be their best bet for winning the next election.
Time to start over.
Are you willing to risk the live of billions of people in an experiment. Without governments, laws and regulations millions of people would die due to illness and starvation due to the lac of safe trade.All anarchy boils down to is might makes right. The human race is not advanced enough to rely on a society where everyone looks out and helps everyone else because it is human nature to look out for one's own self first.
Never? Maybe maybe not. Sure sounds better than the violent thuggery we have now.
It may sound better but do you really want "Thunderdome" on a huge scale?
Privatized police/courts is such a great idea. /sarcasm
Unless you think that all voting is fixed, we vote these people into office. When we get back to regulations and voting for regulators we will be right back where we are right now except with different people in power. Anarchy is never a solution to regulation where society is involved.
On the liertarian front, If you want to stop paying taxes then stop using government services including police, roads, passports, water systems, sewer systems, disaster relief, etc or anything regulated by governments such as medications, insurance, telephone networks, etc. There are too many "libertarians" that want to use the fruits of taxes but not pay those taxes. The next time something bad happens to "libertarians" they shouldn't run to the government to help them if they don't want to pay for that government.
To me "libertarian" is close to "short sighted narcissist"; regulations are bad until I need them.
Ever heard of "throwing the baby out with the bath water"? While some regulators and regulations are bad, some are also good. For example the FDA regulations that state that medications must have effects and safety proven before they can be marketed. Without those regulations many useless and unsafe medications would be taken by unsuspecting people. Sure you can find examples of bad regulations but generalizing that all regulations are bad is not valid.
Now that they're in the process of centralizing health care, how long will it be before people's transactions for alcohol, tobacco, fast food, etc., is tracked, and possibly declined because their health isn't good enough?
To answer you question directly, it will never happen.
Parts of Canada has had universal health care since 1946 and that kind of tracking hasn't happened yet. Any government that proposed it would never be voted in at the next election.
You don't attack the process you attack the value. It seems that China has started. If that kind of devaluation happens a few more times then all confidence in Bitcoins may be lost and the value drop to 0. It is irrelevant if people can use Bitcoins if their value is 0.
Tax evasion? Taxes are robbery anyway.
So I guess you don't use roads, sewers, police, fire departments, or any other government service that taxes go to pay for. I am not saying that there is not a lot of waste but with no taxes there are no government services. Tax evasion just passes the burden to those who pay taxes.
Biofuel from food crops (food crops being things like corn, sugar beets, etc);
Bad idea as it takes up arable land and the food produced is not going into the food supply causing food price increases.
Biofuel from non-food crops (non-food crops being things like hay, trees, etc that are planted and harvested)
If this uses land that could produce food then it is no better than using food crops as less food enters the food chain.
If it uses land that is unsuitable for growing food than it is very good. Care must be taken to limit the amount of upkeep such as watering and fertilizing. A good example of this is a bamboo farm in rocky ground. One could even fertilize it with sewage plant waste for an additional boost.
Buifuels from waste;
This is the best option as in many cases,such as corn stalks and cobs (corn removed), energy has been spent to creating it and it is good to get it back. It also does not divert resources from feeding people. The issue is that most waste is cellulose and we haven't cracked that problem yet. Maybe if we de-emphasize food crop biofuels some of the research money going into optimizing that process will go into cellulose biofuels research.
I stand corrected. Another poster pointed out that soap does not kill bacteria but removes it from the skin. That leaves the bacteria in the waste water and therefore less of a breeding ground for superbugs.
Thanks, that adds more credence to the superbug issue.
Either kill or remove there is less bacteria on the hands when done.
The clinical studies are pertinent to the soaps that are in the studies. Every different soap company has a different formulation for their antibacterial soaps. Some are probably more effective than others. Calling all antibacterial soaps effective because they contain antibacterial ingredients is similar to stating all tablets containing aspirin are effective for treating headaches. What if the tablet only contains one milligram of aspirin? It is not just the presence of certain ingredients but the dose that matters. If the soaps do not contain enough antibacterial they would be no more effective than plain soap.
'Existing HR departments want to go for proven degree programs and filter out unproven candidates.'"
HR department don't like to be product testers.
The article seems to refer to two interesting statements that when combined have an interesting outcome.
1. Antibacterial soaps are only killing weak bacteria thereby leaving superbugs to grow unchecked
2. Soap kills the same bacteria as antibacterial soaps.
If you combine the two the outcome seems to be the following
Since soap kills the same bacteria as antibacterial soaps the use of soap is contributing to the growth of superbugs.
It would seem that one of those initial premises are probably incorrect.
I think that some antibacterial soaps are better than regular soap but the manufacturer needs to show proof before claiming it.
I think you missed the point of the article;
the Food and Drug Administration also does not believe that there is any evidence to support that the antibacterial agents in soaps are any more effective at killing germs than simply washing with soap and water.
It is a given that soap kills bacteria. It is also a given that antibacterial agents kill bacteria. What the FDA want is proof that soap with additional antibacterial agents kill more bacteria than soap alone. It could be that the soap and the anti bacterial agent would kill the same bacteria leaving the same bacteria alive. In that case there would be no difference between regular soap and antibacterial soap.