The failure of Western governments to throw stupid amounts of money at the two diseases - Alzheimers and Type II Diabetes - that are costing taxpayers rapidly escalating sums of money, is depressing. We need these to be cured - and spending $100bn to do so would be GOOD VALUE.
I think you will find that auditors are measuring compliance with an externally set standard, not affirming that you are doing the wise thing. So you're shooting the messenger, which is seldom productive.
That was part of the UK and descended into total chaos over the independence issue. Just because we've avoided issues for centuries doesn't mean that it couldn't all go horribly wrong; if Corbyn is win an election - especially if there was significant hints of electoral abuses.
The case in favour of the tax payer providing adequate internet coverage is the same as that of providing education; the next generation should be adequately provided for to ensure they can be part of their society. The fact that the US is making a pig's ear of providing adequate schooling is a reminder that this is an optimistic ideal, but it's worth engaging with.
Once the initial shock is over, having a place of work to go to and someone other than family to spend time with may well be the support the guy needed. That the others in his group took the load sounds absolutely right - though management might have been more willing to reduce the load.
I am forced to conclude that you've never been to London and used the amazingly efficient, clean and safe means of travelling around London that the Tube provides. Its only problem is one of success; there are too many commuters trying to use it. But in general it is reliable and a very fast way of getting round a big city. Yes, it does cost a lot to keep it maintained, and that is a charge on tax payers. But the benefits are very real. For visitors it is all that most need.
The massive capacity of underground trains enables London and New York to operate high density areas reasonably efficiently - as long as you keep the trains up to date, as NY has failed to do.
This makes the cost of congestion payable by those causing it, deterring their behaviour. The medium tech solution is to require additional payments to enter specific areas, enforced by cameras. The high tech solution is to have cars fitted with a transponder that charges for the distance you move through the congested area.
But worldwide that's not true; in the UK the age of consent is 16 regardless of the age of the other party. But then we've just noted the day when America decided it wanted to ignore the opinions of the rest of the world...
The cost of the 'back up' will be far more than just the cost of the grid maintenance; it will be the cost of having a lot of generators available but mostly unused when renewables are generating; although 'most' of the time wind / sun will provide the energy, it's the times - especially the extended times - when they're not, that things will go badly wrong. The capital cost of those and the staffing required to ensure they are available when required is the problem here.
Yes, you're right that there are many things that receive subsidies at the moment, but adding to the number isn't a good idea. The main problem with continuing to subsidise 'back up users' is that the back up users will tend to be relatively wealthy and those stuck on the grid will be the less prosperous, so you are proposing yet another burden on the poor. By contrast most of the things you list are to the benefit of the poor.
Historically people paid for electricity. Now that they aren't paying for electricity, they will have to pay for the backup supply that they want - or they can go without. The idea that those who are 80% off grid should in effect be subsidised by those who can't leave it is unfair. Unfortunately the implementation of the transition - with a rather severe change in the pricing system to reflect the actual costs of keeping power stations available but not selling electricity - is going to be painful. This will be because the opposition will ally those who have got their solar power / wind power / other supplies to those who are campaigning against climate change, who will argue that the tariff changes will discourage low carbon solutions.
Actually the problems will start long before that; when a system doesn't pay for itself, system maintenance starts to be cut. They won't train up replacement skilled workers, then, one day, the grid will suffer a catastrophic failure and be an 'ex-parrot'.
This is trivially demonstrated by the fact that cars are not speed capped at 10mph to ensure that all crashes are injury free, and that motor bikes are still legal. The trick is to determine what is reasonable - and enforce it. Yes, of course private industry will go for cheapest implementation, however given the record of the public sector in failing to achieve rapid innovation, there is no alternative. And if self driving cars do save TENS of THOUSANDS of lives and injuries every year, a few glitches are tolerable if the alternative is years of additional delay.
At the heart of any decent moral system is something about loving everyone others as much as yourself - something which Trump unambiguously fails to endorse, of course - but which we should all aspire to. Of course I would MIND if the programming of a self driving car caused the deaths of close family in preference to far more deaths of others. But if I am seeking to live a morally valid life - as opposed to a self indulgent selfish self absorbed life - then I should be willing to see such a disaster as the preferable outcome. You?
The test for self driving cars should be: does it save a lot of lives overall? Unfortunately our infantilised unthinking proles, led by fear as a route to click bait tabloids will make rational thought on this issue HARD. 'Brave New World's' model of the infantilised as having no political power has its attractions...
A subsidiary is a local company established under local laws and subject to all local laws. It will have its own board of directors - who may well all be employees of the owning company, but still have a separate duty to obey the law. If such a subsidiary breaks the local law, it is a criminal offence and the directors become liable. If they are outside the country, the assets of the company may be seized.
If MS sets up the Irish subsidiary to own and operate the servers, it will be impossible for that subsidiary to obey the US order - because it is a separate legal entity which the US courts have no jurisdiction over.
Between those two legal doctrines, the case is clear. If MS DIDN'T vest ownership in its Irish subsidiary, then it is an idiot. This appears to be part of the story here...
My sincere congratulations to the Labour party for working out how to bribe the younger generation in such a way as to get them to turn out for you. Let's be clear what Corbyn was proposing; raising taxes on the few to ensure that the relatively gifted will get a large benefit. Not the NHS. Not schools. But people who are doing well, are going to university, are looking forward to being the relatively well off, were bribed by Labour.
There's a reason why political philosophers oppose democracy from first principles; because it can allow a group in society that happens to be a numerical majority to mug the rest of the community. The Tories were doing with pensioners, but got too honest this time in abandoning the 'triple lock'. Now Labour has mobilised the young... I don't think this will end well!
We are seeing many examples of where a bureaucrat is demonstrated to breach an explicit instruction and walks away. The answer lies in:
a) A general law that any legislation that instructs officers of the state to do something and which is then breached may allow their prosecution for abuse of power carrying a a maximum sentence of 20 years, and a MANDATORY loss of pension rights
b) Ensure that all laws with an instruction carry a similar penalty.
The person who makes the decision to implement the illegal action is fully and personally liable unless they can offer an explicit instruction from their superior. So if an NSA spook does something iffy, then they go to prison unless their boss does. If it was signed off by the President - well, he'll only be in office for 8 years...
Slashdot Mirror
The failure of Western governments to throw stupid amounts of money at the two diseases - Alzheimers and Type II Diabetes - that are costing taxpayers rapidly escalating sums of money, is depressing. We need these to be cured - and spending $100bn to do so would be GOOD VALUE.
I think you will find that auditors are measuring compliance with an externally set standard, not affirming that you are doing the wise thing. So you're shooting the messenger, which is seldom productive.
That was part of the UK and descended into total chaos over the independence issue. Just because we've avoided issues for centuries doesn't mean that it couldn't all go horribly wrong; if Corbyn is win an election - especially if there was significant hints of electoral abuses.
And remember 'A Very British Coup' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Great idea for a CV!
Given how expensive players are the potential saving are spectacular...
The case in favour of the tax payer providing adequate internet coverage is the same as that of providing education; the next generation should be adequately provided for to ensure they can be part of their society. The fact that the US is making a pig's ear of providing adequate schooling is a reminder that this is an optimistic ideal, but it's worth engaging with.
since you ask for corrections... ;)
As a logic bomb for revenge if they outsource this does have massive appeal however...
Once the initial shock is over, having a place of work to go to and someone other than family to spend time with may well be the support the guy needed. That the others in his group took the load sounds absolutely right - though management might have been more willing to reduce the load.
It won't enforce contracts that are unreasonable or hard to understand. This protects consumers a great deal.
I am forced to conclude that you've never been to London and used the amazingly efficient, clean and safe means of travelling around London that the Tube provides. Its only problem is one of success; there are too many commuters trying to use it. But in general it is reliable and a very fast way of getting round a big city. Yes, it does cost a lot to keep it maintained, and that is a charge on tax payers. But the benefits are very real. For visitors it is all that most need.
The massive capacity of underground trains enables London and New York to operate high density areas reasonably efficiently - as long as you keep the trains up to date, as NY has failed to do.
This makes the cost of congestion payable by those causing it, deterring their behaviour. The medium tech solution is to require additional payments to enter specific areas, enforced by cameras. The high tech solution is to have cars fitted with a transponder that charges for the distance you move through the congested area.
But worldwide that's not true; in the UK the age of consent is 16 regardless of the age of the other party. But then we've just noted the day when America decided it wanted to ignore the opinions of the rest of the world...
The cost of the 'back up' will be far more than just the cost of the grid maintenance; it will be the cost of having a lot of generators available but mostly unused when renewables are generating; although 'most' of the time wind / sun will provide the energy, it's the times - especially the extended times - when they're not, that things will go badly wrong. The capital cost of those and the staffing required to ensure they are available when required is the problem here.
Yes, you're right that there are many things that receive subsidies at the moment, but adding to the number isn't a good idea. The main problem with continuing to subsidise 'back up users' is that the back up users will tend to be relatively wealthy and those stuck on the grid will be the less prosperous, so you are proposing yet another burden on the poor. By contrast most of the things you list are to the benefit of the poor.
Historically people paid for electricity. Now that they aren't paying for electricity, they will have to pay for the backup supply that they want - or they can go without. The idea that those who are 80% off grid should in effect be subsidised by those who can't leave it is unfair. Unfortunately the implementation of the transition - with a rather severe change in the pricing system to reflect the actual costs of keeping power stations available but not selling electricity - is going to be painful. This will be because the opposition will ally those who have got their solar power / wind power / other supplies to those who are campaigning against climate change, who will argue that the tariff changes will discourage low carbon solutions.
Actually the problems will start long before that; when a system doesn't pay for itself, system maintenance starts to be cut. They won't train up replacement skilled workers, then, one day, the grid will suffer a catastrophic failure and be an 'ex-parrot'.
This is trivially demonstrated by the fact that cars are not speed capped at 10mph to ensure that all crashes are injury free, and that motor bikes are still legal. The trick is to determine what is reasonable - and enforce it. Yes, of course private industry will go for cheapest implementation, however given the record of the public sector in failing to achieve rapid innovation, there is no alternative. And if self driving cars do save TENS of THOUSANDS of lives and injuries every year, a few glitches are tolerable if the alternative is years of additional delay.
At the heart of any decent moral system is something about loving everyone others as much as yourself - something which Trump unambiguously fails to endorse, of course - but which we should all aspire to. Of course I would MIND if the programming of a self driving car caused the deaths of close family in preference to far more deaths of others. But if I am seeking to live a morally valid life - as opposed to a self indulgent selfish self absorbed life - then I should be willing to see such a disaster as the preferable outcome. You?
The test for self driving cars should be: does it save a lot of lives overall? Unfortunately our infantilised unthinking proles, led by fear as a route to click bait tabloids will make rational thought on this issue HARD. 'Brave New World's' model of the infantilised as having no political power has its attractions...
A subsidiary is a local company established under local laws and subject to all local laws. It will have its own board of directors - who may well all be employees of the owning company, but still have a separate duty to obey the law. If such a subsidiary breaks the local law, it is a criminal offence and the directors become liable. If they are outside the country, the assets of the company may be seized.
If MS sets up the Irish subsidiary to own and operate the servers, it will be impossible for that subsidiary to obey the US order - because it is a separate legal entity which the US courts have no jurisdiction over.
Between those two legal doctrines, the case is clear. If MS DIDN'T vest ownership in its Irish subsidiary, then it is an idiot. This appears to be part of the story here...
Lots of different types of servers needing individual TLC is stupidly expensive in the long run...
My sincere congratulations to the Labour party for working out how to bribe the younger generation in such a way as to get them to turn out for you. Let's be clear what Corbyn was proposing; raising taxes on the few to ensure that the relatively gifted will get a large benefit. Not the NHS. Not schools. But people who are doing well, are going to university, are looking forward to being the relatively well off, were bribed by Labour.
There's a reason why political philosophers oppose democracy from first principles; because it can allow a group in society that happens to be a numerical majority to mug the rest of the community. The Tories were doing with pensioners, but got too honest this time in abandoning the 'triple lock'. Now Labour has mobilised the young... I don't think this will end well!
We are seeing many examples of where a bureaucrat is demonstrated to breach an explicit instruction and walks away. The answer lies in:
a) A general law that any legislation that instructs officers of the state to do something and which is then breached may allow their prosecution for abuse of power carrying a a maximum sentence of 20 years, and a MANDATORY loss of pension rights
b) Ensure that all laws with an instruction carry a similar penalty.
The person who makes the decision to implement the illegal action is fully and personally liable unless they can offer an explicit instruction from their superior. So if an NSA spook does something iffy, then they go to prison unless their boss does. If it was signed off by the President - well, he'll only be in office for 8 years...