Or just have the same taxes for corporations as you have for people. Tax their income, not their profit. Suddenly making it look like your company is loosing money will no longer be useful as a tax dodge.
But why limit this to married people. Why not give the tax break to anyone that has and is taking care of the child. Why do people who DON'T have children get a break just because they're married?
In a way, yes. Why should people get tax breaks for signing a paper? If the government wants to boost the number of children why not just increase tax breaks for having children.
And can't a person designate anyone to have visitation rights etc?
But the law seems to imply that annoying is fine, as long as you don't 'use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.'
So it's not so much a law against trolling, as it is against impolite trolling.
If that is the case then I fully support it. It's so much more satisfying to drive a person crazy while being completely polite.
If anything the app, to me, seems a good thing. Kind of like a 'death observation post' at the bottom of a cliff. With big signs noting the number of climbers killed each day and offering binoculars for only a few $/hour.
Sure it might be creepy, but at the same time it will serve as a warning to future climbers that their actions might be risky.
Eventually enough people will die that the wars themselves will die out. Sure if they are stubborn it might take a 99% die-off, but look on the bright side. Just hunting-gathering may be enough to sustain those people.
The people who started wars in Europe were NOT the ones starving, just bored. Any yes, there were still wars - but they kept the population in check since farmers were prime targets - easy prey without the walls of castles and cities. So the farmers dies, food got scarce and things calmed down for a few years, since the local lord couldn't afford to pay enough soldiers to get revenge.
In Africa you have wars and population GROWTH. So they kill of the farmers, destroy infrastructure AND have more babies - which join the warlords as soon as they can hold a rifle. Then the rest of the world ships in just enough food to keep the whole thing going.
So why not isolate those countries? With no trade and no food going in, there soon won't be anything worth fighting for. Why fight for diamonds when there is nowhere to sell them? Why join the warlords when there is no food to steal? Just post international troops on the borders to keep the conflicts contained then wait them out.
Or we could impose peace on them, then listen to another century about 'imperialist' outsiders.
Africa could probably feed it's population if it had the infrastructure, machinery, supplies and knowledge to operate modern farms. They don't and their population keeps growing while the rest of the world feeds them.
All the Church cares about is it's own power. If it revered life so much then it would sell all the gold that's lying around Vatican and set up farms and hospitals in Africa.
Let MOST die of starvation. It's what used to happen all over the world, Europe included. Population rose to the maximum allowed by food production, then a drought or something similar knocked it back down. But there was no country that would get food shipped to it for free year after year.
So just stop aid shipments. Let them figure out how to either earn enough money to buy food or grow enough themselves. Sure many will die, but many die anyway. If not from hunger then from civil wars. If the population drops enough civil wars will stop on their own and the people that survive will be too busy growing food to fight.
But I would like to add something. Once they decide on a course of action, and you foot the bill for it, they should stick to it. If the leader spends the money for personal gain, STOP helping them. Wait until the leadership is replaced then try again. Don't give the people food in the mean time. That just ensures there is never enough outrage to start a full blown revolution.
Why do they have to compete on international markets? There are food shortages in Africa, so there is obviously a demand for food. Sure they won't be able to afford modern machinery or fertilizers, so the production will be low (think medieval Europe). But they can still feed themselves and a few other families. So why don't they?
What you need is 30 billion AND the control of how they are spent. 30 billion for weapons and government car's won't stop hunger. So the only choice would be taking over countries while you're helping them, or finding a government that is not completely corrupt. And guess what, there aren't many around in Africa. And those that do exist mostly don't have problems with food supplies (South Africa). So what has to happen is that Africans themselves have to sort out their governments. Until that happens most aid programs will just make things worse.
Those things sound expensive and fairly easy to steal. So how long do you suppose it's going to take your starving neighbors to figure out that you have a month's supply of food sitting on your roof glinting in the sun?
Don't forget security. It won't help a family if they build this, if their neighbors raid it once their food runs out. So you need to get a high enough % of the population to operate these, so they can band together for protection. Then you run into the water problems, when the local supplies can't sustain so many systems.
They weren't ideologically pure enough. So the government gave the land to their cronies instead. THEY didn't know anything about farming, so now there is famine.
Slashdot Mirror
Or just have the same taxes for corporations as you have for people. Tax their income, not their profit. Suddenly making it look like your company is loosing money will no longer be useful as a tax dodge.
But why limit this to married people. Why not give the tax break to anyone that has and is taking care of the child. Why do people who DON'T have children get a break just because they're married?
Probably in the same book that said usury was a sin. It's funny how that doesn't bother the religious. I guess society has evolved beyond the book.
In a way, yes. Why should people get tax breaks for signing a paper?
If the government wants to boost the number of children why not just increase tax breaks for having children.
And can't a person designate anyone to have visitation rights etc?
But the law seems to imply that annoying is fine, as long as you don't 'use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.'
So it's not so much a law against trolling, as it is against impolite trolling.
If that is the case then I fully support it. It's so much more satisfying to drive a person crazy while being completely polite.
If anything the app, to me, seems a good thing. Kind of like a 'death observation post' at the bottom of a cliff. With big signs noting the number of climbers killed each day and offering binoculars for only a few $/hour.
Sure it might be creepy, but at the same time it will serve as a warning to future climbers that their actions might be risky.
If Apple though increasing prices would get them more money, then they would already have raised them.
No. Letting the rapist go after he shoots the women, since she scratched his face.
Do you have the right to defend yourself if someone threatens you with a gun?
What if Zimmerman threatened to kill the kid? Would the kid not be entitled to try and disarm him?
That's a good question to put before a jury.
If this had happened to a white kid the shooter would already be in jail.
If the shooter was black the jury would probably be deciding between life imprisonment and death penalty by now.
Usually the guy standing over the corpse with a gun will be arrested. The investigation also won't take weeks with no end in sight.
So he was allowed to shoot anyone in his neighborhood? Where can I sign up?
But you still need a site to tell people about your torrent. And RIAA will send a DMCA takedown to any site they see doing that.
MPAA will contact Youtube and get your video removed. They own all music after all.
Eventually enough people will die that the wars themselves will die out. Sure if they are stubborn it might take a 99% die-off, but look on the bright side. Just hunting-gathering may be enough to sustain those people.
The people who started wars in Europe were NOT the ones starving, just bored. Any yes, there were still wars - but they kept the population in check since farmers were prime targets - easy prey without the walls of castles and cities. So the farmers dies, food got scarce and things calmed down for a few years, since the local lord couldn't afford to pay enough soldiers to get revenge.
In Africa you have wars and population GROWTH. So they kill of the farmers, destroy infrastructure AND have more babies - which join the warlords as soon as they can hold a rifle. Then the rest of the world ships in just enough food to keep the whole thing going.
So why not isolate those countries? With no trade and no food going in, there soon won't be anything worth fighting for. Why fight for diamonds when there is nowhere to sell them? Why join the warlords when there is no food to steal? Just post international troops on the borders to keep the conflicts contained then wait them out.
Or we could impose peace on them, then listen to another century about 'imperialist' outsiders.
So why did you elect the government that did this?
Africa could probably feed it's population if it had the infrastructure, machinery, supplies and knowledge to operate modern farms. They don't and their population keeps growing while the rest of the world feeds them.
Reverence for life? Don't make me laugh.
All the Church cares about is it's own power. If it revered life so much then it would sell all the gold that's lying around Vatican and set up farms and hospitals in Africa.
Let MOST die of starvation. It's what used to happen all over the world, Europe included. Population rose to the maximum allowed by food production, then a drought or something similar knocked it back down. But there was no country that would get food shipped to it for free year after year.
So just stop aid shipments. Let them figure out how to either earn enough money to buy food or grow enough themselves. Sure many will die, but many die anyway. If not from hunger then from civil wars. If the population drops enough civil wars will stop on their own and the people that survive will be too busy growing food to fight.
Well said.
But I would like to add something. Once they decide on a course of action, and you foot the bill for it, they should stick to it. If the leader spends the money for personal gain, STOP helping them. Wait until the leadership is replaced then try again. Don't give the people food in the mean time. That just ensures there is never enough outrage to start a full blown revolution.
Why do they have to compete on international markets? There are food shortages in Africa, so there is obviously a demand for food. Sure they won't be able to afford modern machinery or fertilizers, so the production will be low (think medieval Europe). But they can still feed themselves and a few other families. So why don't they?
What you need is 30 billion AND the control of how they are spent. 30 billion for weapons and government car's won't stop hunger. So the only choice would be taking over countries while you're helping them, or finding a government that is not completely corrupt. And guess what, there aren't many around in Africa. And those that do exist mostly don't have problems with food supplies (South Africa). So what has to happen is that Africans themselves have to sort out their governments. Until that happens most aid programs will just make things worse.
Those things sound expensive and fairly easy to steal. So how long do you suppose it's going to take your starving neighbors to figure out that you have a month's supply of food sitting on your roof glinting in the sun?
Don't forget security. It won't help a family if they build this, if their neighbors raid it once their food runs out. So you need to get a high enough % of the population to operate these, so they can band together for protection. Then you run into the water problems, when the local supplies can't sustain so many systems.
They weren't ideologically pure enough. So the government gave the land to their cronies instead. THEY didn't know anything about farming, so now there is famine.