The 19% VAT isn't really as big of a deal as you might think... There are 8-9% sales taxes in most of the US as well. Things are more expensive, but I think alot of that is due to the exchange rate.
I agree that spending in the USA is problematic, but mainly because of where the spending is happening. The budget of the US military, for instance, is completely out of control.
My problem with the whole "spending problem" argument is that generally the proposed solution is to cut programs. This is not a solution; government programs, generally speaking, have good goals, and cannot be replaced by private sector programs, since they are, by their very nature, not for-profit. Medical care, fire and police, infrastructure, science research, education, etc... cannot (or rather, should not) be for-profit entities.
I live in Germany (but I'm American), and I am constantly amazed how much I get for my effective tax rate of 30% of income.
Full free medical care, free education, disability/unemployment insurance, investment in a good retirement pension, amazing infrastructure (highways/rail), and overall the best, most efficient government services that I've see anywhere in the world. Not to mention the multitude of other social services available for free should I need them.
I wonder how many Americans back home would choose all of that for 30% taxes? Most people I know back Stateside pay 20-30% anyways, and they don't get nearly as good a bang for their buck.
Social security is not going bankrupt anytime soon. Even if it were to go bankrupt, that would only be because the rest of the government robbed it.
Social security, in and of itself, is a highly successful and worthwhile entity. The primary issue is that we let our government pilfer it for other programs/wars. So what was a good idea got ruined so we could buy more missiles.
When iTunes sells an individual copy to a retail customer, that is a sale
I'm no big city lawyer, but I believe the Itunes terms and conditions specify that they are selling you a license to do a very limited set of things with the songs. Namely, to use it for your own personal listening enjoyment, and to do so on five authorized machines.
Not really... you can sell a license to do many things, copying only being one of them. Licensing just means that you are giving/selling permission to do something. What that something is would be specified in the terms of the license.
We were discussing the intended purpose of the subject field; and that is to give a short summary of what the full message contains.
This allows readers to skip over messages they are not interested in, and use their time more efficiently.
It's not about what I prefer, it's about efficient communication.
To follow your pointless analogy, it would be like not labeling containers of cold rice pudding (or labeling them as something else), forcing everyone else to waste their time checking to see what's actually in the container.
Umm, I sure hope you're joking... You could very easily have free trade in a society that embraces slavery. Just as you almost always have a lack of slavery in socialist societies. I hope I'm whooshing here.
hahaha, Ron Paul would just make it so much worse. He truly believes that free trade is the solution to all our problems. Deregulation won't solve anything; you still won't have a job, you just also won't have potable ground water.
And if it was the latter, did they have a search warrant, or is this another case of the government conducting warrantless wiretaps?
I believe the text message was sent from Canada to his colleagues in the US. IANAL, but I don't believe that the government would need a warrant in such a case. Just as they don't need warrants to search your person at international borders. So yes, it probably was a warrantless wiretap, just not an illegal one.
That's complete horseshit. They simply don't have the resources to pull aside everyone with darker skin, even if they wanted to.
I fly on a regular basis, and I see "light skinned" people get pulled aside just as much as I see "dark skinned" people get pulled aside.
I've seen a TSA agent wave a "dark skinned" bearded guy wearing a turban straight through, and then pull aside the little old white granny who was behind him.
$65 per iPhone is a pretty massive difference... How could Apple possibly justify losing that sort of margin?? Their shareholders would cry bloody murder!
if you can't stay awake sitting down in class, stand up in the back of the room; nobody falls asleep standing up.
We were forced to use that technique at the Naval Academy; if you were nodding off the Prof. said your name, you snapped to your feet and moved to the back of the room. This meant that nobody ever slept in class, but I did witness people "sleep fall" on occasion, where they would fall asleep standing up, start plummeting to the ground, and then wake up suddenly - (generally) just in time to break the fall.
You can be as skeptical as you want, but skepticism is no justification for making faulty arguments.
At least argue that humanity's CO2 production isn't having an effect on global climate.
Just don't argue that humanity is unable to affect the global climate, or that climate scientists are just playing around so that they can get free trips to conferences in Hawaii. Such arguments contribute nothing to the discussion, and do nothing but degrade the general level of discourse.
Which is better, contributing (ever so slightly) to global CO2 production in an attempt to affect some change, or sitting back and doing nothing and "hoping for the best"?
Climate before humanity has very little relevance to climate after humanity. Or are you claiming that humanity is unable to affect massive climate change?
You can argue that CO2 might not have a significant effect on global temperatures, but you cannot argue that humanity is unable to massively disrupt the Earth's "natural" (I only use quote because we, as a product of evolution, are natural) cycles.
I don't see facts, I only see conjecture that "scientists follow the money".
You have presented no proof to substantiate such a claim. Any scientist worth his salt is constantly searching to make provable arguments that would overturn his field. Scientists don't win Nobel Prizes by "going with the flow", they win them by doing something revolutionary, by demonstrating how "conventional wisdom" and the rest of their peers are wrong.
And your point is what? Just because the Earth is a vastly complicated and changing entity doesn't mean that humanity is unable to rapidly and effectively cause rapid harm to it.
This argument that because the Earth, in the past, has changed on geologic timescales, it must also do so in the future, is ridiculous.
Humanity has, undeniably, the capacity to rapidly change the climate on Earth. Consider what would happen if all nuclear warheads in existence were suddenly detonated.
Just because "natural" processes take eons to effect change does not imply that processes driven by humans must also take long time periods to unfold. Humans
Humanity has the power, and is indeed, rapidly changing the Earth's environment. You can argue about the effects that we might have, but this argument that the Earth is too big, and changes in timescales too lengthy for us to observe, is at best disingenuous, and at worst vastly harmful to our collective prosperity.
Just because processes without humans take long time periods to have an effect does not mean processes with humans must also takes long periods to have an effect. This is clearly a faulty argument.
Take, for instance, the massive effect humanity could cause if it decided to detonate all currently existing nuclear warheads at once. Would you also argue that such an event would not have an effect simply because the time scale is insignificant when compared to natural geology?
Except that maybe, just maybe, they're not all assholes who just want to make a quick buck. Maybe they're scientists who are trying to figure out the truth.
By your logic we would all still be firmly in support of the Ether because that's what dominated scientific conferences at one point.
Yes, and by your logic, you support "freedom", unless of course that means "freedom to enter a union with any person you choose". Then you think "freedom" should be restricted to "what I agree with".
Slashdot Mirror
Facebook better start making some serious cash if they hope to pay out a 10 cent quarterly dividend.
The 19% VAT isn't really as big of a deal as you might think... There are 8-9% sales taxes in most of the US as well. Things are more expensive, but I think alot of that is due to the exchange rate.
I agree that spending in the USA is problematic, but mainly because of where the spending is happening. The budget of the US military, for instance, is completely out of control.
My problem with the whole "spending problem" argument is that generally the proposed solution is to cut programs. This is not a solution; government programs, generally speaking, have good goals, and cannot be replaced by private sector programs, since they are, by their very nature, not for-profit. Medical care, fire and police, infrastructure, science research, education, etc... cannot (or rather, should not) be for-profit entities.
Full free medical care, free education, disability/unemployment insurance, investment in a good retirement pension, amazing infrastructure (highways/rail), and overall the best, most efficient government services that I've see anywhere in the world. Not to mention the multitude of other social services available for free should I need them.
I wonder how many Americans back home would choose all of that for 30% taxes? Most people I know back Stateside pay 20-30% anyways, and they don't get nearly as good a bang for their buck.
Social security, in and of itself, is a highly successful and worthwhile entity. The primary issue is that we let our government pilfer it for other programs/wars. So what was a good idea got ruined so we could buy more missiles.
When iTunes sells an individual copy to a retail customer, that is a sale
I'm no big city lawyer, but I believe the Itunes terms and conditions specify that they are selling you a license to do a very limited set of things with the songs. Namely, to use it for your own personal listening enjoyment, and to do so on five authorized machines.
Not really... you can sell a license to do many things, copying only being one of them. Licensing just means that you are giving/selling permission to do something. What that something is would be specified in the terms of the license.
This allows readers to skip over messages they are not interested in, and use their time more efficiently.
It's not about what I prefer, it's about efficient communication.
To follow your pointless analogy, it would be like not labeling containers of cold rice pudding (or labeling them as something else), forcing everyone else to waste their time checking to see what's actually in the container.
It's supposed to be a summary of what the full message contains. Not the first half of the first sentence.
Umm, I sure hope you're joking... You could very easily have free trade in a society that embraces slavery. Just as you almost always have a lack of slavery in socialist societies. I hope I'm whooshing here.
Different does not necessarily mean better.
"Salem, I'll be in New York on the 25th of January, we're going to rock AVN, if you have contacts send them to me"
And if it was the latter, did they have a search warrant, or is this another case of the government conducting warrantless wiretaps?
I believe the text message was sent from Canada to his colleagues in the US. IANAL, but I don't believe that the government would need a warrant in such a case. Just as they don't need warrants to search your person at international borders. So yes, it probably was a warrantless wiretap, just not an illegal one.
I fly on a regular basis, and I see "light skinned" people get pulled aside just as much as I see "dark skinned" people get pulled aside.
I've seen a TSA agent wave a "dark skinned" bearded guy wearing a turban straight through, and then pull aside the little old white granny who was behind him.
Maybe your brother just has bad luck?
$65 per iPhone is a pretty massive difference... How could Apple possibly justify losing that sort of margin?? Their shareholders would cry bloody murder!
if you can't stay awake sitting down in class, stand up in the back of the room; nobody falls asleep standing up.
We were forced to use that technique at the Naval Academy; if you were nodding off the Prof. said your name, you snapped to your feet and moved to the back of the room. This meant that nobody ever slept in class, but I did witness people "sleep fall" on occasion, where they would fall asleep standing up, start plummeting to the ground, and then wake up suddenly - (generally) just in time to break the fall.
At least argue that humanity's CO2 production isn't having an effect on global climate.
Just don't argue that humanity is unable to affect the global climate, or that climate scientists are just playing around so that they can get free trips to conferences in Hawaii. Such arguments contribute nothing to the discussion, and do nothing but degrade the general level of discourse.
Which is better, contributing (ever so slightly) to global CO2 production in an attempt to affect some change, or sitting back and doing nothing and "hoping for the best"?
Climate before humanity has very little relevance to climate after humanity. Or are you claiming that humanity is unable to affect massive climate change?
You can argue that CO2 might not have a significant effect on global temperatures, but you cannot argue that humanity is unable to massively disrupt the Earth's "natural" (I only use quote because we, as a product of evolution, are natural) cycles.
You have presented no proof to substantiate such a claim. Any scientist worth his salt is constantly searching to make provable arguments that would overturn his field. Scientists don't win Nobel Prizes by "going with the flow", they win them by doing something revolutionary, by demonstrating how "conventional wisdom" and the rest of their peers are wrong.
And your point is what? Just because the Earth is a vastly complicated and changing entity doesn't mean that humanity is unable to rapidly and effectively cause rapid harm to it.
Humanity has, undeniably, the capacity to rapidly change the climate on Earth. Consider what would happen if all nuclear warheads in existence were suddenly detonated.
Just because "natural" processes take eons to effect change does not imply that processes driven by humans must also take long time periods to unfold. Humans
Humanity has the power, and is indeed, rapidly changing the Earth's environment. You can argue about the effects that we might have, but this argument that the Earth is too big, and changes in timescales too lengthy for us to observe, is at best disingenuous, and at worst vastly harmful to our collective prosperity.
Take, for instance, the massive effect humanity could cause if it decided to detonate all currently existing nuclear warheads at once. Would you also argue that such an event would not have an effect simply because the time scale is insignificant when compared to natural geology?
By your logic we would all still be firmly in support of the Ether because that's what dominated scientific conferences at one point.
Yes, and by your logic, you support "freedom", unless of course that means "freedom to enter a union with any person you choose". Then you think "freedom" should be restricted to "what I agree with".
Don't most extradition treaties specify that the action must be a crime in both countries for the extradition treaty to apply?