The global free market equalises. If you've got a region of very high wages, and a region of very low wages, and you allow jobs to suddenly travel freely - then soon trade occurs and the market starts to correct the discrepancy. This is a great thing from the perspective of all mankind as a collective - but it is not so great if you happen to live in one of those regions of very high wages and find your job has relocated to Bangladesh.
Possibly help you? That depends upon your health for the rest of your life. Sure, you could live without health problems until you are eighty, then get hit by a truck. But you might also find yourself in future suffering from a series of very expensive life-threatening illnesses.
Remember, cancer *will* hit everyone, eventually, unless they die of something else first.
An EU ruling more than ten years ago made it quite clear that automatic bans on voting for prisoners are in violation of EU law, and the UK was ordered to comply. The UK still has not done so. Our prime minister has declared that the law will not be changed, even though it is defiance of EU human rights law.
If a member state refuses to comply with European law, there's basically nothing that can be done about it.
Because it ruins the rhetoric. Simplification of the tax code is certainly possible, but anyone who claims they can 'get it down to thirty pages' or that you'll be able to write your tax return 'on the back of a postcard' are making promises that they cannot deliver on, and trying to deliver on them would be disastrous.
They can be exploited now, but there are all sorts of really convoluted tax rules to stop that which you need to spend years studying in order to comprehend - and you need someone who knows all those rules in order to find the loopholes. Your alternative proposal would scrap the rules, which means every business large and small would be finding new ways to barter efficiently. 20% of payroll costs will easily justify hiring a specialist who knows how best to set up a good untaxable benefits system.
Such a simple system becomes exploitable. The exploits demand countermeasures, and that gets complicated.
For example, you tax income. But what is income? Company car? Company house? Company staff discount? You've set up a system where employers and employees agree to non-monetary compensation as a form of tax avoidance, which means you have to add all sorts of rules about calculating equivalent taxable values.
Windows system services are also exempt from the OS firewall, so you can't use that. I tried it. You can still block them with an external firewall, of course.
There's another downside: MS's servers are quite dynamic. They are all mixed seemingly at random in an IP range, and it changes. So it's all or nothing. You want to block MS spying, fine - but you'll also lost OneDrive, Cortana and even Bing. Skype still seems ok though.
" The Greeks had them, sort of, they think they were used for electroplating stuff."
There's no solid evidence for this. There are some artifacts that look like they might have been batteries, but were more likely just very well-constructed storage jars for archiving documents. The lack of any documents referring to the process or of any electroplated artifacts puts the electroplate theory on very shaky ground indeed. Very few archaeologists consider it even plausible.
Most USB2 hosts include a polyfuse. Not all, but most. The purpose of the polyfuse is to prevent a shorted device from damaging the host. That doesn't work so well with a 3A port, because even normal charging current is quite enough to set a substandard cable smouldering.
"Sounds like a pretty good argument for taking the federal government out of education entirely."
Do you think the states would be any better? Or local?
Or even private schools - that just results in the parents sending their child to a school dedicated to raising miniature clones of themselves.
Children will be indoctrinated. That is their nature. You cannot teach them without forcing ideas upon them, because they instinctively mimic the society to which they are exposed.
But allowing people to breed, knowing they will create offspring doomed to die of a terrible genetic condition, when there are alternative options available? Also unethical.
Life does not give you nice right-and-wrong dilemmas. Sometimes you have to decide which one is the least wrong. I'm going with the eugenics option. It isn't even that invasive: There are alternative options available for obtaining a child without passing on the bad genes.
There's a very small but non-zero chance of screwing up - introducing some unintended damage to the DNA which will go initially unnoticed, until the subject's muscles start to turn to gloop twenty years later. At least this way any screwups are contained to one individual.
That just means Uber is also acting as a payment processor. A transaction can be legally from A to C even if the money actually goes via B - you'll find it burried in the terms of services somewhere.
He probably got it on credit. It makes financial sense - if you're getting very heavy usage from a car, as a taxi driver would, then a reduction in running costs will eventually offset the initial purchase cost - even when interest. Payback time may be a few years.
Look at the qualifications for fostering a child. They vary by country, but in general you have to go through a background check. You have to be vetted by a government authority to ensure your home will be a healthy environment. You have to be able to demonstrate a secure income and ability to meet the material needs of a child. When you get it, you'll be closely monitored for a time. Right now there's a family in the US taking legal action against the state because they believe in corporal punishment as a religious requirement and the state requires potential foster-parents sign a 'no violence' agreement. These are the standards which society has decided that a person must meet in order to take on the difficult, dangerous and vitally important task of raising a child.
Or, on the other hand, they could take the other route: "I got's me a pair 'o balls, guess that means I'm-a qualified to be a daddy." A standard that any idiot can meet, often accidentally, resulting in a great many children being born into families that do not have the support, resources or education to raise them.
I can see a way to do it right: 1. Identify people who have genes that are, quite clearly, not desirable in a very strong way. Huntington's would be a good place to start. 2. Explain to these people that they really ought not to breed. It'd be foolhardy. If they absolutely insist then there's not much that can be done to stop them, but they ought to have some sense of responsibility. 3. Here's a voucher for fast-track fostering/adoption processing, free sterilisation and IVF with PGD where possible. Use a sperm donor or surrogate if you must, just accept that your genes suck. Sorry. Make the best you can of it.
The Nazis and others abuses did a very poor job with eugenics, and destroyed the reputation of the field. Now it's impossible to even bring the subject up without immediate cries of 'NAZI!' killing the debate.
So the misunderstanding, as so often happens, is because a word has a specific meaning within a certain community that differs from the meaning of that word in the general population?
Civilisation is self-defining: It means having the characteristics of the culture of the speaker.
There's a good line from one of the ancient Greek philosophers, I forget which, contrasting the funerary practices of Greeks with those of a far-off people in Africa. He concluded that both of them would consider the practices of the other to be savage, offensive and an abominable practice - and questioned if either can be said to be more right.
Slashdot Mirror
The global free market equalises. If you've got a region of very high wages, and a region of very low wages, and you allow jobs to suddenly travel freely - then soon trade occurs and the market starts to correct the discrepancy. This is a great thing from the perspective of all mankind as a collective - but it is not so great if you happen to live in one of those regions of very high wages and find your job has relocated to Bangladesh.
Revolution is unlikely so long as the masses are kept well-fed and entertained. Panem et television.
Possibly help you? That depends upon your health for the rest of your life. Sure, you could live without health problems until you are eighty, then get hit by a truck. But you might also find yourself in future suffering from a series of very expensive life-threatening illnesses.
Remember, cancer *will* hit everyone, eventually, unless they die of something else first.
I wouldn't call it active encouragement. Only passive encouragement.
An EU ruling more than ten years ago made it quite clear that automatic bans on voting for prisoners are in violation of EU law, and the UK was ordered to comply. The UK still has not done so. Our prime minister has declared that the law will not be changed, even though it is defiance of EU human rights law.
If a member state refuses to comply with European law, there's basically nothing that can be done about it.
Because it ruins the rhetoric. Simplification of the tax code is certainly possible, but anyone who claims they can 'get it down to thirty pages' or that you'll be able to write your tax return 'on the back of a postcard' are making promises that they cannot deliver on, and trying to deliver on them would be disastrous.
How many pages of regulations are required to cover barter?
They can be exploited now, but there are all sorts of really convoluted tax rules to stop that which you need to spend years studying in order to comprehend - and you need someone who knows all those rules in order to find the loopholes. Your alternative proposal would scrap the rules, which means every business large and small would be finding new ways to barter efficiently. 20% of payroll costs will easily justify hiring a specialist who knows how best to set up a good untaxable benefits system.
Such a simple system becomes exploitable. The exploits demand countermeasures, and that gets complicated.
For example, you tax income. But what is income? Company car? Company house? Company staff discount? You've set up a system where employers and employees agree to non-monetary compensation as a form of tax avoidance, which means you have to add all sorts of rules about calculating equivalent taxable values.
Windows system services are also exempt from the OS firewall, so you can't use that. I tried it. You can still block them with an external firewall, of course.
There's another downside: MS's servers are quite dynamic. They are all mixed seemingly at random in an IP range, and it changes. So it's all or nothing. You want to block MS spying, fine - but you'll also lost OneDrive, Cortana and even Bing. Skype still seems ok though.
" The Greeks had them, sort of, they think they were used for electroplating stuff."
There's no solid evidence for this. There are some artifacts that look like they might have been batteries, but were more likely just very well-constructed storage jars for archiving documents. The lack of any documents referring to the process or of any electroplated artifacts puts the electroplate theory on very shaky ground indeed. Very few archaeologists consider it even plausible.
Most USB2 hosts include a polyfuse. Not all, but most. The purpose of the polyfuse is to prevent a shorted device from damaging the host. That doesn't work so well with a 3A port, because even normal charging current is quite enough to set a substandard cable smouldering.
"Sounds like a pretty good argument for taking the federal government out of education entirely."
Do you think the states would be any better? Or local?
Or even private schools - that just results in the parents sending their child to a school dedicated to raising miniature clones of themselves.
Children will be indoctrinated. That is their nature. You cannot teach them without forcing ideas upon them, because they instinctively mimic the society to which they are exposed.
It is.
But allowing people to breed, knowing they will create offspring doomed to die of a terrible genetic condition, when there are alternative options available? Also unethical.
Life does not give you nice right-and-wrong dilemmas. Sometimes you have to decide which one is the least wrong. I'm going with the eugenics option. It isn't even that invasive: There are alternative options available for obtaining a child without passing on the bad genes.
There's a very small but non-zero chance of screwing up - introducing some unintended damage to the DNA which will go initially unnoticed, until the subject's muscles start to turn to gloop twenty years later. At least this way any screwups are contained to one individual.
Marvel will be suing them for trademark infringement.
That just means Uber is also acting as a payment processor. A transaction can be legally from A to C even if the money actually goes via B - you'll find it burried in the terms of services somewhere.
He probably got it on credit. It makes financial sense - if you're getting very heavy usage from a car, as a taxi driver would, then a reduction in running costs will eventually offset the initial purchase cost - even when interest. Payback time may be a few years.
Look at the qualifications for fostering a child. They vary by country, but in general you have to go through a background check. You have to be vetted by a government authority to ensure your home will be a healthy environment. You have to be able to demonstrate a secure income and ability to meet the material needs of a child. When you get it, you'll be closely monitored for a time. Right now there's a family in the US taking legal action against the state because they believe in corporal punishment as a religious requirement and the state requires potential foster-parents sign a 'no violence' agreement. These are the standards which society has decided that a person must meet in order to take on the difficult, dangerous and vitally important task of raising a child.
Or, on the other hand, they could take the other route: "I got's me a pair 'o balls, guess that means I'm-a qualified to be a daddy." A standard that any idiot can meet, often accidentally, resulting in a great many children being born into families that do not have the support, resources or education to raise them.
I can see a way to do it right:
1. Identify people who have genes that are, quite clearly, not desirable in a very strong way. Huntington's would be a good place to start.
2. Explain to these people that they really ought not to breed. It'd be foolhardy. If they absolutely insist then there's not much that can be done to stop them, but they ought to have some sense of responsibility.
3. Here's a voucher for fast-track fostering/adoption processing, free sterilisation and IVF with PGD where possible. Use a sperm donor or surrogate if you must, just accept that your genes suck. Sorry. Make the best you can of it.
The Nazis and others abuses did a very poor job with eugenics, and destroyed the reputation of the field. Now it's impossible to even bring the subject up without immediate cries of 'NAZI!' killing the debate.
I prefix it with a #. Once I've typed the line in and verified it, home-del-enter.
So the misunderstanding, as so often happens, is because a word has a specific meaning within a certain community that differs from the meaning of that word in the general population?
Stupidity and courage can manifest in the same way externally.
As for brainwashing, it's unavoidable. Basic human nature from childhood - copy the ambient tribal views.
Civilisation is self-defining: It means having the characteristics of the culture of the speaker.
There's a good line from one of the ancient Greek philosophers, I forget which, contrasting the funerary practices of Greeks with those of a far-off people in Africa. He concluded that both of them would consider the practices of the other to be savage, offensive and an abominable practice - and questioned if either can be said to be more right.