Wrong answer. If the market is competive enough that they can't raise prices without losing marketshare or revenue, then they can't do so if they have to pay more taxes.
If, on the other hand, they can raise prices to compensate for higher taxes, they could have done so before the tax raise, and your naive reading of the law of supply and demand would predict they would have already done so.
The 'corporations will just discount taxes in their prices' argument is stupid.
The 'left' is not against nuclear energy, it's against nuclear industry. You know, the ones that have spent the last 60 years trying to convince us that their reactors are risk-free.
Funnily enough, when something finally goes wrong, suddenly the claim is that Fukushima was an outdated design.
If you spend 60 years telling people that these 'outdated' designs are safe, and they create a disaster nonetheless, why are you surprised that people are sceptical?
For the same reason the Confederate States were all for states rights, including their right to enforce their property laws on other states (the Fugitive Slave Act).
And here's another reason why you libertards are shunned by most people: your absolutely lack of any sense of hyperbole. Or any other figures of speech.
You know, nobody you were replying to were complaining about being unable to pirate because of copyright terms. I see only people pointing out reasonable arguments against current laws, it is you bringing in the piracy argument.
Given that you are attempting to derail the conversation anyway, I'm just going to wish you'd shut up and go the fuck away. I'm not going to hold my breath though.
Nope, you don't get away with this by hiding it in more verbiage. Your entire point comes down to any comments about copyright reform being off-topic as long as there are pirates. That is a fallacious argument.
And no, I'm not going to read through your comment history. Your pose as a verbose windbag in this thread is all I need to know.
Here's a hint: learn to make your argument in less words. If I misunderstood you, that is at least partly your fault.
Even if we grant you that there is a liberal media that does the same thing as the conservative media (and if we forget that 'But they do it too!' is a lousy argument), you forget one thing: the 'liberal' media in the US consists of multiple competing organisations, while the right has the single monolithic view of Murdoch.
That's a lot of verbiage that comes down to an ad hominem attack: "You just want free things, that's why you want copyright reform".
Unfortunately for you, we have already seen in cases where authors, you know: actual creators, have seen their sales rise when they voluntarily give up their rights under copyright.
Since the current draconian laws don't do anything to stop pirates anyway, your premise is objectively proven to be flawed. Nice try, but don't give up your day job.
We're not arguing the same point. Your 'clerical errors' are a strawman representation of what was given: the ability of cops to subvert the evidence-gathering process can make the evidence suspect enough to get thrown out.
In the case of cops with glasses that should be recording, but suddenly show gaps in places that would give a cop's version of events more credence, it is quite possible that the defense gets to argue that this is to cover up misbehaviour of the police and thus taint the entire chain of evidence for the prosecution. Exactly what happend in the O.J. trial.
I'm not confused at all. Whenever there is doubt about the process, there is a good chance that the judge will throw out the evidence.
Of course I reasoned from the general principle. The rest of us arguing this side in this subthread did too. You, of course, are going to whine about specific details not fitting; the typical behaviour of a right wing nutjob is after all that "it depends on what 'is' is" is perfectly fine when they do it.
Because this allows OP to derail the topic to one of the right wing's favourite topics: union-bashing.
To the OP: the reason the union complains is because it's made up of police officers, so your statement adds nothing new to the discussion, as it has already been established that police officers are making noises that they don't like this.
I don't see how it would affect privacy. Given that these are officers doing their work in public, no-one has an expectation of privacy anyway, that is the whole meaning of 'public' in the first place.
The only question remaining is the storage and retrieval policy regarding the footage; that may have some privacy implications.
Why? I haven't seen a lot of privacy advocates seriously arguing that public servants during the execution of their duty have the same right to privacy as an ordinary citizen.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong answer. If the market is competive enough that they can't raise prices without losing marketshare or revenue, then they can't do so if they have to pay more taxes.
If, on the other hand, they can raise prices to compensate for higher taxes, they could have done so before the tax raise, and your naive reading of the law of supply and demand would predict they would have already done so.
The 'corporations will just discount taxes in their prices' argument is stupid.
So, why don't corporations raise their prices to make a higher profit then?
And here's a tip for you: if someone points out you make yourself look like an idiot, saying things like 'protip:' tend to prove the point.
You're an idiot. If the corporations could factor taxes into their prices with impunity they would already have done so and claimed a higher profit.
Here's a tip for you: once you start discussing the opponents tone instead of his arguments, you've given up all semblance of debate.
But of course you didn't want a debate, now did you? You wanted to post a gotcha question so you could flounce off and pronounce your superiority.
Wow, an idiot who thinks that just because you own something, the government can't restrict how you use it.
Do you have to work at being that dumb, or are you just twelve?
I think you're not getting it.
The 'left' is not against nuclear energy, it's against nuclear industry. You know, the ones that have spent the last 60 years trying to convince us that their reactors are risk-free.
Funnily enough, when something finally goes wrong, suddenly the claim is that Fukushima was an outdated design.
If you spend 60 years telling people that these 'outdated' designs are safe, and they create a disaster nonetheless, why are you surprised that people are sceptical?
For the same reason the Confederate States were all for states rights, including their right to enforce their property laws on other states (the Fugitive Slave Act).
In Europe we do. The world is not the US, deal with it.
Oh hell yes there was a concurrent change: Japan was going through an economic boom.
Infant mortality strongly correlates to material welfare. Richer people tend to have more money to spend on postnatal care.
And here's another reason why you libertards are shunned by most people: your absolutely lack of any sense of hyperbole. Or any other figures of speech.
It's sociopathic nonsense like this why you libertards never get any real political traction. Thank God.
Sometimes, though, this makes me long for a new Committee for Public Safety.
Ok, fine. Are you going to pay the billions it takes to update the dykes and other infrastructure I live behind?
You know, nobody you were replying to were complaining about being unable to pirate because of copyright terms. I see only people pointing out reasonable arguments against current laws, it is you bringing in the piracy argument.
Given that you are attempting to derail the conversation anyway, I'm just going to wish you'd shut up and go the fuck away. I'm not going to hold my breath though.
Nope, you don't get away with this by hiding it in more verbiage. Your entire point comes down to any comments about copyright reform being off-topic as long as there are pirates. That is a fallacious argument.
And no, I'm not going to read through your comment history. Your pose as a verbose windbag in this thread is all I need to know.
Here's a hint: learn to make your argument in less words. If I misunderstood you, that is at least partly your fault.
Yeah, a lifelong Democrat even.
You do know who were the bigots and racists in the US prior to 1964, right?
And you are aware that every argument that starts with: 'I'm not $FOO, but' usually will actually promote $FOO?
Even if we grant you that there is a liberal media that does the same thing as the conservative media (and if we forget that 'But they do it too!' is a lousy argument), you forget one thing: the 'liberal' media in the US consists of multiple competing organisations, while the right has the single monolithic view of Murdoch.
Hardly a fair comparison, now is it?
That's a lot of verbiage that comes down to an ad hominem attack: "You just want free things, that's why you want copyright reform".
Unfortunately for you, we have already seen in cases where authors, you know: actual creators, have seen their sales rise when they voluntarily give up their rights under copyright.
Since the current draconian laws don't do anything to stop pirates anyway, your premise is objectively proven to be flawed. Nice try, but don't give up your day job.
Neither does the weather forecast mention that the Sun will rise in the morning.
We're not arguing the same point. Your 'clerical errors' are a strawman representation of what was given: the ability of cops to subvert the evidence-gathering process can make the evidence suspect enough to get thrown out.
In the case of cops with glasses that should be recording, but suddenly show gaps in places that would give a cop's version of events more credence, it is quite possible that the defense gets to argue that this is to cover up misbehaviour of the police and thus taint the entire chain of evidence for the prosecution. Exactly what happend in the O.J. trial.
If you'd seriously dieted, you might have a larger choice in cars.
I'm not confused at all. Whenever there is doubt about the process, there is a good chance that the judge will throw out the evidence.
Of course I reasoned from the general principle. The rest of us arguing this side in this subthread did too. You, of course, are going to whine about specific details not fitting; the typical behaviour of a right wing nutjob is after all that "it depends on what 'is' is" is perfectly fine when they do it.
You stupid short-sighted moronic American. But I repeat myself.
There is plenty of organised crime and violence around drugs and prostitution in the Netherlands. Take it from one who lives there.
Because this allows OP to derail the topic to one of the right wing's favourite topics: union-bashing.
To the OP: the reason the union complains is because it's made up of police officers, so your statement adds nothing new to the discussion, as it has already been established that police officers are making noises that they don't like this.
I don't see how it would affect privacy. Given that these are officers doing their work in public, no-one has an expectation of privacy anyway, that is the whole meaning of 'public' in the first place.
The only question remaining is the storage and retrieval policy regarding the footage; that may have some privacy implications.
Why? I haven't seen a lot of privacy advocates seriously arguing that public servants during the execution of their duty have the same right to privacy as an ordinary citizen.