If he really wants to break the record he should do it on a motorcycle. Nope. I ride quite a lot. Doing that sort of speed on a bike will give you a tank range of something like 80-90 miles. That's a lot of stops, which fucks with your average speed very badly.
While traffic violations do cover a number of items, you can apply non-traffic-specific laws as well. How about "reckless endangerment" or any variety of other laws that might still be within the limitations? Do you have evidence that he recklessly endangered people?
or something else that may have occured had he not been lucky? What makes you think he was lucky? The fact that he used these tools suggest that he is quite capable of taking precautions.
Who do these Brazilians think they are anyway? Some kind of sovereign nation? I'm sorry, you don't really think politicians actually run countries do you?
Take the UK governmental budget. £568 billion. National debt £540 billion. Now add on £1,300 billion of private, personal debt on top of that.
Who do you think decides whether you'll have a job next week?
A standards committee is not designed as a battlezone; it's run under the assumption that its members, while they may disagree on the technical details, all want to agree a standard And standards are designed to create a monopoly situation for a particular technology or technical area. Monopolies are fabulous revenue generation mechanisms if you can get your personal technology ratified as a standard.
I don't believe for a second that MS is the first to attempt this. Not recognising this possibility in the rules is particularly naive.
Banks hold money, which is printed and distributed by the Federal Reserve. Paypal is a financial institution, not a bank, because they do not handle money in the same sense. No, it's primary the creation of money which differentiates a bank from other financial institutions.
Banks do hold money, however that isn't what differentiates them from Paypal. Paypal's money happens to be electronic. Most of the bank's money is also electronic, only about 5% is paper and metal.
The difference is that banks are permitted to give loans of money, and in doing so they create money from nothing.
Banks do not create money. They make money by charging higher interest on loans Banks do create money when they give loans. It's called Fractional Reserve Banking.
Compare with banks and counterfeiters. People think banks are banks because they take deposits, where in fact they're banks because they create money[1], just like a counterfeiter, the only difference really is the legality.
Also don't forget the last minute additions to bills that are totally unrelated to that bill, that's one of their favorite tricks Yeah, I think that's the American concept of law creation.
the only advantage I find on Linux in server space is the flexibility and options allowed by Unix that aren't as easy to access in Windows. So... nothing important then...
And your point is? Proportionate taxation? Go for it. Don't just complain about the problem, come up with a real solution.
My point is that if you pay for things through borrowing you directly increase the money supply, ten fold, which inflates stock and property prices as well as CPI inflation and interest rates. All of which make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Do you realise that would make the problem worse?
You do realise that manipulating the money supply moves wealth?
How much is your social health system going to cost? I'll give you a starting point. In the UK with 60 million people it costs 105 billionpounds a year.
Remember if you borrow the money you increase the supply of money to the economy, which ends up in the stock and property markets making those with stock and property wealthier and those without, poorer. The US reserve ratio is around 10% so you can pretty much multiply the borrowing numbers by 10 to work out how much richer you'll make the wealthy.
And you realize that's a crock right? Lots of countries with public health care run balanced budgets Canada and New Zealand are not "superpowers". The US hasn't balanced a budget for decades and to socialise your healthcare you would have to forget being a superpower and get rid of your military almost entirely. Iraq is being paid for by borrowing, not taxation. If you stop the Iraq war tomorrow, the US budget will still not be balanced and will not pay for socialised healthcare.
The NHS system in the UK for 60 million people costs £105 billion a year. Which works out in dollars for around 300 million people something like 1.06 trillion dollars per year.
I'll let you work out where you're going to find something of the magnitude of a trillion dollars per year without borrowing.
Why not pick a topic that effects everyone now? This way they get to have a group wank. If they picked a cause rather than an effect they might actually have to get off their arses and change something.
The minor "redistribution of wealth" from rich to poor represented by social welfare programs is just a small governor on the runaway "redistribution of wealth" of everyone to the rich created by public policy that favors speculation over labor; You realise that this redistribution of wealth requires increased government borrowing. Which then feed through to the fractional reserve banking system, multiplying it many times over pushing money into the economy, which simply moves even more value from the poor to the rich increasing the percentage of the economy they own. It makes the problem worse.
the issuance of land and resource deeds, corporate charters, copyrights, and patents; the reserve banking system; the inheritablity of wealth; and everything else the government does to create capitalism. You don't fix a broken system by making it bigger. The only thing you're doing is increasing centralisation.
Technically, saving money is a very bad thing. It's nothing of the sort. The money you put in a bank increases their reserves and allows them to loan out more money. Which they then do. It's not borrowing which then reduces the money supply, but even that isn't necessarily bad. Those with cash benefit from deflation, that would be the poor and those who's pay rises barely keep up with the CPI.
Pumping money into the economy is like force feeding an animal or plant. It increases the numbers of transactions directs resources to specific areas but at the expense of the health of the plant or animal. You end up with a completely distorted economy which then requires continual injections of inflation just to function. Look around you, the reason you have a disposable culture dominated by corporations and multinationals is because the government and banks are force feeding the economy, continually expending more money.
Whether it is good or bad depends on whether you are the one benefiting or not.
Slashdot Mirror
You realise you just killed a bit of the Internet?
Take the UK governmental budget. £568 billion. National debt £540 billion. Now add on £1,300 billion of private, personal debt on top of that.
Who do you think decides whether you'll have a job next week?
holy shit it still works too!
I don't believe for a second that MS is the first to attempt this. Not recognising this possibility in the rules is particularly naive.
Each individual bank loans the cash out once. The reserve ratio means it can circulate an additional 9 times.
Banks do hold money, however that isn't what differentiates them from Paypal. Paypal's money happens to be electronic. Most of the bank's money is also electronic, only about 5% is paper and metal.
The difference is that banks are permitted to give loans of money, and in doing so they create money from nothing.
Well, the key feature of crime being legality...
Compare with banks and counterfeiters. People think banks are banks because they take deposits, where in fact they're banks because they create money[1], just like a counterfeiter, the only difference really is the legality.
[1] This is why PayPal is not a bank.
Oh and expect the state to take control of pretty much every aspect of life helped by "the government should" central planning drones.
Think I'll buy shares in some arms manufacturers and gas suppliers.
Millions disagree with your extreme and unpopular position.
And your point is? Proportionate taxation? Go for it. Don't just complain about the problem, come up with a real solution.
My point is that if you pay for things through borrowing you directly increase the money supply, ten fold, which inflates stock and property prices as well as CPI inflation and interest rates. All of which make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Do you realise that would make the problem worse?
You do realise that manipulating the money supply moves wealth?
Go on. Cost it out then.
How much is your social health system going to cost? I'll give you a starting point. In the UK with 60 million people it costs 105 billion pounds a year.
Remember if you borrow the money you increase the supply of money to the economy, which ends up in the stock and property markets making those with stock and property wealthier and those without, poorer. The US reserve ratio is around 10% so you can pretty much multiply the borrowing numbers by 10 to work out how much richer you'll make the wealthy.
The NHS system in the UK for 60 million people costs £105 billion a year. Which works out in dollars for around 300 million people something like 1.06 trillion dollars per year.
I'll let you work out where you're going to find something of the magnitude of a trillion dollars per year without borrowing.
Ah yes.
The men with guns, tanks, bombers and nuclear weapons.
Pumping money into the economy is like force feeding an animal or plant. It increases the numbers of transactions directs resources to specific areas but at the expense of the health of the plant or animal. You end up with a completely distorted economy which then requires continual injections of inflation just to function. Look around you, the reason you have a disposable culture dominated by corporations and multinationals is because the government and banks are force feeding the economy, continually expending more money.
Whether it is good or bad depends on whether you are the one benefiting or not.
It drops connections you don't need and grows new ones... So, use it or lose it. You'll now be much better at something else entirely.