But you don't understand. The science is "settled". Didn't you hear? The conclusions are "settled". It's a consensus. Everyone who disagrees is a "denier". The calls for these deniers to be prosecuted have already begun.
Why is there new data? What is it for? Why does the new data almost always support the position of the "deniers"?
Maybe we should prosecute these researchers as denier-accomplices so we can stop anyone else from undermining the settled consensus with new data.
Nevermind the huge extra costs everyone is going to have to pay for every product that uses energy. Nevermind the worse standards of living we'll all have forced on us. Nevermind the loss of freedom.
It's just that people personally don't like Al Gore.
I'm sure people are happy to buy a nice place in Mumbai, so the market supports higher prices. No one wants to live in a corrupt one-party third-world conflict zone like Detroit.
MIMO schemes are somewhat resilient to the problem with someone standing in the signal path.
Anyway, this seems to be aimed at allowing your PS3 or your laptop to display on the wall-mounted flat-screen 8 feet away without running a cable. I think they had room-to-room transmission in mind only with directional antennas.
As far as I know, business taxes are based on profits, not on gross income. If hiring a new employee reduces gross profits, then the tax burden is likewise reduced.
These lines show you know nothing about business.
If hiring an employee doesn't increase profits, why would a business do it?
Right, because he had time to carefully investigate the finances of everyone he nominated. Troll.
Obviously someone had time to investigate. (We found out, after all.) Maybe it's more a competence problem rather than a time problem. Or maybe they just didn't care.
Anyway, what's so hard about filling out a tax form correctly? How much "careful investigation" does it take? Every single adult in the US is expected to do it (and get it right) every year.
Because all "workers" are equally good at all jobs, I guess.
The point isn't that the executive isn't working. It's that he's not investing his money to expand the business. Why should he? You're going to take all the profits anyway.
He's going to retire at 40, move to Costa Rica, and draw small amounts from his accounts over the years. He could put his money into production, or not. If it's used for production, the factory expands and workers are hired. If not, the workers stay unemployed.
Maybe they don't see a benefit in proportion to the amount of taxes they're being forced to pay. I certainly don't.
Also, we have a lot of unemployed people. We want companies to do more business and make more money so they can hire people. You think penalizing them and taking money from them is going to help with that?
Corporate Executive: I wonder if I should invest in the USA, where the people hate us, the government really hates us, and they want to take our money? Hmm. No. I should try to grow the business in a more friendly country. Or maybe I'll just take my money and retire early. I hear Costa Rica is nice.
Fire hazards are part of nature though. If your home or office building isn't burned down in a lightning-caused brush fire every 10 years or so, you're not doing your part for the environment. Why do you people all hate the Earth so much?
But they didn't have the votes they needed to lose. So now we've won instead.
"Winning" requires we leave a stable, peaceful country behind. That's what will happen. It mostly already has happened. And it happened because the people who wanted to quit and give up (and lose) failed in their efforts.
At the time, the vote was to lose. It was a vote to leave the country in chaos, no sustainable government in place, power vacuum, and a haven for terrorists.
The vote went to "win" instead. Now we'll be leaving a strong, democratic, anti-terrorist government in place. The country will be peaceful -- more than it has been in 30-40 years at least. No place is a utopia.
So yeah, it turned out pretty simple. As simple as "winning" or "losing"? Maybe not. But pretty close.
You could link to something that contains quotes and indicates you are correct. Or you could just keep saying "trust me, my story makes sense, and yer stupid if you don't buy into it"
That a plausable story. What indication is there that it's true?
If you go by what has actually happened, there is no change. If you use your imagination, then yeah. But if we're going to tell stories, I like stories with vampires in them.
When you vote to do something that will cause you to lose a war, you're voting to lose a war. You're saying they voted to lose, but they didn't "want" to lose? How does that work? Are magic pixies involved somehow?
The Stimulus vote is the proof that the Republicans didn't have 41 votes to filibuster anything. You can't filibuster with less than 41 votes.
There was exactly 1 test vote on cloture this session. Specter voted with the Democrats. Now he's becoming a Democrat to... vote with the Democrats. What changed?
Slashdot Mirror
If you subsidize it enough and penalize the oil-based products enough, it could be competitive. Just like ethanol.
Of course, then we'll all be worse off because we'll be forced to buy an inferior product for a much higher price. Just like ethanol.
I knew we shouldn't have run the whole drug-smuggling operation on the roof.
At least all of our communications were done inside, on the phone. Those should be safe.
But you don't understand. The science is "settled". Didn't you hear? The conclusions are "settled". It's a consensus. Everyone who disagrees is a "denier". The calls for these deniers to be prosecuted have already begun.
Why is there new data? What is it for? Why does the new data almost always support the position of the "deniers"?
Maybe we should prosecute these researchers as denier-accomplices so we can stop anyone else from undermining the settled consensus with new data.
Yeah, they all just hate Al Gore.
Nevermind the huge extra costs everyone is going to have to pay for every product that uses energy. Nevermind the worse standards of living we'll all have forced on us. Nevermind the loss of freedom.
It's just that people personally don't like Al Gore.
The folks at Berkeley need to put up some "this room is a break-in free zone" signs so there are no more break-ins.
This would actually make me more likely to want to buy from them. It's good to know they would be on my side if my computer ever got stolen.
It's the median price. That means half of the houses are cheaper than $7500 and the other half are more expensive. There will be plenty of variety.
The median price of a house in Detroit is $7500. Floorplans vary, but they are larger than these apartments. Home prices are relative.
I'm sure people are happy to buy a nice place in Mumbai, so the market supports higher prices. No one wants to live in a corrupt one-party third-world conflict zone like Detroit.
MIMO schemes are somewhat resilient to the problem with someone standing in the signal path.
Anyway, this seems to be aimed at allowing your PS3 or your laptop to display on the wall-mounted flat-screen 8 feet away without running a cable. I think they had room-to-room transmission in mind only with directional antennas.
As far as I know, business taxes are based on profits, not on gross income. If hiring a new employee reduces gross profits, then the tax burden is likewise reduced.
These lines show you know nothing about business.
If hiring an employee doesn't increase profits, why would a business do it?
Right, because he had time to carefully investigate the finances of everyone he nominated. Troll.
Obviously someone had time to investigate. (We found out, after all.) Maybe it's more a competence problem rather than a time problem. Or maybe they just didn't care.
Anyway, what's so hard about filling out a tax form correctly? How much "careful investigation" does it take? Every single adult in the US is expected to do it (and get it right) every year.
Because all "workers" are equally good at all jobs, I guess.
The point isn't that the executive isn't working. It's that he's not investing his money to expand the business. Why should he? You're going to take all the profits anyway.
He's going to retire at 40, move to Costa Rica, and draw small amounts from his accounts over the years. He could put his money into production, or not. If it's used for production, the factory expands and workers are hired. If not, the workers stay unemployed.
Low taxes lead to prosperity, yes.
When Microsoft operates within our boundaries, they, like everyone else, have a responsibility to the public good.
That's not a benefit to Microsoft. That's a rationale to take from Microsoft.
These states produce a high standard of living.
Does Microsoft have a high standard of living? How did this high standard of living benefit Microsoft?
Mafia bosses have a high standard of living too.
That's worthwhile.
Is it worthwhile to Microsoft? What if they disagree?
What do your "social welfare states" produce again? And what benefit did Microsoft get from it that they should feel the obligation to pay for it?
How did Microsoft's revenue become "our money"?
And enslave the people there to produce for you. You might as well. It's a logical extension of your philosophy.
Maybe they don't see a benefit in proportion to the amount of taxes they're being forced to pay. I certainly don't.
Also, we have a lot of unemployed people. We want companies to do more business and make more money so they can hire people. You think penalizing them and taking money from them is going to help with that?
Corporate Executive: I wonder if I should invest in the USA, where the people hate us, the government really hates us, and they want to take our money? Hmm. No. I should try to grow the business in a more friendly country. Or maybe I'll just take my money and retire early. I hear Costa Rica is nice.
...Native plants still produce a fire hazards ...
Fire hazards are part of nature though. If your home or office building isn't burned down in a lightning-caused brush fire every 10 years or so, you're not doing your part for the environment. Why do you people all hate the Earth so much?
Nevermind the news. Google's grass is eaten by goats.
But they didn't have the votes they needed to lose. So now we've won instead.
"Winning" requires we leave a stable, peaceful country behind. That's what will happen. It mostly already has happened. And it happened because the people who wanted to quit and give up (and lose) failed in their efforts.
At the time, the vote was to lose. It was a vote to leave the country in chaos, no sustainable government in place, power vacuum, and a haven for terrorists.
The vote went to "win" instead. Now we'll be leaving a strong, democratic, anti-terrorist government in place. The country will be peaceful -- more than it has been in 30-40 years at least. No place is a utopia.
So yeah, it turned out pretty simple. As simple as "winning" or "losing"? Maybe not. But pretty close.
You could link to something that contains quotes and indicates you are correct. Or you could just keep saying "trust me, my story makes sense, and yer stupid if you don't buy into it"
What's keeping you from producing the quotes?
That a plausable story. What indication is there that it's true?
If you go by what has actually happened, there is no change. If you use your imagination, then yeah. But if we're going to tell stories, I like stories with vampires in them.
When you vote to do something that will cause you to lose a war, you're voting to lose a war. You're saying they voted to lose, but they didn't "want" to lose? How does that work? Are magic pixies involved somehow?
The Stimulus vote is the proof that the Republicans didn't have 41 votes to filibuster anything. You can't filibuster with less than 41 votes.
There was exactly 1 test vote on cloture this session. Specter voted with the Democrats. Now he's becoming a Democrat to ... vote with the Democrats. What changed?