They already have a procedure similar to this where they harvest and grow unmodified T-Cells. They extract them from vicinity of the tumor and then replicate them.
That's not really the same thing. What's new here is using CRISPR to edit the genes of the T cells.
Gizmodo: http://gizmodo.com/everything-...
I'd simply refuse to enter and request compensation (full purchase refund, parking expenses). If not, take the ticket merchant or responsible venue coordinatator to court and also request compensation for lost personal time.
Why? Because your hobby is frivolous lawsuits that you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning?
In my experience, if you have two libertarians in a room and start asking them detailed questions, they have at least three contradictory opinions about what libertarianism is and how it operates.
No, he's correct. Either you're borderline retarded or you simply dropped out of high school, because this is really basic accounting and you have a very poor understanding of it. Namely, you seriously misunderstand what income means. Income is NOT revenue. Income is your net gain minus your operating expenses.
For example, if you're a business and you make $1,000,000 in one year and spend $500,000 that year on employee salaries, and $300,000 on operating expenses (such as leasing an office, paying the utility bills, etc) then that's only $200,000 of income. Likewise, you get a deduction on the $800,000 from your business's income taxes. Otherwise you'd be taxed on the whole million, and because of government taxes your business would only be losing money.
You're talking about expenses. The topic here is deductions. These are not the same thing.
You are correct about expenses. They are subtracted from income before taxes.
So, 100% of your income (and hence your property) belongs to the government to spend as the majority sees fit and anything you get to keep is a benefit granted to you by the government?
No.
Unless you've decided you don't want to actually think, and instead you will just dump out libertarian dogma whether it is relevant or not. In that case, yeah, whatever.
No. Your argument only works if you're a doctrinaire libertarian, and consider governments simply sophisticated thieves.
The government charges a certain percentage of income as tax. They then allow deductions to the tax for certain things you have spent money on. You may like to think of "deductions" as money you don't pay tax on, but an alternative way to view it is that these are payments to you by the government that just happen to be accounted on the tax form.
No actual thinking involved, just parrot the party line: Taxation is theft. Government is evil. Real men don't need society; they just need enough guns to make sure nobody takes their stuff.
If you actually read the link you cited, what it says is that the United States taxes former citizens for the taxes that they owed before they renounced their citizenship.
In other words, saying "I renounce my citizenship" does not mean that your debt suddenly vanishes.
What this woman suggests is akin to saying that they should drug test me in order to make me eligible to pay taxes, because you know, the money I'm giving to the government may be dirty money.
No.
She points out that what we commonly call "tax deductions" are actually expenditures-- the person filing the "deductions" is essentially spending government funds. Since politicians think it's worthwhile to drug-test poor people upon whom the government expends money, why not drug test rich people upon whom the government expends money? If you file deductions, prove you're not spending that refund money-- which comes out of the government's income-- on drugs.
I'm not a fan of drug testing at all, but my proposal is that any politician proposing any drug tests, or any politician voting on a proposal that includes drug tests in any form, should be required to take a drug test.
Squatter's rights apply to situations where the squatter has been expending resources (money, labor) to maintain a property in the owner's stead..
Nope. "A method of gaining legal title to real property by the actual, open, hostile, and continuous possession of it to the exclusion of its true owner for the period prescribed by state law. "
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Squatters+rights
You don't get a claim on a property just because you've been secretly living on it or using it.
You must have actually expended resources to maintain it - stuff the owner should have been doing but was neglecting to do. The squatter's rights are compensation for the resources you've expended doing the landlord's job.
They can buy the optional two cylinder range extender to stink up the air. Actually that is the proper way to make an electric car until storage tech gets beyond the stone age.
No reason a range-extender should be two-cycle. Two-cycle are noisy greasy polluting engines, not really good for much except lawn mowers.
Actually, since a range extender engine can be optimized to run at a single speed, doesn't need to provide torque at low RPM, and needs to provide electrical efficiency rather than mechanical power, you don't really even need an internal combustion engine-- I'll suggest using a small Stirling engine.
Well, many of the "greenies" do advocate nuclear power, particularly the ones who are most concerned about global warming.
Overall, the problem is that your post is about glib generalizations about an issue for which the real world details are complicated. Even a statement like "Aside from hydroelectric, coal is currently the cheapest source of electricity" isn't as simple as it seems. The price of electricity depends on where you are and when you want it. In most of the US, for example, nobody builds coal-fired plants any more, because natural gas generation is so much cheaper.
Considering the fact that most of the world is so poor they can barely afford basic food and shelter I don't see coal generated electricity disappearing any time soon.
To the contrary; for this "most of the world" living at a subsistence level, coal is about the worst option, because it has a large initial investment, and requires long-distance high-voltage transmission lines connecting to a functional electrical grid for distribution. For much of the world, solar is vastly cheaper than coal-generated electricity: if you are willing to use electricity in a five-hour block around noon. Is that a problem? Well, there are a million villages in the world that don't have any connection to an electric grid; for these places, solar for ten hours a day is an excellent bargain.
...t to a first order approximation, if all man-made CO2 generation (not including breathing) stopped, the atmospheric levels of CO2 would return to pre-industrial levels fairly quickly (a small number of years) by natural processes.
"a small number of years" means on the order of a hundred years. Oddly, there isn't a well-defined lifetime, because there are many competing processes of absorption and reemission. About 20-35% remains in the atmosphere after equilibration with the ocean, with a lifetime of 2-20 centuries; and isn't fully removed until it's converted into calcium carbonate, with a time scale of 3 to 7 thousand years.
Reference: http://www.annualreviews.org/d...
Well if we really intend to freeze the global climate at this present state we will also need to adjust the 'wobble' of the planet's axis...
The Milankovich processes (i.e., the cause of "ice ages") happen on much longer time scales. The problem with anthropogenic global warming is not that it is changing the climate per se-- the climate has changed before-- but that it is changing the climate on a very fast time scale.
I do agree, however, that it's a good idea to avoid the onset of the next glaciation. The good news is that it looks like we've already accomplished that.
Slashdot Mirror
They already have a procedure similar to this where they harvest and grow unmodified T-Cells. They extract them from vicinity of the tumor and then replicate them.
That's not really the same thing. What's new here is using CRISPR to edit the genes of the T cells. Gizmodo: http://gizmodo.com/everything-...
--say, doesn't Amazon do most of their business Christmas season anyway? That may be a feature...
> killed 49 people at a gay nightclub
What does the fact that the nightclub was oriented towards gay people have to do with the nutjob whacking 49 people in it?
Why does it matter that it was a nightclub? Wouldn't it have been just as terrible an event if it were at, say, a grocery store?
The statement could have been "killed 49 people in a big building."
Wait, does it matter that the building was big? Or, that it was indoors?
Let's make it "killed 49 people in a place."
In this context, at best it is a measure of how well the country's culture conditions people to taking standardized tests.
I'd simply refuse to enter and request compensation (full purchase refund, parking expenses). If not, take the ticket merchant or responsible venue coordinatator to court and also request compensation for lost personal time.
Why? Because your hobby is frivolous lawsuits that you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning?
Their concert venue; their rules.
In my experience, if you have two libertarians in a room and start asking them detailed questions, they have at least three contradictory opinions about what libertarianism is and how it operates.
Defenders have to get it right, every single time while the bad guys only need to be right once
That is the typical predator/prey asymmetry.
The lion has to only win the chase every now and then. The antelope has to win the chase every time.
This isn't a 22 ETH second Ethereum theft: this is just one more a long ongoing series of thefts-- and not a particularly large one.
But it's actually starting to get funny, just because it makes no sense whatsoever.
or maybe my brain is just melting. Hard to tell.
No, he's correct. Either you're borderline retarded or you simply dropped out of high school, because this is really basic accounting and you have a very poor understanding of it. Namely, you seriously misunderstand what income means. Income is NOT revenue. Income is your net gain minus your operating expenses. For example, if you're a business and you make $1,000,000 in one year and spend $500,000 that year on employee salaries, and $300,000 on operating expenses (such as leasing an office, paying the utility bills, etc) then that's only $200,000 of income. Likewise, you get a deduction on the $800,000 from your business's income taxes. Otherwise you'd be taxed on the whole million, and because of government taxes your business would only be losing money.
You're talking about expenses. The topic here is deductions. These are not the same thing.
You are correct about expenses. They are subtracted from income before taxes.
So, 100% of your income (and hence your property) belongs to the government to spend as the majority sees fit and anything you get to keep is a benefit granted to you by the government?
No.
Unless you've decided you don't want to actually think, and instead you will just dump out libertarian dogma whether it is relevant or not. In that case, yeah, whatever.
The government charges a certain percentage of income as tax. They then allow deductions to the tax for certain things you have spent money on. You may like to think of "deductions" as money you don't pay tax on, but an alternative way to view it is that these are payments to you by the government that just happen to be accounted on the tax form.
Different thing.
Most of these are corporations, and I don't know how you would make a corporation take a pee test.
But if you could, I bet a lot of them would fail!
No actual thinking involved, just parrot the party line: Taxation is theft. Government is evil. Real men don't need society; they just need enough guns to make sure nobody takes their stuff.
If you actually read the link you cited, what it says is that the United States taxes former citizens for the taxes that they owed before they renounced their citizenship.
In other words, saying "I renounce my citizenship" does not mean that your debt suddenly vanishes.
What this woman suggests is akin to saying that they should drug test me in order to make me eligible to pay taxes, because you know, the money I'm giving to the government may be dirty money.
No.
She points out that what we commonly call "tax deductions" are actually expenditures-- the person filing the "deductions" is essentially spending government funds. Since politicians think it's worthwhile to drug-test poor people upon whom the government expends money, why not drug test rich people upon whom the government expends money? If you file deductions, prove you're not spending that refund money-- which comes out of the government's income-- on drugs.
In public.
Yes, this sounds really useful. I don't necessarily want all the sites I visit to know all the others.
You say that as if you don't still need a roof if you have solar panels.
If roofs were designed to use solar panels instead of roofing, you wouldn't. Solar panels are, of course, impervious to rain.
But they're not.
That's the "inertia of the existing technology" I mentioned.
And as if there are no additional costs.
Well, of course, there are always additional costs-- you're quite right about that.
If you mean solar shingles, there's plenty of reasons the overwhelming majority of solar installations don't use them.
I remember those from years and years ago! I didn't realize they were still a thing.
Squatter's rights apply to situations where the squatter has been expending resources (money, labor) to maintain a property in the owner's stead..
Nope. "A method of gaining legal title to real property by the actual, open, hostile, and continuous possession of it to the exclusion of its true owner for the period prescribed by state law. "
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Squatters+rights
You don't get a claim on a property just because you've been secretly living on it or using it.
Right: it has to be open and continuous, not "secret". More here http://mentalfloss.com/article...
You must have actually expended resources to maintain it - stuff the owner should have been doing but was neglecting to do. The squatter's rights are compensation for the resources you've expended doing the landlord's job.
Nope.
They can buy the optional two cylinder range extender to stink up the air. Actually that is the proper way to make an electric car until storage tech gets beyond the stone age.
No reason a range-extender should be two-cycle. Two-cycle are noisy greasy polluting engines, not really good for much except lawn mowers.
Actually, since a range extender engine can be optimized to run at a single speed, doesn't need to provide torque at low RPM, and needs to provide electrical efficiency rather than mechanical power, you don't really even need an internal combustion engine-- I'll suggest using a small Stirling engine.
Overall, the problem is that your post is about glib generalizations about an issue for which the real world details are complicated. Even a statement like "Aside from hydroelectric, coal is currently the cheapest source of electricity" isn't as simple as it seems. The price of electricity depends on where you are and when you want it. In most of the US, for example, nobody builds coal-fired plants any more, because natural gas generation is so much cheaper.
Considering the fact that most of the world is so poor they can barely afford basic food and shelter I don't see coal generated electricity disappearing any time soon.
To the contrary; for this "most of the world" living at a subsistence level, coal is about the worst option, because it has a large initial investment, and requires long-distance high-voltage transmission lines connecting to a functional electrical grid for distribution. For much of the world, solar is vastly cheaper than coal-generated electricity: if you are willing to use electricity in a five-hour block around noon. Is that a problem? Well, there are a million villages in the world that don't have any connection to an electric grid; for these places, solar for ten hours a day is an excellent bargain.
...t to a first order approximation, if all man-made CO2 generation (not including breathing) stopped, the atmospheric levels of CO2 would return to pre-industrial levels fairly quickly (a small number of years) by natural processes.
"a small number of years" means on the order of a hundred years. Oddly, there isn't a well-defined lifetime, because there are many competing processes of absorption and reemission. About 20-35% remains in the atmosphere after equilibration with the ocean, with a lifetime of 2-20 centuries; and isn't fully removed until it's converted into calcium carbonate, with a time scale of 3 to 7 thousand years. Reference: http://www.annualreviews.org/d...
Well if we really intend to freeze the global climate at this present state we will also need to adjust the 'wobble' of the planet's axis ...
The Milankovich processes (i.e., the cause of "ice ages") happen on much longer time scales. The problem with anthropogenic global warming is not that it is changing the climate per se-- the climate has changed before-- but that it is changing the climate on a very fast time scale.
I do agree, however, that it's a good idea to avoid the onset of the next glaciation. The good news is that it looks like we've already accomplished that.