The fact that the USA, UK, Canada, and Australia have a very close relationship surprises exactly whom, these days? I mean, it goes back to WW2, if not before, and each country has its own reasons: the UK gets to exert significant influence over the world's dominant power, Canada wants the US to help pay for the resources to defend the high Arctic, and Australia found out during WW2 that due to geography, the US was a much more reliable guarantor of security than the UK.
An immigration system that focuses on bringing in highly educated, highly skilled immigrants instead of legalizing millions of migrant farm workers might be expected to have somewhat better educational outcomes.
The Feds also decided to play lead contractor themselves. That was where they really went downhill. If they'd just contracted the whole thing out, they'd have someone to blame, but not here. At least in the latter situation we would have likely had something, even if it was more 1995 than 2013 in terms of function.
Even better: the back of the Beverly Center mall, on San Vicente, has active oil wells on some of the most expensive real estate in LA. Right across the street from Cedars-Sinai.
The end game is that you plow the profits back into the company until your growth tapers off, and then you start paying dividends. Call it the Microsoft Model.
Explain what you actually think is wrong about the Citizens United decision. As nonprofit status is decided by the IRS, and the IRS has clearly shown that it will politically deny nonprofit status (at least in Cincinnati), that can't be the criterion by which you decide what groups may and may not have free speech. Do you want a new organizational system that looks like a corporation but isn't allowed to sell things? The big think tanks are all nonprofits, but only a fool would think they don't make some of their money the same way that regular businesses do; is it going to be illegal to hire Pew to do a poll?
Your generality is a piece of junk - you don't mean corporations, you mean business corporations, and you don't mean business corporations, you mean non-press corporations, and you don't mean non-press corporations, you mean non-media corporations, because everything that applies to the press applies to every other form of media except paid advertisement for political speech. You've defined it to exclude the things you don't like while respecting the organizations you do. Why should I respect that?
You're the one telling me that voluntariness is the critical distinction, then go on to tell me that it doesn't apply to newspapers? Citizens United was also challenging a specific and new law. Centuries of precedent might apply, but unless you're a Supreme Court justice, your opinion is just that: your opinion, not the law of the land.
So I suppose that you'd support a ban on political reporting by media corporations, then? That's a for-profit business that somehow always gets a pass on these laws. What makes the New York Times editorial page valid, but a political campaign by a non-media business illegitimate?
Ah, so you're in favor of muzzling the speech rights of political parties and nonprofit watchdogs? How do you think the ACLU, political parties, Brookings, AEI, the NRA, and everything else down to local churches are organized? As corporations.
Speeding doesn't save much time on commuting, but if you're making a thousand-mile trip it adds up fast. Driving 75 instead of 65 shaves almost two hours off that trip.
Very few people, even those who enjoy driving, enjoy more than a tiny fraction of the driving they do. In these situations, I find that the best touchstone is asking what very, very wealthy people do. They have essentially unlimited options, and what they do is reflective of human desire not limited by constraints.
Overwhelmingly, they choose to be driven. They choose to fly private jets. If you could afford it, you would do the same thing most of the time, because most of the time getting there is just a task, not a joy.
It will be the same with regular people. Imagine what society looks like when there are zero deaths due to drunk driving, distracted driving, and falling asleep at the wheel. Imagine how much lower car insurance premiums are when the risk of an at fault accident is nearly zero. People will still buy cars, because they will want one customized to them, but imagine all the things that can change when a human pilot no longer has to be accommodated: cars set up so that parents and children can face each other and play games together while traveling, lay-flat seats for overnight driving. You can leave Washington after work on Friday and eat lunch in New Orleans.
A car does put out more CO2 than a human. But the human had to eat food, and unless you grow it entirely yourself you've burned fuel to plant it, to fertilize it (and to make the fertilizer), to harvest it, and to process it and ship it to your destination.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that the USA, UK, Canada, and Australia have a very close relationship surprises exactly whom, these days? I mean, it goes back to WW2, if not before, and each country has its own reasons: the UK gets to exert significant influence over the world's dominant power, Canada wants the US to help pay for the resources to defend the high Arctic, and Australia found out during WW2 that due to geography, the US was a much more reliable guarantor of security than the UK.
You can drive at 16 in plenty of places in the US. I got mine at 15 (though I'm 38 now and don't know if that's still true).
I'm encouraged by your opinion, but as a doctor, I can assure you that most people think I'm not only in the 1%, but somewhere around the 0.1%.
An immigration system that focuses on bringing in highly educated, highly skilled immigrants instead of legalizing millions of migrant farm workers might be expected to have somewhat better educational outcomes.
That's precisely what he meant.
The Feds also decided to play lead contractor themselves. That was where they really went downhill. If they'd just contracted the whole thing out, they'd have someone to blame, but not here. At least in the latter situation we would have likely had something, even if it was more 1995 than 2013 in terms of function.
When you "fight fire with fire", you can hardly complain when state legislatures controlled by those opponents don't cooperate with your plan.
The one across Wilshire?
They are called that because they are the Rancho La Brea tar pits. So calling them the Tar Ranch tar pits would be more accurate.
Even better: the back of the Beverly Center mall, on San Vicente, has active oil wells on some of the most expensive real estate in LA. Right across the street from Cedars-Sinai.
Or they have a much bigger business in mind.
The end game is that you plow the profits back into the company until your growth tapers off, and then you start paying dividends. Call it the Microsoft Model.
If they advocate for a party. They have free speech rights on issues, even if that issue is one that's a lot more popular in one party than another.
Scoreboard? You think free speech is a game?
Explain what you actually think is wrong about the Citizens United decision. As nonprofit status is decided by the IRS, and the IRS has clearly shown that it will politically deny nonprofit status (at least in Cincinnati), that can't be the criterion by which you decide what groups may and may not have free speech. Do you want a new organizational system that looks like a corporation but isn't allowed to sell things? The big think tanks are all nonprofits, but only a fool would think they don't make some of their money the same way that regular businesses do; is it going to be illegal to hire Pew to do a poll?
Your generality is a piece of junk - you don't mean corporations, you mean business corporations, and you don't mean business corporations, you mean non-press corporations, and you don't mean non-press corporations, you mean non-media corporations, because everything that applies to the press applies to every other form of media except paid advertisement for political speech. You've defined it to exclude the things you don't like while respecting the organizations you do. Why should I respect that?
You're the one telling me that voluntariness is the critical distinction, then go on to tell me that it doesn't apply to newspapers? Citizens United was also challenging a specific and new law. Centuries of precedent might apply, but unless you're a Supreme Court justice, your opinion is just that: your opinion, not the law of the land.
So I suppose that you'd support a ban on political reporting by media corporations, then? That's a for-profit business that somehow always gets a pass on these laws. What makes the New York Times editorial page valid, but a political campaign by a non-media business illegitimate?
Ah, so you're in favor of muzzling the speech rights of political parties and nonprofit watchdogs? How do you think the ACLU, political parties, Brookings, AEI, the NRA, and everything else down to local churches are organized? As corporations.
Ambulances are not staffed by fire personnel in all areas.
Where on earth do physicians staff ambulances?
I'm sure Bill Gates drives himself to his kids' school plays, but I'm also sure he doesn't drive himself to the airport.
Who are you to generalize from yourself to the majority of people?
Speeding doesn't save much time on commuting, but if you're making a thousand-mile trip it adds up fast. Driving 75 instead of 65 shaves almost two hours off that trip.
Very few people, even those who enjoy driving, enjoy more than a tiny fraction of the driving they do. In these situations, I find that the best touchstone is asking what very, very wealthy people do. They have essentially unlimited options, and what they do is reflective of human desire not limited by constraints.
Overwhelmingly, they choose to be driven. They choose to fly private jets. If you could afford it, you would do the same thing most of the time, because most of the time getting there is just a task, not a joy.
It will be the same with regular people. Imagine what society looks like when there are zero deaths due to drunk driving, distracted driving, and falling asleep at the wheel. Imagine how much lower car insurance premiums are when the risk of an at fault accident is nearly zero. People will still buy cars, because they will want one customized to them, but imagine all the things that can change when a human pilot no longer has to be accommodated: cars set up so that parents and children can face each other and play games together while traveling, lay-flat seats for overnight driving. You can leave Washington after work on Friday and eat lunch in New Orleans.
A car does put out more CO2 than a human. But the human had to eat food, and unless you grow it entirely yourself you've burned fuel to plant it, to fertilize it (and to make the fertilizer), to harvest it, and to process it and ship it to your destination.