So, you'd have no problems with Russia picking up bits and pieces of various countries, including, say, France, Germany, and the UK?
Personally, I doubt anyone will do anything this time. Or next time. We'll wait till the choice is "stop them or they're across the Rhine"...and then it'll get ugly. 1940-style ugly.
Hmmm...so basically if they start building the uranium enrichment plants now, they might have a working nuke in 10-20 years.
Can you say "Manhattan Engineer District"?
Sure you can.
If noone ever explained this to you before, it took the Manhattan Engineer District (AKA Manhattan Project) took about 3.5 years to go from committee meetings to the facilities that produced the first three nuclear weapons.
I think the Ottoman Empire would like a word or two with you (the Ottoman Empire ruled the Crimea for four centuries, which is a bit longer than the Russians managed).
Likewise Venice and Genoa might have something to say, since both of them owned the Crimea at one time or another.
That doesn't mean we always let Russia get away with whatever they want to do. If they continue to seize territory from other nations we have to put our foot down at some point. But is Crimea important enough to risk what could devolve into a nuclear war? No, probably not. But we also have to watch and make sure that they don't continue grabbing small territories.
Hmm...South Ossetia sound familiar? That would be the last time Russia decided it wanted part of its neighbors' territory.
Last I checked, the Russians pretty much got their way that time.
And it's looking like they're going to get their way this time too.
So, when does someone stop them from "grabbing small territories"?
Because we can ALWAYS say "well, it's just a small bit of territory. We can't go to war over every small bit of territory..."
And yet, our roads and bridges are falling apart. Just tax a small bit of the wealth flowing through the country and give people part-time jobs fixing potholes or whatever.
We already tax a small bit of the wealth flowing through the country to fix roads and bridges. They're called "gasoline taxes" and "road use taxes".
And we already pay people (full time! none of this part time crap) to fix potholes and other issues with the roads.
That 600 was NOT cancer deaths. Note from your link:
A total of 573 deaths have been certified as âoedisaster-relatedâ by 13 municipalities affected by the crisis at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, according to a Yomiuri Shimbun survey.
And
A disaster-related death certificate is issued when a death is not directly caused by a tragedy, but by fatigue or the aggravation of a chronic disease due to the disaster.
Note that "radioactivity-casued cancers" are NOT included in that description, mostly because there hasn't been time for such things to manifest, much less for people to die of them.
As you probably know, the current Dragon is already capable of carrying humans, it's just not "man-rated" yet because it lacks a launch-abort escape system. They will probably begin manned test flights by the end of 2015.
The first two tests required for man-rating Dragon are scheduled for this year.
Note that the are unmanned missions, testing the launch-escape system.
I'm just old enough to remember the Apollo program, and to me, the last couple of years have been the most exciting period of space exploration since the early 80s.
Hmm, from TFA, it seems that they're required, when they sell this sort of stuff (surplus to needs fuel, in this case) to sell it at cost.
Since "cost" is below "retail" (pretty much by definition), and since the government doesn't pay fuel taxes (to itself or any State government), "cost" works out to be quite a bit below "retail".
So, NASA got rid of some fuel that was excess to their needs, got paid for it at exactly the rate that they paid for it (making it a wash in bookkeeping), and did it entirely in accordance with applicable law.
Many things in science are settled beyond any reasonable doubt as false simply because they contradict obvious observed facts. Sorry, Earth is not flat and was not created literally 6000 years ago in literally 6 days.
Try to pay less attention to Archbishop Ussher. Contrary to popular rumour, most Christians don't pay too much attention to Anglican Archbishops (most Christians aren't even Anglicans, and as far as I know, most Anglicans don't pay all that much attention to their archbishops. especially the dead ones).
Note also that the "days of creation", even assuming they happened, cannot be based on 24 hour Terrestrial days, since the Sun didn't exist till the fourth day.
True enough. Note that Tim Cook is NOT the owner of Apple. The stockholders are the owners. As long as most of the stockholders agree with Cook, he's fine. As soon as they don't, he's history.
I expect that the stockholders will agree with him as long as the stock increases in value and/or provides dividends better than the competition. As soon as what he wants starts costing them serious money, he's gone.
Do note that the court ruling we're discussing settles the current edge case quite nicely.
Which is why, apparently, the legislature is trying to move the edge. Once that happens, the courts will have to settle exactly where the NEW edge is.
Which will make some people unhappy, probably resulting in new legislation, thereby producing a new edge, which will produce new court cases, ad infinitum.
Income and capital gains taxes at 1950s level is what we need.
Just FYI, 1955 tax rates (with the indices adjusted for inflation) mean most everyone will be paying higher taxes, not just "the rich".
Note that, by "most everyone", what I really mean is "everyone". The poor will be paying around twice as much as now, everyone else in the vicinity of 1.5x as much, up until you get to the "filthy rich", who will pay more (around twice as much).
so just because they were able to cheat, doesn't mean they should.
So, how did they "cheat", exactly? By not paying any more tax than they were legally liable for?
Also, they were under no legal or moral obligation to play silly buggers in order to cheat the Austrailians out of tax.
Nor were they under any legal or moral obligation to pay extra taxes to Australia.
It always amazes me that so many people seem to think that anyone (corporation or individual) should pay more taxes than they're legally obligated to. Especially since I have the sneaking feeling that the people in question don't send their own government a bunch more taxes than they are legally obligated for.
What's really pathetic about the definition of "assault weapon" is the "exception list" that the assault weapon ban(s) included.
For instance, an AR-15 clone is an evil assault weapon.
A Mini-14 is on the exempt list, so it's not. Even if you modify the Mini-14 to have a pistol grip, a large capacity magazine, a flash suppressor, a tac-rail, it is STILL EXEMPT!
So even if it looks just like the AR-15 clone from more than five feet, the AR-15 is an EVIL ASSAULT WEAPON!!1!1, and the Mini-14 is a prefectly legal varmint rifle....
There is no federal law restricting private individuals from running a criminal background check prior to selling a firearm. I guess what you mean to say is that private individuals can't use the federal NICS system [fbi.gov] to perform the check unless they are Federal Firearms Licensees registered with the FBI.
Which makes it impossible for a private individual to do a Background Check. Remember, a background check for firearms sale purposes is DEFINED as using the NICS system.
The Social Security Trust Fund and Medicare Trust Fund are illusions.
In both cases, the money goes into the General Fund to be spent, and is "replaced" with an Interest Free Intragovernmental T-Bill.
Which means that when SS/Medicare start spending more than they take in (within ten years, unless they raise SS/Medicare taxes on you young people), the Trust Funds will redeem those T-Bills, which will be paid for by borrowing from the public or raising taxes.
Note that if the Trust Funds did not exist, when SS/Medicare start spending more than they take in, they will be paid for by borrowing from the public or raising taxes.
If the net effect of something existing is exactly the same as the net effect of it NOT existing, it can safely be assumed that it doesn't actually exist.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot Poland in 1939.
So, you'd have no problems with Russia picking up bits and pieces of various countries, including, say, France, Germany, and the UK?
Personally, I doubt anyone will do anything this time. Or next time. We'll wait till the choice is "stop them or they're across the Rhine"...and then it'll get ugly. 1940-style ugly.
Can you say "Manhattan Engineer District"?
Sure you can.
If noone ever explained this to you before, it took the Manhattan Engineer District (AKA Manhattan Project) took about 3.5 years to go from committee meetings to the facilities that produced the first three nuclear weapons.
I think the Ottoman Empire would like a word or two with you (the Ottoman Empire ruled the Crimea for four centuries, which is a bit longer than the Russians managed).
Likewise Venice and Genoa might have something to say, since both of them owned the Crimea at one time or another.
Hmm...South Ossetia sound familiar? That would be the last time Russia decided it wanted part of its neighbors' territory.
Last I checked, the Russians pretty much got their way that time.
And it's looking like they're going to get their way this time too.
So, when does someone stop them from "grabbing small territories"?
Because we can ALWAYS say "well, it's just a small bit of territory. We can't go to war over every small bit of territory..."
Just curious, when they start talking about better education, what is that french for?
We already tax a small bit of the wealth flowing through the country to fix roads and bridges. They're called "gasoline taxes" and "road use taxes".
And we already pay people (full time! none of this part time crap) to fix potholes and other issues with the roads.
Taxes and regulations certainly CAN be fair.
There is, however, no real requirement on the part of lawmakers to make taxes and regulations fair.
That 600 was NOT cancer deaths. Note from your link:
And
Note that "radioactivity-casued cancers" are NOT included in that description, mostly because there hasn't been time for such things to manifest, much less for people to die of them.
The first two tests required for man-rating Dragon are scheduled for this year.
Note that the are unmanned missions, testing the launch-escape system.
Ditto. Ten when Armstrong took his "small step".
Hmm, from TFA, it seems that they're required, when they sell this sort of stuff (surplus to needs fuel, in this case) to sell it at cost.
Since "cost" is below "retail" (pretty much by definition), and since the government doesn't pay fuel taxes (to itself or any State government), "cost" works out to be quite a bit below "retail".
So, NASA got rid of some fuel that was excess to their needs, got paid for it at exactly the rate that they paid for it (making it a wash in bookkeeping), and did it entirely in accordance with applicable law.
In other words, nothing to see here, move along.
Try to pay less attention to Archbishop Ussher. Contrary to popular rumour, most Christians don't pay too much attention to Anglican Archbishops (most Christians aren't even Anglicans, and as far as I know, most Anglicans don't pay all that much attention to their archbishops. especially the dead ones).
Note also that the "days of creation", even assuming they happened, cannot be based on 24 hour Terrestrial days, since the Sun didn't exist till the fourth day.
Per se
It's a bad idea to try to write something you've only heard spoken. It frequently makes you look semi-literate and/or pretentious.
What's appalling isn't that, but the ones who bleat about the evil corporations breaking the law when the evil corporations are NOT breaking the law.
I expect that the stockholders will agree with him as long as the stock increases in value and/or provides dividends better than the competition. As soon as what he wants starts costing them serious money, he's gone.
Bad joke! Bad!
Seriously, arial font occurred to me just as I hit "submit", but I admit I wouldn't have come up with something as clever as you did....
Aerial.
Once again, don't try to write words you've only heard, not seen in print.
And special caveat, don't use "The Little Mermaid" as a guide to how to spell "aerial"....
Yep.
Do note that the court ruling we're discussing settles the current edge case quite nicely.
Which is why, apparently, the legislature is trying to move the edge. Once that happens, the courts will have to settle exactly where the NEW edge is.
Which will make some people unhappy, probably resulting in new legislation, thereby producing a new edge, which will produce new court cases, ad infinitum.
Just FYI, 1955 tax rates (with the indices adjusted for inflation) mean most everyone will be paying higher taxes, not just "the rich".
Note that, by "most everyone", what I really mean is "everyone". The poor will be paying around twice as much as now, everyone else in the vicinity of 1.5x as much, up until you get to the "filthy rich", who will pay more (around twice as much).
So, how did they "cheat", exactly? By not paying any more tax than they were legally liable for?
Nor were they under any legal or moral obligation to pay extra taxes to Australia.
It always amazes me that so many people seem to think that anyone (corporation or individual) should pay more taxes than they're legally obligated to. Especially since I have the sneaking feeling that the people in question don't send their own government a bunch more taxes than they are legally obligated for.
For instance, an AR-15 clone is an evil assault weapon.
A Mini-14 is on the exempt list, so it's not. Even if you modify the Mini-14 to have a pistol grip, a large capacity magazine, a flash suppressor, a tac-rail, it is STILL EXEMPT!
So even if it looks just like the AR-15 clone from more than five feet, the AR-15 is an EVIL ASSAULT WEAPON!!1!1, and the Mini-14 is a prefectly legal varmint rifle....
Which makes it impossible for a private individual to do a Background Check. Remember, a background check for firearms sale purposes is DEFINED as using the NICS system.
The Social Security Trust Fund and Medicare Trust Fund are illusions.
In both cases, the money goes into the General Fund to be spent, and is "replaced" with an Interest Free Intragovernmental T-Bill.
Which means that when SS/Medicare start spending more than they take in (within ten years, unless they raise SS/Medicare taxes on you young people), the Trust Funds will redeem those T-Bills, which will be paid for by borrowing from the public or raising taxes.
Note that if the Trust Funds did not exist, when SS/Medicare start spending more than they take in, they will be paid for by borrowing from the public or raising taxes.
If the net effect of something existing is exactly the same as the net effect of it NOT existing, it can safely be assumed that it doesn't actually exist.
Sorry, it's hard to justify "General welfare" when vaccinations primarily protect the vaccinee, rather than the general public.
Just curious, which part of the Constitution grants the Federal government the power to mandate vaccination?
Yes, the State governments could theoretically do so. Maybe. Depends on details of the State Constitution(s) in question.