Note, for the record, that "evaded taxes" has a legal meaning. What is described in the documents in question doesn't fit that legal meaning (hence the new expression "tax avoidance" to describe legal ways to pay less taxes, as opposed to "tax evasion" which is a crime).
Also note that there isn't actually any evidence that any crimes were committed by anyone mentioned in any of the documents in question.
Now, whether what is so described fits the definition of "moral" is a lot more debatable. Especially when people in government spend time decrying "tax avoidance" (not a crime) while at the same time doing "tax avoidance" themselves....
Does the PM of Australia operate under a law similar to the FOIA? Which requires all government correspondence to be done on government servers so that the information contained therein is available for FOIA requests?
Remember every tonne of carbon burned removes 2 tonnes of oxygen from the atmosphere and adds 3 tonnes of CO2.
Every ton of carbon burned removes ~2.67 tons of oxygen from the atmosphere and adds ~3.67 tone of CO2. Assuming ideal conditions and all that (no imperfect burning, no particulate ash, that sort of thing), of course.
Wherever did you get the bizarre notion that a carbon atom and an oxygen atom were the same size?
I read your report. It does NOT say that there were 60K excess cancer deaths from Chernobyl. It says that we've PREDICTED that there MIGHT be that many deaths in the future attributable to Chernobyl. As to the number of deaths, it says about 60....
Coal and fossil fuel energy plants kill more people than nuclear plant, including the Chernobyl accident.
Coal and other fossil fuel energy plants have killed more people than nuclear plants, even if you count the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings as "nuclear plants".
A quick googling indicates ~7.5K deaths per year caused by pollution from fossil fuel plants in the USA. And that number is down dramatically from a generation ago.
Chernobyl has, so far, produced less than 100 deaths due to radiation (the pollution from nuclear power) since it happened in '86. So, 41 deaths from nuclear radiation from Chernobyl, vs (far) more than 250K deaths from coal plants in the same period.
I'm not living any better since the iPhone came around, or Uber, nor will I because of a self-driving car.
I will be, when they're available. Want to visit parents? Tell the car to head for Mom's place, and read/sleep/whatever till it beeps to tell me it's arrived. Heaven!
Even a not-terribly-long commute is MUCH nicer if I can read the news instead of watching the other lunatics on the road....
becoming a new and stronger man with each one, until he ultimately outranks BOTH his fathers.
I.e. Both his dad and his instructor.
Umm, no. Reread the book. Zim outranked our hero Juan ultimately.
And for a militaristic society, they certainly had a tiny military. A couple of divisions in a society numbering in the billions does not make for a militaristic society. Nor does a top income tax rate down around 2% (yes, he mentioned the income tax rate at one point) pay for much of a military.
Conforming is for lower ranks of the pack. Betas can have it hard:
On a completely unrelated note, I read recently that the whole alpha/beta/pack thing is a crock. A wolf pack in the wild doesn't have that structure. What it has is Dad/Mom/kids.
Yep, the "alpha male" is really just Dad. And the "alpha female" is Mom. "Betas" are the kids....
We give the government $5,000,000,000,000 or so dollars to play with every year, and people are surprised that someone decides to bribe them for a piece of the action?
Color me astounded.
And that's ignoring the fact that government employees don't make a lot of money, which makes them easy to bribe, from Congresscritters all the way down to low-level bureaucrats.
Seriously, it makes perfect sense for businesses to take money to Washington to buy legislation, regulations, everything else - the return is insanely good, the backfire risk minimal.
Is there a solution? Not a feasible one - the best solution would be to reduce the power and size of government to the point that it's not worth the bother of bribing them. But noone but a few lunatics (like me) wants to do that, so here we are, and here we'll stay....
A limit on how much that can be spent would also allow those that can't spend as much to be able to be heard.
so, how do you prevent ME from spending money to endorse a candidate? Without violating MY First Amendment rights, I mean.
And a thirty day campaign cycle just means that anyone who wants to be President will just campaign permanently. Using money provided by someone else. Or are you planning on making it illegal to give someone money?
People who break into the restricted area should refrain from licking the ground for a few decades. Everyone else has nothing to worry about.
From TFA: "The problem occurred at the double-wall storage tank AY-102, which has actually been leaking since 2011. At the time, the leak was extremely small, and the waste would dry up almost right after spilling out between the inner and outer walls, leaving a salt-like substance behind."
So, unless you break into the site, then cut a door in the outer wall of the double-walled tank, then climb inside and lick the bottom of the tank, you have nothing to worry about.
IOW, nothing to see here, move along. This/. post is pretty much designed to get the anti-nuke hysteria levels up a few notches over a complete non-problem....
There is a big difference between things that are marked as classified, with the appropriate headers and footers, declass dates, etc, and things that someone 2 years later in a different agency says 'those should have been classified'. The first is a felony, the second isn't. Do people understand the difference? I don't think so.
News articles I'm seeing mention that some of the classified emails being discussed were written by Hillary.
So, no, I don't think they were retroactively classified in every case.
Exactly what documents were classified, and when (one of the arguments is that some documents were retroactively marked classified)?
As I recall reading recently, some of the classified emails were written BY Hillary, not sent TO Hillary. Really hard to argue that they were only classified after she received them when she was the author....
Punish the wealth creators, and they'll stop creating wealth. -- roman_mir
Oh yes, I can just picture it now. "What?!? I'm only going to get 3 gazillion megabucks? But I wanted 5 gazillion megabucks. Sod it all. I'm declaring insolvency!"
What I'm seeing is a lot of people looking at their 401K (or whatever equivalent retirement account system their country might have) and saying "Hey! Why is my retirement account growing 35% slower than it has been for the last ten years???"
This may invite massive lawsuits on any cooperating company that isn't 100.0000% effective is policing badthought. Which will, of course, include allowing all goodthought to pass unmolested.
So, going along with this idea may very well do nothing but enrich lawyers....
Inflation is caused by more by companies taking excessive profits since the increased cost multiplies as their production goes down the supply chain.
Umm, no.
Inflation is an increase in the money supply without a corresponding increase in the things money buys (a gold strike, back in the day of gold currencies, produced more or less automatic inflation). With modern fiat currencies, inflation is caused entirely by government action, since they control the money supply.
The rich people will consider your wealth tax and reject it.
You seem to be assuming that if there were an effectively infinite amount of "stuff", that "rich people" would value "having more stuff". Won't happen that way.
Ultimately, "wealth" is about having an excess of something valuable. If "food/housing/cars/etc" ("stuff") were effectively unlimited, than it would no longer be "valuable", and therefore no longer a sign of "wealth".
Of course, you may argue that if the $5/hour worker is being paid $10/hour then that will cause the $10/hour valued employee to be paid $15/hour. I refer you to my first point that raising everyone's pay increases the value of no one's pay.
Note that in the case you describe, the former $5/hr guy is getting his pay doubled, and the former $10/hr guy is getting a 50% increase....
Hardly relevant. Full time, I mean. At least since the ACA, you don't hire minimum wage people full time, since that requires you to pay health insurance costs. You hire them for Which is an interesting change from many years ago. I remember working night shift in a C-Store during college, full time, minimum wage. Nowadays, C-stores don't hire full time people other than the manager....
Slashdot Mirror
Note, for the record, that "evaded taxes" has a legal meaning. What is described in the documents in question doesn't fit that legal meaning (hence the new expression "tax avoidance" to describe legal ways to pay less taxes, as opposed to "tax evasion" which is a crime).
Also note that there isn't actually any evidence that any crimes were committed by anyone mentioned in any of the documents in question.
Now, whether what is so described fits the definition of "moral" is a lot more debatable. Especially when people in government spend time decrying "tax avoidance" (not a crime) while at the same time doing "tax avoidance" themselves....
Silly pedant mode...ON
Lose. Not loose. In the immortal words of Old Biff "you sounds like an idiot when you say it wrong".
Pedant Mode...OFF.
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
Does the PM of Australia operate under a law similar to the FOIA? Which requires all government correspondence to be done on government servers so that the information contained therein is available for FOIA requests?
If not, I fail to see the issue.
A quick check of the definition of "gadget" includes the usual list of synonyms. Oddly, "appliance" is a synonym for "gadget".
Every ton of carbon burned removes ~2.67 tons of oxygen from the atmosphere and adds ~3.67 tone of CO2. Assuming ideal conditions and all that (no imperfect burning, no particulate ash, that sort of thing), of course.
Wherever did you get the bizarre notion that a carbon atom and an oxygen atom were the same size?
No, they can't. "Three men can keep a secret if two of them are dead".
The fundamental assumption that the government can have a backdoor into all encryption that NOONE ELSE CAN EVER DISCOVER is ludicrous.
Hell, it's ludicrous to suppose that none of the government types who have access to the backdoor will EVER misuse it.
TFA certainly doesn't say. Which suggests it's not even a SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess), but an old-fashioned WAG (Wild Ass Guess).
So, some group wants some publicity, and they make a Pronouncement! Which is dutifully published by some idiot with pagecount to fill.
And now we're wasting time nattering about it....
Once upon a time, when a man stopped being President, he went home to his former life. Without lifetime guards or any of that stuff.
It's been about since I was born that they changed that rule. Eisenhower would've been the first President who had that little benny.
And I still can't really see why someone thought it was a good idea....
I read your report. It does NOT say that there were 60K excess cancer deaths from Chernobyl. It says that we've PREDICTED that there MIGHT be that many deaths in the future attributable to Chernobyl. As to the number of deaths, it says about 60....
Coal and other fossil fuel energy plants have killed more people than nuclear plants, even if you count the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings as "nuclear plants".
A quick googling indicates ~7.5K deaths per year caused by pollution from fossil fuel plants in the USA. And that number is down dramatically from a generation ago.
Chernobyl has, so far, produced less than 100 deaths due to radiation (the pollution from nuclear power) since it happened in '86. So, 41 deaths from nuclear radiation from Chernobyl, vs (far) more than 250K deaths from coal plants in the same period.
Yeah, nuclear is MUCH more dangerous, isn't it?
I will be, when they're available. Want to visit parents? Tell the car to head for Mom's place, and read/sleep/whatever till it beeps to tell me it's arrived. Heaven!
Even a not-terribly-long commute is MUCH nicer if I can read the news instead of watching the other lunatics on the road....
Umm, no. Reread the book. Zim outranked our hero Juan ultimately.
And for a militaristic society, they certainly had a tiny military. A couple of divisions in a society numbering in the billions does not make for a militaristic society. Nor does a top income tax rate down around 2% (yes, he mentioned the income tax rate at one point) pay for much of a military.
On a completely unrelated note, I read recently that the whole alpha/beta/pack thing is a crock. A wolf pack in the wild doesn't have that structure. What it has is Dad/Mom/kids.
Yep, the "alpha male" is really just Dad. And the "alpha female" is Mom. "Betas" are the kids....
I doubt seriously that half my country even remembers who Snowden is. And that's assuming they ever knew.
The government has a hard-on for Ed Snowden, and a lot of the tech community supports him. Outside that? Not so much....
We give the government $5,000,000,000,000 or so dollars to play with every year, and people are surprised that someone decides to bribe them for a piece of the action?
Color me astounded.
And that's ignoring the fact that government employees don't make a lot of money, which makes them easy to bribe, from Congresscritters all the way down to low-level bureaucrats.
Seriously, it makes perfect sense for businesses to take money to Washington to buy legislation, regulations, everything else - the return is insanely good, the backfire risk minimal.
Is there a solution? Not a feasible one - the best solution would be to reduce the power and size of government to the point that it's not worth the bother of bribing them. But noone but a few lunatics (like me) wants to do that, so here we are, and here we'll stay....
so, how do you prevent ME from spending money to endorse a candidate? Without violating MY First Amendment rights, I mean.
And a thirty day campaign cycle just means that anyone who wants to be President will just campaign permanently. Using money provided by someone else. Or are you planning on making it illegal to give someone money?
From TFA: "The problem occurred at the double-wall storage tank AY-102, which has actually been leaking since 2011. At the time, the leak was extremely small, and the waste would dry up almost right after spilling out between the inner and outer walls, leaving a salt-like substance behind."
So, unless you break into the site, then cut a door in the outer wall of the double-walled tank, then climb inside and lick the bottom of the tank, you have nothing to worry about.
IOW, nothing to see here, move along. This /. post is pretty much designed to get the anti-nuke hysteria levels up a few notches over a complete non-problem....
News articles I'm seeing mention that some of the classified emails being discussed were written by Hillary.
So, no, I don't think they were retroactively classified in every case.
As I recall reading recently, some of the classified emails were written BY Hillary, not sent TO Hillary. Really hard to argue that they were only classified after she received them when she was the author....
What I'm seeing is a lot of people looking at their 401K (or whatever equivalent retirement account system their country might have) and saying "Hey! Why is my retirement account growing 35% slower than it has been for the last ten years???"
This was my first thought as well.
This may invite massive lawsuits on any cooperating company that isn't 100.0000% effective is policing badthought. Which will, of course, include allowing all goodthought to pass unmolested.
So, going along with this idea may very well do nothing but enrich lawyers....
Umm, no.
Inflation is an increase in the money supply without a corresponding increase in the things money buys (a gold strike, back in the day of gold currencies, produced more or less automatic inflation). With modern fiat currencies, inflation is caused entirely by government action, since they control the money supply.
You seem to be assuming that if there were an effectively infinite amount of "stuff", that "rich people" would value "having more stuff". Won't happen that way.
Ultimately, "wealth" is about having an excess of something valuable. If "food/housing/cars/etc" ("stuff") were effectively unlimited, than it would no longer be "valuable", and therefore no longer a sign of "wealth".
Note that in the case you describe, the former $5/hr guy is getting his pay doubled, and the former $10/hr guy is getting a 50% increase....
Hardly relevant. Full time, I mean. At least since the ACA, you don't hire minimum wage people full time, since that requires you to pay health insurance costs. You hire them for Which is an interesting change from many years ago. I remember working night shift in a C-Store during college, full time, minimum wage. Nowadays, C-stores don't hire full time people other than the manager....