And most of that is complete bullshit and everyone knows it.
If I have to hear Hillary tell me that she's a woman, and that she's running for President, I think I'm going to vomit. We all know that you're a woman. You don't need to tell us over and over again.
Also, it's not just the Republicans painting her as an out of touch plutocrat pawn of Wall Street - you might look to her left to see some of that from Bernie.
My critique was meant to show what would have scored full irony points.
It is rather interesting to hear some European perspective on immigration issues though - it's too big of a shouting match here in the US to get any real movement one way or the other, and we don't have nearly the issue with refugees that Europe does due to a big whacking ocean being in the way. In the US, both political parties want the issue to hammer their opposition with, so they never get about to fixing the issue. It's the same reason why our social programs are such a mess - they would rather hold fundraisers and political rallies on the things the other party is saying than get in a room and bang out a compromise that would both save the programs, and make sure they are funded indefinitely.
Though I do have to disagree on your stance with certain words - maybe there isn't as much of a stigma in Europe over the word 'nigger' but it has a very hateful meaning here in the US due to history. The word is directly tied with racial slavery and the abhorrent conditions that entails, the oppressive terrorism of white supremacy, and the lingering effects of which still last today long after slavery was abolished, long after Jim Crow was broken up, long after the abolishment of 'separate but equal', long after the Civil Rights Act.
Except for when the speaker is also black, then for some reason it's a colloquialism. Still haven't wrapped my head around that one.
True, but most (if not all) holdovers from previous administrations have already been fired, so saying so would be redundant.
It's pretty clear to anyone who's paying attention that any administration since Kennedy, perhaps even farther back, would have a load of empty desks due to such a policy.
1. You've got first amendment issues with that policy. 2. You'd have to fire half of the current administration due to their disdain for the second, fourth, fifth, ninth, and tenth amendments.
When you go to the fuel pump to put more fuel in your car, can you be 100% sure that all the way back to the hole in the ground where the oil was pumped out, that there wasn't a labor violation of some kind?
What are you going to do about that? Because that's what you are asking of Apple / Samsung / Sony here, except it's even harder for them, because they are buying components made out of refined materials, not the refined materials.
Example time: Apple makes an iPhone in China, except for putting the home button / fingerprint sensor thing on it. They then ship them like that from China to some low-rent factory in the cheapest real estate market in the US, along with a pallet of fingerprint sensors, where robots then snap that last component onto it, and box it up for sale.
It was never a "completed" product, so it wasn't ready for sale.
You've now added a regulation which does exactly nothing, and benefits nobody, except the guy who owns that low-rent warehouse, and a one-time sale of industrial robots which gets passed onto the end purchaser; but yet may have unforeseen future consequences from just being in place to some future business.
In case you are wondering, this tactic is already being employed by at least one auto manufacturer in order to dodge import tariffs - Mercedes Benz builds their Sprinter cargo vans in Germany without the side mirrors, ships them to the US, and then pays a few guys to bolt on the mirrors that are shipped in a container right along side the vans. Now it's a completed product, and it gets shipped to the dealers.
Don't even act like this isn't exactly what would happen.
On the Republican side, John Kasich is the only one that even sounds remotely reasonable. But nobody knows who he is, because all the cameras are constantly pointing at the clown show we know as "Trump".
No, they don't do that, because that would be illegal.
Apple pays it's owed tax on all revenue from the Americas through the US Tax Code. Anything from Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia is revenue realized through Apple Operations International (AOI), which is an Irish corporation.
That is, unless you are claiming that Tim Cook perjured himself in front of Congress. In which case, you'd better cite some evidence.
it's also anti-business, and anti-small-government.
We're in bizzaro-political-world here, where the leading Republican candidate is calling for higher taxes on business, as well as deeper regulation. And nobody seems to have noticed.
Except the law will be written in a completely foolish way that allows for one of the following results:
The new tax / tariff only applies to completed goods for sale. Meaning Apple could build it 99.9% out of country, and then import it and put it in the retail package in New Mexico, and mark it complete.
-or-
The new tax / tariff applies to component goods, and they inadvertently increase the price of things that actually are manufactured here (like cars, because they use a gearbox that is manufactured elsewhere; or some other Made-in-USA computer company that uses an Intel CPU from a Malaysia fab), and the entire economy craters.
This is quite possibly the dumbest idea ever, from a supposed 'businessman'.
The more likely scenario is that Apple would perform a corporate inversion in a complete speed record, and then tell Trump to shove it up his ass from their new headquarters in Canada.
Apple could buy and sell Trump 50 times over out of petty cash, why does he think they'll give two shits what he wants to do, which would be extra-legal anyway.
Comparing modern presidential executive orders to the ancient past isn't very useful. Things have changed in the last 200 years, even though the operator's manual hasn't.
The communication speed and cubic volume may be higher, but the noise ratio is setting record lows. And that's the problem.
When every political debate has to be 'fact checked' and is found to be a complete crock of shit, it shows what direction we've gone. These people aren't even pretending to not lie anymore, when we've got the ability to check it almost immediately. You want to increase the quality of these political debates? Have a fact check team right there in the debate hall, with a big buzzer that they get exclusive use of. You lie, you get a buzzer and your microphone gets cut until your next chance to speak, cued by the moderator.
The good news is that he would have to get any of that extra-leftist stuff through Congress, which puts the brakes on it in a hurry. I'd vote Bernie long before I'd vote Hillary or Trump. And I say that as a socially moderate fiscal conservative.
At least Bernie is trustworthy, and has a reasonable chance at not destroying our relationships with every other country on the planet. Can't say that about the other two.
This policy initiative sounds like a fantastic way to speed up corporate inversions. Want to see all the remaining US companies that actually manufacture products headquarter somewhere else? Enact this idea.
The amount of radioactivity of an isotope is inversely proportionate to it's half life. I'm fine with waste that is radioactive for 300,000 years, because it's just not that radioactive. Also, the type of decay matters - Plutonium, with it's half life of 280,000 years, decays by ejecting an 'alpha' particle, which is blocked by your dead skin. It is only dangerous radiation if you eat it or breathe it.
And coal fly ash and released mercury is toxic FOREVER.
I just wonder why this guy is always trashing every technology not named solar. If we're serious about climate change, we should be building anything not named 'coal', 'oil', and 'natural gas'.
Solar is fantastic. I work for, and own stock in, a solar company. I would love to see panels on everyone's rooftops, especially if they were installed by my company. It's just not realistic without some form of energy storage technology that doesn't exist today. We still need to produce energy at night time. And, right now when it's snowing and 7 degrees (Fahrenheit) outside where I live, we need reliable energy for heating, and snow-covered panels aren't it.
Yeah, they work so well that they are still running these creaky old nuclear plants. You don't get both sides of the coin.
Besides, you keep showing this 'plan' that has absolutely no reasoning posted behind it that I could see on that site. Where's the research that shows this plan as being even remotely feasible? What would it cost to implement? Would it bankrupt the country before seeing realization?
The same could be said of the incumbent technologies too - coal mine fires, fly ash ponds that breach and kill off entire rivers, natural gas reservoirs that leak and poison entire cities, etc.
Never underestimate the capacity of humans to completely fuck things up.
I know people here on Slashdot love to bring up Thorium-based reactors, but has anyone ever actually built one and turned it on? Even Wikipedia only has mention of research projects that have yet to go critical, with plans to scale to a tenth of what a traditional Uranium PWR can do, but not a single one has been built, much less taken critical.
There may be promise to the technology, but you need it to mature to something useable at a commercial scale. LFTR isn't there yet.
Slashdot Mirror
And most of that is complete bullshit and everyone knows it.
If I have to hear Hillary tell me that she's a woman, and that she's running for President, I think I'm going to vomit. We all know that you're a woman. You don't need to tell us over and over again.
Also, it's not just the Republicans painting her as an out of touch plutocrat pawn of Wall Street - you might look to her left to see some of that from Bernie.
Oh, I get it. I do.
My critique was meant to show what would have scored full irony points.
It is rather interesting to hear some European perspective on immigration issues though - it's too big of a shouting match here in the US to get any real movement one way or the other, and we don't have nearly the issue with refugees that Europe does due to a big whacking ocean being in the way. In the US, both political parties want the issue to hammer their opposition with, so they never get about to fixing the issue. It's the same reason why our social programs are such a mess - they would rather hold fundraisers and political rallies on the things the other party is saying than get in a room and bang out a compromise that would both save the programs, and make sure they are funded indefinitely.
Though I do have to disagree on your stance with certain words - maybe there isn't as much of a stigma in Europe over the word 'nigger' but it has a very hateful meaning here in the US due to history. The word is directly tied with racial slavery and the abhorrent conditions that entails, the oppressive terrorism of white supremacy, and the lingering effects of which still last today long after slavery was abolished, long after Jim Crow was broken up, long after the abolishment of 'separate but equal', long after the Civil Rights Act.
Except for when the speaker is also black, then for some reason it's a colloquialism. Still haven't wrapped my head around that one.
True, but most (if not all) holdovers from previous administrations have already been fired, so saying so would be redundant.
It's pretty clear to anyone who's paying attention that any administration since Kennedy, perhaps even farther back, would have a load of empty desks due to such a policy.
Would have been better if you would have posted as Anonymous Coward.
1. You've got first amendment issues with that policy.
2. You'd have to fire half of the current administration due to their disdain for the second, fourth, fifth, ninth, and tenth amendments.
Not for the authoritarians in charge of hiring at the DHS.
When you go to the fuel pump to put more fuel in your car, can you be 100% sure that all the way back to the hole in the ground where the oil was pumped out, that there wasn't a labor violation of some kind?
What are you going to do about that? Because that's what you are asking of Apple / Samsung / Sony here, except it's even harder for them, because they are buying components made out of refined materials, not the refined materials.
Snark can be fun, but you're just being a pedant.
Example time: Apple makes an iPhone in China, except for putting the home button / fingerprint sensor thing on it. They then ship them like that from China to some low-rent factory in the cheapest real estate market in the US, along with a pallet of fingerprint sensors, where robots then snap that last component onto it, and box it up for sale.
It was never a "completed" product, so it wasn't ready for sale.
You've now added a regulation which does exactly nothing, and benefits nobody, except the guy who owns that low-rent warehouse, and a one-time sale of industrial robots which gets passed onto the end purchaser; but yet may have unforeseen future consequences from just being in place to some future business.
In case you are wondering, this tactic is already being employed by at least one auto manufacturer in order to dodge import tariffs - Mercedes Benz builds their Sprinter cargo vans in Germany without the side mirrors, ships them to the US, and then pays a few guys to bolt on the mirrors that are shipped in a container right along side the vans. Now it's a completed product, and it gets shipped to the dealers.
Don't even act like this isn't exactly what would happen.
On the Republican side, John Kasich is the only one that even sounds remotely reasonable. But nobody knows who he is, because all the cameras are constantly pointing at the clown show we know as "Trump".
No, they don't do that, because that would be illegal.
Apple pays it's owed tax on all revenue from the Americas through the US Tax Code. Anything from Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia is revenue realized through Apple Operations International (AOI), which is an Irish corporation.
That is, unless you are claiming that Tim Cook perjured himself in front of Congress. In which case, you'd better cite some evidence.
I forgot where the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (official name of 'Obamacare') wasn't an Act of Congress.
Oh wait, that's exactly what it was. I really hope you were being sarcastic or trolly or something.
Yeah, because only Apple has devices manufactured in this way. Nope, absolutely no Android manufacturers doing exactly the same.
it's also anti-business, and anti-small-government.
We're in bizzaro-political-world here, where the leading Republican candidate is calling for higher taxes on business, as well as deeper regulation. And nobody seems to have noticed.
Except the law will be written in a completely foolish way that allows for one of the following results:
The new tax / tariff only applies to completed goods for sale. Meaning Apple could build it 99.9% out of country, and then import it and put it in the retail package in New Mexico, and mark it complete.
-or-
The new tax / tariff applies to component goods, and they inadvertently increase the price of things that actually are manufactured here (like cars, because they use a gearbox that is manufactured elsewhere; or some other Made-in-USA computer company that uses an Intel CPU from a Malaysia fab), and the entire economy craters.
This is quite possibly the dumbest idea ever, from a supposed 'businessman'.
The more likely scenario is that Apple would perform a corporate inversion in a complete speed record, and then tell Trump to shove it up his ass from their new headquarters in Canada.
Apple could buy and sell Trump 50 times over out of petty cash, why does he think they'll give two shits what he wants to do, which would be extra-legal anyway.
Comparing modern presidential executive orders to the ancient past isn't very useful. Things have changed in the last 200 years, even though the operator's manual hasn't.
The communication speed and cubic volume may be higher, but the noise ratio is setting record lows. And that's the problem.
When every political debate has to be 'fact checked' and is found to be a complete crock of shit, it shows what direction we've gone. These people aren't even pretending to not lie anymore, when we've got the ability to check it almost immediately. You want to increase the quality of these political debates? Have a fact check team right there in the debate hall, with a big buzzer that they get exclusive use of. You lie, you get a buzzer and your microphone gets cut until your next chance to speak, cued by the moderator.
Now that's a debate I'd watch.
The good news is that he would have to get any of that extra-leftist stuff through Congress, which puts the brakes on it in a hurry. I'd vote Bernie long before I'd vote Hillary or Trump. And I say that as a socially moderate fiscal conservative.
At least Bernie is trustworthy, and has a reasonable chance at not destroying our relationships with every other country on the planet. Can't say that about the other two.
Then definitely don't vote for Hillary. I've never heard someone pander towards various demographics as much. Including that asshat Trump.
This policy initiative sounds like a fantastic way to speed up corporate inversions. Want to see all the remaining US companies that actually manufacture products headquarter somewhere else? Enact this idea.
What a fucking idiot.
The amount of radioactivity of an isotope is inversely proportionate to it's half life. I'm fine with waste that is radioactive for 300,000 years, because it's just not that radioactive. Also, the type of decay matters - Plutonium, with it's half life of 280,000 years, decays by ejecting an 'alpha' particle, which is blocked by your dead skin. It is only dangerous radiation if you eat it or breathe it.
And coal fly ash and released mercury is toxic FOREVER.
I just wonder why this guy is always trashing every technology not named solar. If we're serious about climate change, we should be building anything not named 'coal', 'oil', and 'natural gas'.
Solar is fantastic. I work for, and own stock in, a solar company. I would love to see panels on everyone's rooftops, especially if they were installed by my company. It's just not realistic without some form of energy storage technology that doesn't exist today. We still need to produce energy at night time. And, right now when it's snowing and 7 degrees (Fahrenheit) outside where I live, we need reliable energy for heating, and snow-covered panels aren't it.
Yeah, they work so well that they are still running these creaky old nuclear plants. You don't get both sides of the coin.
Besides, you keep showing this 'plan' that has absolutely no reasoning posted behind it that I could see on that site. Where's the research that shows this plan as being even remotely feasible? What would it cost to implement? Would it bankrupt the country before seeing realization?
The same could be said of the incumbent technologies too - coal mine fires, fly ash ponds that breach and kill off entire rivers, natural gas reservoirs that leak and poison entire cities, etc.
Never underestimate the capacity of humans to completely fuck things up.
I know people here on Slashdot love to bring up Thorium-based reactors, but has anyone ever actually built one and turned it on? Even Wikipedia only has mention of research projects that have yet to go critical, with plans to scale to a tenth of what a traditional Uranium PWR can do, but not a single one has been built, much less taken critical.
There may be promise to the technology, but you need it to mature to something useable at a commercial scale. LFTR isn't there yet.