Well, to be honest they could still use the currency and the military, they just wouldn't have any input into, or control over, that use. They wouldn't be able to print Canadian currency without international issues, but using it wouldn't be a problem, and given that most of their land and sea borders have Canada on the other side, they'd have a large degree of de facto military protection.
However, given the size of Quebec in terms of land, people, and economy, it's not unreasonable to assume they would quickly develop their own military, currency, and passports.
The rest of the political promises, well, we all know how loose politicians are with reality.
If Invision's paid board administration is anything like the free version's, I'd rather shoot myself in the head. Then again, it's been about 5 years since I had to adin one, so they've possibly gotten better.
Despite how old these calculators are, app software has still not caught up to them in terms of usability and efficiency. Phones are not built to input mathematical data, and touchscreen apps lack tactile feel. Entering (and editing) equations on a touchscreen is not something I'd wish even on an enemy.
You can have a budget surplus and an increase in the national debt. All it takes is a correct accounting of costs and a projection of income that is lower than the income actually received, or by projected expenses being lower than expected, or some combination of those (and potentially other) factors.
I can budget my yearly expenses, be 100% accurate in accounting for them, get a $1,000 bonus I wasn't expecting, and max a new $10,000 line of credit I was expecting. I now have a budget surplus of $1,000 for the year and an increase in my debt of $10,000. Obviously a simplistic example, but illustrative of how the two are not mutually exclusive.
This comment attempts to neither support nor refute the idea Obama has lowered spending, either expressly or by implication.
A budget is a theoretical allocation. What you actually spend is what you actually spend. They are fundamentally not the same thing, though they can, in certain cases, end up having the same numbers in the same places.
I don't have to draw up a budget in order to spend all my money, max out my credit card, and end up with nothing to show for any of it. I also don't have to draw up a budget in order to spend frugally and conserve every extra penny I can. Neither does the government. It can certainly help to reach the latter result, but is not strictly necessary to do so. Of course, the latter result is almost unheard of in the USA, but it does not make it an impossible result; you can run the Heart of Gold for a long time when it does though.
Implied, but not explicitly stated, was a market unhampered by artificial restrictions imposed by a body other than the market itself. Don't take this to mean I'm defending the statement, simply clarifying what I believe was intended by the term at issue. I agree that a (theoretical) free market is not immune to monopolies. Far from it.
No economy will be unhampered, whether there's regulation or not. The type of market determines the type of problems that will hamper the market at one time or another (or all the time, as the case may be).
Yes, because you can't enter it if you've never seen the card. The CVV was introduced when machines still physically imprinted receipts and prior to the laws banning the display of more than 4 or 5 digits of the number on any printed receipt. It isn't embossed, it's not on the front in the cases where an image is taken of the card, and any merchant found to be storing the code has their payment contract invalidated.
It was to combat the relative ease with which people could gather the name, number, and expiration date from the trash or an electronic receipt or database. You had to have at least been in the presence of the card in order to get the number. No, it's not a great mechanism on its own, but it drastically cuts down on certain classes of fraud.
In the USA, food service industry employees are taxed based on a minimum of 8% of their gross sales receipts. That increases if their declared tips exceed that amount, but does not decrease below that under any circumstances.
Additionally, credit card tips are used by many employers as a method of controlling staff. There are also a number of common schemes wherein employees don't receive credit card tips at all. These are many, varied, and the descriptions of them are far more detailed than I'm willing to invest in this particular point. If you know anyone who's worked in food service for a long time, they can almost certainly fill you in.
From the perspective of honest employers, credit card tips create fees which take money out of the business coffers, as they go directly to pay merchant gateway and credit card processing fees.
Servers and bartenders are taken, in most cases, to providing better service to people they know will be tipping in cash.
So yes, it was not technically true to say everyone benefits, because credit card companies lose out when people tip in cash. I can almost guarantee the government doesn't lose much; they have mechanisms in place which average out the losses from unreported tips.
No, they're to prevent the used of the information on the card without the card itself. These basically replace the CVV on the back of the card for determining that the user actually has it in their possession.
Not possible in the US on a network that allows public access, and any entity set up to bypass the "public" part could easily be pierced if any law enforcement agency requested a lawful intercept under CALEA. Whoever was ultimately responsible for running the network would face hefty fines, or potentially prison time, following the first failure to be able to provide the required intercept functionality.
Actually, if you're the only game in town for rural connections outside of satellite, you can even be an idiot. I speak from the experience of knowing one such who ran a rural WISP.
That would make them Libertarians, and if you listen to a lot of people on Slashdot, Libertarians are even crazier than Republicans.
After all, it's not that the Federal government shouldn't be able to control social behavior, it's that it should control it the right (Left?) way. Neither side of the major party objects to the power, just to how it's used when their side isn't in control. Anyone who objects to the power itself is The Enemy, and obviously crazy.
That's one of the problems with a system that teaches everyone that if they want something enough there's no such thing as failure, and that credit solves everything.
If people want subsidized education, they should be expected to contribute financially to maintain that system. If they want education which cannot help repay the subsidy, they should pay for it themselves.
I came here expecting howls of how this would be unfair to liberal arts majors, and was not disappointed. Education for education's sake is great, but if that's why you're there you should pay for it yourself just like any other hobby. If you're going to have others pay for it, you should expect there to be strings attached.
It's always nice to hear a story of someone who made hard choices with the long term in mind. Too many people today believe that something being unpleasant or difficult equates to it not being possible.
The posts prior to yours were statements regarding whether or not two things were equal. Arguing about which was valued more is a strawman, albeit (I'm guessing) an unintentional one.
I was thinking there were more than just Rostenkowski at the Federal level, but there's a strong tradition of governors trading their business suits for prison jumpsuits.
It's been a long time since I've read comparisons of the pros and cons of each alternative voting method, which is why I listed two and additionally left the list open-ended. It wasn't an explicit endorsement of a specific method rather than to make the point that change does not need to be made Federally.
Voted days ago by mail. -- The Constitution only dictates the existence of the Electoral College, not how it's used or how each State's Electors are chosen. You can implement IRV below the national level, one State at a time. No Constitutional (Federal, anyway) amendments necessary.
That's the point. It's not a phone, just like the iPhone would not be a phone without the patents that Apple is refusing to pay more than a pittance for.
They asked massive amounts for patents which are not essential to making a phone. It stands to reason that the patents required to make it a phone are worth at least a tiny bit more.
I think that the phone working at all is a bit more important from the standpoint of being able to sell it. Without Motorola's patents, the iPhone is an iPod.
Those who argue it's a wasted vote are either scared shitless that your message will actually be heard, or can't comprehend that anyone wouldn't welcome their particular party's dominance with open arms.
Actually, I guess those two are probably the same thing. The only difference is whether the person lies to themselves or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, to be honest they could still use the currency and the military, they just wouldn't have any input into, or control over, that use. They wouldn't be able to print Canadian currency without international issues, but using it wouldn't be a problem, and given that most of their land and sea borders have Canada on the other side, they'd have a large degree of de facto military protection.
However, given the size of Quebec in terms of land, people, and economy, it's not unreasonable to assume they would quickly develop their own military, currency, and passports.
The rest of the political promises, well, we all know how loose politicians are with reality.
I'd also recommend SMF, after having run PHPBB2, PHPBB3, Invision's free board, and having dabbled with a number of others.
3.x is a complete rewrite. They're different, incompatible software packages. It's because there was no hope of polishing the turd that was 2.x.
If Invision's paid board administration is anything like the free version's, I'd rather shoot myself in the head. Then again, it's been about 5 years since I had to adin one, so they've possibly gotten better.
Despite how old these calculators are, app software has still not caught up to them in terms of usability and efficiency. Phones are not built to input mathematical data, and touchscreen apps lack tactile feel. Entering (and editing) equations on a touchscreen is not something I'd wish even on an enemy.
How does "anything not powered by muscular power" not include electric vehicles?
You can have a budget surplus and an increase in the national debt. All it takes is a correct accounting of costs and a projection of income that is lower than the income actually received, or by projected expenses being lower than expected, or some combination of those (and potentially other) factors.
I can budget my yearly expenses, be 100% accurate in accounting for them, get a $1,000 bonus I wasn't expecting, and max a new $10,000 line of credit I was expecting. I now have a budget surplus of $1,000 for the year and an increase in my debt of $10,000. Obviously a simplistic example, but illustrative of how the two are not mutually exclusive.
This comment attempts to neither support nor refute the idea Obama has lowered spending, either expressly or by implication.
A budget is a theoretical allocation. What you actually spend is what you actually spend. They are fundamentally not the same thing, though they can, in certain cases, end up having the same numbers in the same places.
I don't have to draw up a budget in order to spend all my money, max out my credit card, and end up with nothing to show for any of it. I also don't have to draw up a budget in order to spend frugally and conserve every extra penny I can. Neither does the government. It can certainly help to reach the latter result, but is not strictly necessary to do so. Of course, the latter result is almost unheard of in the USA, but it does not make it an impossible result; you can run the Heart of Gold for a long time when it does though.
Implied, but not explicitly stated, was a market unhampered by artificial restrictions imposed by a body other than the market itself. Don't take this to mean I'm defending the statement, simply clarifying what I believe was intended by the term at issue. I agree that a (theoretical) free market is not immune to monopolies. Far from it.
No economy will be unhampered, whether there's regulation or not. The type of market determines the type of problems that will hamper the market at one time or another (or all the time, as the case may be).
Yes, because you can't enter it if you've never seen the card. The CVV was introduced when machines still physically imprinted receipts and prior to the laws banning the display of more than 4 or 5 digits of the number on any printed receipt. It isn't embossed, it's not on the front in the cases where an image is taken of the card, and any merchant found to be storing the code has their payment contract invalidated.
It was to combat the relative ease with which people could gather the name, number, and expiration date from the trash or an electronic receipt or database. You had to have at least been in the presence of the card in order to get the number. No, it's not a great mechanism on its own, but it drastically cuts down on certain classes of fraud.
In the USA, food service industry employees are taxed based on a minimum of 8% of their gross sales receipts. That increases if their declared tips exceed that amount, but does not decrease below that under any circumstances.
Additionally, credit card tips are used by many employers as a method of controlling staff. There are also a number of common schemes wherein employees don't receive credit card tips at all. These are many, varied, and the descriptions of them are far more detailed than I'm willing to invest in this particular point. If you know anyone who's worked in food service for a long time, they can almost certainly fill you in.
From the perspective of honest employers, credit card tips create fees which take money out of the business coffers, as they go directly to pay merchant gateway and credit card processing fees.
Servers and bartenders are taken, in most cases, to providing better service to people they know will be tipping in cash.
So yes, it was not technically true to say everyone benefits, because credit card companies lose out when people tip in cash. I can almost guarantee the government doesn't lose much; they have mechanisms in place which average out the losses from unreported tips.
No, they're to prevent the used of the information on the card without the card itself. These basically replace the CVV on the back of the card for determining that the user actually has it in their possession.
It's better for everyone to tip in cash anyway.
Not possible in the US on a network that allows public access, and any entity set up to bypass the "public" part could easily be pierced if any law enforcement agency requested a lawful intercept under CALEA. Whoever was ultimately responsible for running the network would face hefty fines, or potentially prison time, following the first failure to be able to provide the required intercept functionality.
Actually, if you're the only game in town for rural connections outside of satellite, you can even be an idiot. I speak from the experience of knowing one such who ran a rural WISP.
That would make them Libertarians, and if you listen to a lot of people on Slashdot, Libertarians are even crazier than Republicans.
After all, it's not that the Federal government shouldn't be able to control social behavior, it's that it should control it the right (Left?) way. Neither side of the major party objects to the power, just to how it's used when their side isn't in control. Anyone who objects to the power itself is The Enemy, and obviously crazy.
That's one of the problems with a system that teaches everyone that if they want something enough there's no such thing as failure, and that credit solves everything.
If people want subsidized education, they should be expected to contribute financially to maintain that system. If they want education which cannot help repay the subsidy, they should pay for it themselves.
I came here expecting howls of how this would be unfair to liberal arts majors, and was not disappointed. Education for education's sake is great, but if that's why you're there you should pay for it yourself just like any other hobby. If you're going to have others pay for it, you should expect there to be strings attached.
It's always nice to hear a story of someone who made hard choices with the long term in mind. Too many people today believe that something being unpleasant or difficult equates to it not being possible.
The original comment was A == (2*B).
Reply was A != C, not A < C.
The posts prior to yours were statements regarding whether or not two things were equal. Arguing about which was valued more is a strawman, albeit (I'm guessing) an unintentional one.
Hopefully not, but you never know.
I was thinking there were more than just Rostenkowski at the Federal level, but there's a strong tradition of governors trading their business suits for prison jumpsuits.
It's been a long time since I've read comparisons of the pros and cons of each alternative voting method, which is why I listed two and additionally left the list open-ended. It wasn't an explicit endorsement of a specific method rather than to make the point that change does not need to be made Federally.
Voted days ago by mail.
--
The Constitution only dictates the existence of the Electoral College, not how it's used or how each State's Electors are chosen. You can implement IRV below the national level, one State at a time. No Constitutional (Federal, anyway) amendments necessary.
Otherwise, I tend to agree with you.
That's the point. It's not a phone, just like the iPhone would not be a phone without the patents that Apple is refusing to pay more than a pittance for.
They asked massive amounts for patents which are not essential to making a phone. It stands to reason that the patents required to make it a phone are worth at least a tiny bit more.
I think that the phone working at all is a bit more important from the standpoint of being able to sell it. Without Motorola's patents, the iPhone is an iPod.
Those who argue it's a wasted vote are either scared shitless that your message will actually be heard, or can't comprehend that anyone wouldn't welcome their particular party's dominance with open arms.
Actually, I guess those two are probably the same thing. The only difference is whether the person lies to themselves or not.
I'm glad there's at least one other person on Slashdot who actually understands this.
I salute you.