No it doesn't. And for exactly this reason, an amendment is difficult to achieve. The idea being that if an amendment can pass, we can have high confidence that it's the right thing to do (but sometimes we are wrong, so amendments can be reversed - like prohibition).
And we started down the road away from small government when we accepted the idea that we can pass laws without questioning it's constitutionality (eg. Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Yes! And his objection to it has nothing to do with racism as you like to think it does. The federal government certainly doesn't have that right. If you can find me the clause in the constitution that suggests that they do have that right to tell private businesses who they must serve, I would retract that statement.
Understand that the Civil Rights Act was put in place in response to other government involvement in private enterprise which forced a lot of businesses to be segregated against their will (The transit system in Montgomery Alabama is a good example). All Dr. Paul said was that government should not be in the business of telling private enterprises which customers they need to or need not to serve. Let the free market prove to business owners that attempting segregation is a guaranteed loss.
If you think the Federal Government SHOULD have that right, then you should favor a constitutional amendment to take care of that.
This is why Ron/Rand Paul are difficult to connect with. Libertarianism requires greater intellectual vigour and deeper analysis to understand.
Yes, they are legally bound to pay their shareholders in accordance with the agreed upon terms. But the agreed terms are never "make as much money as possible"
No they don't. They have a responsibility to do whatever they want to do. If they say shareholders be damned, then shareholders be damned.
You can't invest in an "environmentally friendly" company and sue them because they aren't being as profitable as you think they could be. They might have other priorities.
You'd suggest if I refuse to pay for car insurance, Geico should pay me for a new car after I smash mine up because I begged them to.
The article didn't seem to indicate there was any risk to life here, just property. But IF there were people trapped inside, I would suggest accepting the risk to save a life and billing him after the fact much like a call for an ambulance would.
Why not build a high speed train that transports cars (electric or otherwise)? Kind of like a ferry. That way people don't need to worry about renting a car once they've reached their destination.
Cars should be for cities only. City to city transportation could use high speed bullet trains/"ferries", not freeways.
Have a chat with your neighbours. You can all invest in a faster connection and a faster router and you can reduce those hundreds of routers down to a few. Hell, just use a few access points, feed the whole area into a single router.
Here's a more likely situation: Runner on first and third, A line drive is caught by the third-baseman right over third base. He steps on third base and fires to first before the runner can get back to the bag.
This could be a stupid question, but I have a question for the investors out there. Which would generate more money? Investing 27.5 million and claiming 100% of the interest or investing 55 million and claiming 50% of the interest?
I'm just thinking what if I had the choice of over a 10 year period (let's say) of investing 27.5 million and keeping the 27.5 and all the interest earned at the end of that period, or invest 55 million but only keep 27.5 million plus 50% of the interest earned at the end of that period.
Slashdot Mirror
Unlimited == Unlimited access to data
Unlmited != Unlimited data
No it doesn't. And for exactly this reason, an amendment is difficult to achieve. The idea being that if an amendment can pass, we can have high confidence that it's the right thing to do (but sometimes we are wrong, so amendments can be reversed - like prohibition).
And we started down the road away from small government when we accepted the idea that we can pass laws without questioning it's constitutionality (eg. Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Yes! And his objection to it has nothing to do with racism as you like to think it does. The federal government certainly doesn't have that right. If you can find me the clause in the constitution that suggests that they do have that right to tell private businesses who they must serve, I would retract that statement.
Understand that the Civil Rights Act was put in place in response to other government involvement in private enterprise which forced a lot of businesses to be segregated against their will (The transit system in Montgomery Alabama is a good example). All Dr. Paul said was that government should not be in the business of telling private enterprises which customers they need to or need not to serve. Let the free market prove to business owners that attempting segregation is a guaranteed loss.
If you think the Federal Government SHOULD have that right, then you should favor a constitutional amendment to take care of that.
This is why Ron/Rand Paul are difficult to connect with. Libertarianism requires greater intellectual vigour and deeper analysis to understand.
Wouldn't it just make more sense to buy a handful of cheap hdmi cables instead of just one pricy one?
His official name is Randall. Randall shortened it to Rand much like a Steven would shorten his name to Steve.
a) examples?
b) try looking for it. Start at http://mises.org/ which is dedicated to offering solutions to getting out of this crisis.
Damn straight. That's what I was saying.
Yes, they are legally bound to pay their shareholders in accordance with the agreed upon terms. But the agreed terms are never "make as much money as possible"
No they don't. They have a responsibility to do whatever they want to do. If they say shareholders be damned, then shareholders be damned.
You can't invest in an "environmentally friendly" company and sue them because they aren't being as profitable as you think they could be. They might have other priorities.
This is still socialism in action. Where's the competing fire department?
What about the danger to the fire fighters?
You'd suggest if I refuse to pay for car insurance, Geico should pay me for a new car after I smash mine up because I begged them to.
The article didn't seem to indicate there was any risk to life here, just property. But IF there were people trapped inside, I would suggest accepting the risk to save a life and billing him after the fact much like a call for an ambulance would.
I don't think he's invented Hamburger Earmuffs (TM) yet. He's likely still struggling with the pickle matrix.
Why not build a high speed train that transports cars (electric or otherwise)? Kind of like a ferry. That way people don't need to worry about renting a car once they've reached their destination.
Cars should be for cities only. City to city transportation could use high speed bullet trains/"ferries", not freeways.
Have a chat with your neighbours. You can all invest in a faster connection and a faster router and you can reduce those hundreds of routers down to a few. Hell, just use a few access points, feed the whole area into a single router.
calling it adverising
Who calls it adverising?
LOL, my thoughts exactly!
Carmen Sandiego would be killer with a Google Earth interface and all that satellite imagery.
Oh what's a Gentoo user to do?
Saf3aD&p Really, I'm quite surprised you were allowed to have such a tour.
Here's a more likely situation:
l )
Runner on first and third,
A line drive is caught by the third-baseman right over third base. He steps on third base and fires to first before the runner can get back to the bag.
Here's an example of one that utilizes a strike-out to make the triple play
http://youtube.com/watch?v=O2ZnQMV03iM
Here's a comprehensive explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_play_(basebal
While I thought The Recruit was a pretty exciting movie,
the scene where Colin Farrell writes a program in 30 seconds designed to crack a CIA officer's password in under 10 was pretty far fetched.
(I wish I could code and crack like that)
The previous line was even better:
Little Girl - "Like the kind dad puts in his drink in the morning...then he gets mad"
RTF Post. I was referring to the parent who thought all numbers of the form 2^n-1 were prime. Naturally, slashdotters ate him up and spit him out.
1 03985
I say bonus karma points to this guy:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=196548&cid=16
Ha Ha!
Hey everyone! Let's massacre the parent! Bonus karma points to the one who can shoot down the suggestion the best!
Try n=4
This could be a stupid question, but I have a question for the investors out there. Which would generate more money? Investing 27.5 million and claiming 100% of the interest or investing 55 million and claiming 50% of the interest?
I'm just thinking what if I had the choice of over a 10 year period (let's say) of investing 27.5 million and keeping the 27.5 and all the interest earned at the end of that period, or invest 55 million but only keep 27.5 million plus 50% of the interest earned at the end of that period.
It's 1984 man! All you need to do is head to the corner drug store and pick up some plutonium.