Not 100%, not even close. You are forgetting that no business is an island, operating alone and unaffected by other businesses. There is a long supply chain to produce even the simplest goods. Small changes in the supply chain affect everybody downstream.
That's what I said. In reality, minimum wage increases do not cause significant price increases and little inflation at least until the wage is way up.
It's an empirical result supported by the theory.
That narrative is a trifle bit incorrect. Puerto Rico has always relied on pharma industry with its high-paying jobs. And it's actually _expanding_ now, not contracting.
And how about thousands people in N.J. cheering the 9/11 attacks? Or about blacks killing 81 percent of white victims? Or unemployment rate of 42%? Or GDP (growth rate) below zero? Politifact is spot-on on calling the pants-on-fire on these.
Your Gandhi example is pretty much the worst example of Politifact "bias".
Guns at that time were pretty much useless for self-defense - preparing and loading a gun takes about a minute. Reading and firing a flintlock was indeed a good exercise.
Guns and rifles at that time were useful for hunting, but hunting restrictions were commonplace both in England and in the US (see: "poaching").
If you live in a sunny state then you'll get to breakeven in about 15 years now even without feed-in tariffs and subsidies, just by offsetting day-time air conditioning use. Subsidies and/or feed-in tariffs simply make it more profitable.
Yet 23.8% is still lower than the effective 30% tax rate paid by average US citizens: http://www.oecd.org/ctp/tax-po... - and this doesn't include the sales tax.
Federalist papers also proposed:
1) Mandatory military training.
2) Standardized weapons and ammunition distributed by the state governments.
3) Conscription.
That's the meaning of "well regulated militia" during the days of Jefferson. The Second Amendment was clearly designed as a way to create an army (just look at the Third Amendment!), not establish rights to have guns as personal weapons for self-defense or hunting.
All modern autopilot systems monitor car's response to control input and adjust accordingly. Just like humans do. The current crop of self-driving cars probably doesn't have enough smarts to deal with black ice and tire blowouts, but there's absolutely no reason future cars can't be adapted to do that.
Except 14-th Amendment is not applicable here. For example, National Banking Acts establishes the uniform currency but individuals most certainly can NOT mint it themselves.
And the Second Amendment clearly says "well regulated militia". I fail to see how grandmas shooting their children by accident are a well-regulated militia.
The thing is, in a country like Thailand, Google can just say: "OK, we're complying with your ruling and turning off all services". And in a day or two the ruling will be reversed once people stop being able to look their favorite YouTube videos and read their email.
However, there are homegrown replacements for pretty much all of the Google tools in Russia. Yandex has (quite decent) search, maps (including street view), email, calendaring and so on.
The court decision that has expanded the Second Amendment argued that the "well regulated militia" should be read in the context of the original Constitution framers. At that time everybody was supposed to be in a militia. So what do you chose, a restrictive interpretation of the Second Amendment (only military can carry guns) or a requirement for gun registry (which is very much in line with the original interpretation)?
After all, the government needs to know whom to conscript in case of an armed conflict, right?
So ban private gun sales. And enact strong gun identification laws.
You have an unidentified gun? Go to jail.
Moreover, it would even be CONSTITUTIONAL. The authors of the Second Amendment even proposed standardizing and mandating weapons to be distributed to citizens so that they could be conscripted in case of an armed conflict.
No, it wouldn't. Noise cancellation phones do not work well in the voice band, and since the train is a noise environment, people tend to TALK VERY LOUDLY.
Oh, and could you tell us your address? I have a couple of ampules of mercaptane that I want to dispose of, it's a bit stinky but you can always wear noseplugs.
EDF is simply too bureaucratic and inefficient. That often happens in France. Right now Russia is building several new reactors, and quite cheaply at that. A new Belorussian power plant (2.4GWte) is due to come online in two years, and it's projected to cost around $9 billions.
This is actually extremely cost-effective. Wind generators for the same capacity (with load factor taken into account) would cost about three time that price.
The only interesting feature is that it can actually be built on fabs located in Russia. Mostly for military and highly-sensitive government customers as it's not even remotely cost-effective. On the other hand, it's also likely to NOT have NSA backdoors.
And I thought you was going to show us the temperature reading from a rectal thermometer in your ass. It would have provided more reliable data than wattsup.
Sure. If you're eating 5000 calories a day (which is far, far more than required) then cutting calorie intake by 10% might cause you to gain weight. But if you cut the intake to 1000 calories - you WILL lose weight (assuming you're about an average size). No way around it.
Slashdot Mirror
Not 100%, not even close. You are forgetting that no business is an island, operating alone and unaffected by other businesses. There is a long supply chain to produce even the simplest goods. Small changes in the supply chain affect everybody downstream.
That's what I said. In reality, minimum wage increases do not cause significant price increases and little inflation at least until the wage is way up. It's an empirical result supported by the theory.
I think way to many people forget where that extra $5 is going to come from: higher prices.
However, prices do NOT rise as fast as the salary.
This is the definition and cause of inflation. Someone gets more pay, the prices go up, everything nets out to be the same.
Nope. That would be true only if the cost of the goods was 100% composed of minimum-wage salary.
That narrative is a trifle bit incorrect. Puerto Rico has always relied on pharma industry with its high-paying jobs. And it's actually _expanding_ now, not contracting.
No, it doesn't. You've found exactly one minor example of Politifact being not entirely correct, so you dismiss everything.
So how about pants-on-fire lies like thousands people in NJ cheering the 9/11 attacks? I guess that's also "liberal bias".
And how about thousands people in N.J. cheering the 9/11 attacks? Or about blacks killing 81 percent of white victims? Or unemployment rate of 42%? Or GDP (growth rate) below zero? Politifact is spot-on on calling the pants-on-fire on these.
Your Gandhi example is pretty much the worst example of Politifact "bias".
Guns at that time were pretty much useless for self-defense - preparing and loading a gun takes about a minute. Reading and firing a flintlock was indeed a good exercise.
Guns and rifles at that time were useful for hunting, but hunting restrictions were commonplace both in England and in the US (see: "poaching").
If you live in a sunny state then you'll get to breakeven in about 15 years now even without feed-in tariffs and subsidies, just by offsetting day-time air conditioning use. Subsidies and/or feed-in tariffs simply make it more profitable.
Yet 23.8% is still lower than the effective 30% tax rate paid by average US citizens: http://www.oecd.org/ctp/tax-po... - and this doesn't include the sales tax.
Federalist papers also proposed:
1) Mandatory military training.
2) Standardized weapons and ammunition distributed by the state governments.
3) Conscription.
That's the meaning of "well regulated militia" during the days of Jefferson. The Second Amendment was clearly designed as a way to create an army (just look at the Third Amendment!), not establish rights to have guns as personal weapons for self-defense or hunting.
So, I read most of them. Politifact is entirely correct in that it relies on official sources and not on discredited Reagan era advisers' opinions.
All modern autopilot systems monitor car's response to control input and adjust accordingly. Just like humans do. The current crop of self-driving cars probably doesn't have enough smarts to deal with black ice and tire blowouts, but there's absolutely no reason future cars can't be adapted to do that.
Except 14-th Amendment is not applicable here. For example, National Banking Acts establishes the uniform currency but individuals most certainly can NOT mint it themselves.
And the Second Amendment clearly says "well regulated militia". I fail to see how grandmas shooting their children by accident are a well-regulated militia.
The thing is, in a country like Thailand, Google can just say: "OK, we're complying with your ruling and turning off all services". And in a day or two the ruling will be reversed once people stop being able to look their favorite YouTube videos and read their email.
However, there are homegrown replacements for pretty much all of the Google tools in Russia. Yandex has (quite decent) search, maps (including street view), email, calendaring and so on.
The court decision that has expanded the Second Amendment argued that the "well regulated militia" should be read in the context of the original Constitution framers. At that time everybody was supposed to be in a militia. So what do you chose, a restrictive interpretation of the Second Amendment (only military can carry guns) or a requirement for gun registry (which is very much in line with the original interpretation)?
After all, the government needs to know whom to conscript in case of an armed conflict, right?
It may have been constitutional then, when the 2A, like the whole Bill of Rights, was mostly about communitarian rights rather than individual rights
So you're saying that gun ownership has no basis in the Constitution? OK, let's go on with that.
So ban private gun sales. And enact strong gun identification laws.
You have an unidentified gun? Go to jail.
Moreover, it would even be CONSTITUTIONAL. The authors of the Second Amendment even proposed standardizing and mandating weapons to be distributed to citizens so that they could be conscripted in case of an armed conflict.
Ding! A pants-on-fire lie. Please, show us the stats. Oh, and of course not for early 1800-s when the most advanced gun was a flintlock.
No, it wouldn't. Noise cancellation phones do not work well in the voice band, and since the train is a noise environment, people tend to TALK VERY LOUDLY.
Oh, and could you tell us your address? I have a couple of ampules of mercaptane that I want to dispose of, it's a bit stinky but you can always wear noseplugs.
EDF is simply too bureaucratic and inefficient. That often happens in France. Right now Russia is building several new reactors, and quite cheaply at that. A new Belorussian power plant (2.4GWte) is due to come online in two years, and it's projected to cost around $9 billions.
This is actually extremely cost-effective. Wind generators for the same capacity (with load factor taken into account) would cost about three time that price.
The only interesting feature is that it can actually be built on fabs located in Russia. Mostly for military and highly-sensitive government customers as it's not even remotely cost-effective. On the other hand, it's also likely to NOT have NSA backdoors.
Israel is busy flattening Palestinian houses to build illegal Israel settlements. But that's OK, right?
The IDF have dropped leaflets, sent text messages, knock-knock bombs, etc. to warn Palestinian civilians of pending retaliatory strikes.
What a bullshit. Have you _seen_ Gaza? It's a fucking thin strip. Even if you wanted to get away from fighting, there's NOWHERE for you to go.
And we even haven't started talking about how Israel treats Palestinians on the West Bank.
And I thought you was going to show us the temperature reading from a rectal thermometer in your ass. It would have provided more reliable data than wattsup.
Sure. If you're eating 5000 calories a day (which is far, far more than required) then cutting calorie intake by 10% might cause you to gain weight. But if you cut the intake to 1000 calories - you WILL lose weight (assuming you're about an average size). No way around it.
BS. If you don't feed them enough recoverable calories the mice WILL lose dry weight. There's no way around thermodynamics.
And no, you can't gain weight by fasting on water and pills, except by retaining fluid.