Yep.
You own money, but they own the notes (it's illegal to destroy them, etc). However, that doesn't mean that the FRS can just come in and confiscate your money. You do not own anything to FRS unless you get a credit line from them (but then it means that you're a bank).
You don't need to have _direct_ experience in fracking. Just the knowledge of practices used in it and general geological knowledge.
Quite a lot of academics have this knowledge, so it's not like that there's a small pool of experts.
Fiat money is 'loaned' to the taxpayers through the conduit of the government using interest rates which makes it mathematically impossible to pay back all that is owed even if all that nation-states currency that actually exists were rounded up and sent in all at once.
Another stupid post pretending to be 'insightful'. Government does not 'loan' money. I own my money and I can do whatever I please with it.
And the irony is - rich people would be the ones to benefit from 'fixed' currency the most.
Virgin's spaceplane is a dead end. It's that simple.
It can never achieve orbital velocities and their current design is not scalable. The whole vehicle is nothing more than an expensive analog of a "sports car" - a generally useless toy for rich people.
SpaceX, on the other hand, produces real and useful technology.
Utopia's not an option, and never will be. However, abolishing our current mercantile system which upholds corporations through an onerous income tax system, overbearing regulation, ridiculous intellectual property laws, and other barriers to entry in the market place, along with limited liability (corporations as people), is something most libertarians would be in favor of.
So let's just repeal all laws and let corporations have their own militia, police force and justice system? After all, who stops a corporation with couple of billions of dollars from hiring some goons to go and shoot you if there are no laws?
Uhm. There are other species of fish than bluefin tuna. I really like sushi but I certainly won't eat bluefin tuna, dolphinmeat (no. freaking. way.) sushi or any other endangered species. I also like farmed fish.
Of course, if we need to ban fishing completely to preserve wild fish then so be it.
Duh. They're turned off nuclear power plants in August/September, so they are net exporter because nuclear power plants worked through most of the year.
Uhm. I hate to say, but you know nothing about power transmission.
First, it matters very much where consumer and producer are located if power is transmitted over AC power lines simply because transit countries have to apply phase corrections to keep phases in sync. And phase shifters very much care about distances between producer and consumer.
Then there's N+1 redundancy requirement and synchronization issues.
Nope. This year Germany is going to be a net importer (albeit not a large importer).
Interconnectedness does not matter per se, no electricity from Germany is used in East Siberia and vice versa. Simply because of huge transmission losses. It's rare for electric power to be used more than a thousand kilometers from its source.
And notion of transit countries is very much real and Germany is one of them. Or do you think that current simply goes through the air?
Yup. Germany has switched from energy exporter to weak energy importer with the shutdown of nuclear powerplants which your data omits. 2012 will be the first year with net imports.
Molten salt storage is not a 'technology', but more of 'extract money from government' thing. It can't scale enough even in theory and it's horribly expensive and inefficient to boot.
You seem to have a short memory. New Labour under Blair and Brown were running an increased deficit during the boom, even after increasing taxes. There was no room left for the government to do something with the economy when the recession came.
On the contrary, I have a very good memory.
Government debt stood at 29% of GDP in 2002, and had increased to 37% before the crash in 2007, despite incredibly strong economic conditions. What exactly do you think was going to happen? That's why it's spiralled so quickly to 90% of GDP.
WRONG!
UK debt end 1998 : 410,2 G£, i. e. 46,7 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 1999 : 405,7 G£, i. e. 43,7 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2000 : 400,6 G£, i. e. 41,0 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2001 : 385,5 G£, i. e. 37,7 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2002 : 402,9 G£, i. e. 37,5 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2003 : 441,1 G£, i. e. 38,7 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2004 : 487,9 G£, i. e. 40,4 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2005 : 529,4 G£, i. e. 42,3 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2006 : 573,3 G£, i. e. 43,4 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2007 : 618,4 G£, i. e. 44,2 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2008 : 750,3 G£, i. e. 52,0 % of GDP (ONS) http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1950_2010UKp_11s1li011lcn_G0t_UK_National_Debt_As_Pct_GDP
So where's the debt crisis? It oscillated around 40% during the recent "good" years. It only started growing in 2008 because of the freaking global crisis. There was NO reason for austerity. And the effects of austerity turned out to be self-defeating - the projections show that their effects on deficit are minimal.
I've looked at the numbers and I haven't seen any country in Europe (besides Greece by a little bit) reduce their spending year-over-year. That doesn't sound like austerity.
He did raise taxes to reduce the deficit. And that will suck money out of the private sector and slow the economy. But I'm not sure if that warrants the label austerity.
Not 'will' but 'has'. The UK is in the midst of the SECOND recession and falling down still. Cameron achieved quite a dubious feat - UK has now been depressed more than in the Great Depression of 30-s. With no way out in sight.
That'd be true if Cameron at the same time tried to actually do something with the economy, instead of trying to squeeze it as much as possible with new austerity measures.
The ones that have already caused a new recession in the UK.
Wrong. Most small companies DO NOT get initial capital from 'investment'. They get it either in the form of bank loans (which are not considered income) or by personal savings.
Now, bank loans are backed by deposits can be considered investments. And maybe simple bank deposits should be exempt from taxes. But that's it.
Speculation on stock market (even HFT) right now is considered 'investment' which it isn't.
Only it doesn't work this way in practice. Investment for the sake of investment has become an industry. Which produces less and less tangible benefits. Just look at the likes of Bain Capital.
Do you have any idea how many drugs fail their 2-nd and 3-rd stages of clinical trials?
TONS of them. You simply don't hear about them.
I recommend subscribing to http://pipeline.corante.com/ - it's a blog of a research chemist. You'll be amazed about complexity of drug development.
Being active doesn't help a lot. An hour of walking is just under 500 kCal and that's less than one candybar. There's additional help from increasing your basal rate, but it's not that big.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. You own money, but they own the notes (it's illegal to destroy them, etc). However, that doesn't mean that the FRS can just come in and confiscate your money. You do not own anything to FRS unless you get a credit line from them (but then it means that you're a bank).
You don't need to have _direct_ experience in fracking. Just the knowledge of practices used in it and general geological knowledge. Quite a lot of academics have this knowledge, so it's not like that there's a small pool of experts.
Fiat money is 'loaned' to the taxpayers through the conduit of the government using interest rates which makes it mathematically impossible to pay back all that is owed even if all that nation-states currency that actually exists were rounded up and sent in all at once.
Another stupid post pretending to be 'insightful'. Government does not 'loan' money. I own my money and I can do whatever I please with it.
And the irony is - rich people would be the ones to benefit from 'fixed' currency the most.
So you're proposing to destroy ability to get credit? Another "great" idea to improve economy.
On my scale it ranks juuuust a bit higher above "expropriate all means of production".
Virgin's spaceplane is a dead end. It's that simple.
It can never achieve orbital velocities and their current design is not scalable. The whole vehicle is nothing more than an expensive analog of a "sports car" - a generally useless toy for rich people.
SpaceX, on the other hand, produces real and useful technology.
Utopia's not an option, and never will be. However, abolishing our current mercantile system which upholds corporations through an onerous income tax system, overbearing regulation, ridiculous intellectual property laws, and other barriers to entry in the market place, along with limited liability (corporations as people), is something most libertarians would be in favor of.
So let's just repeal all laws and let corporations have their own militia, police force and justice system? After all, who stops a corporation with couple of billions of dollars from hiring some goons to go and shoot you if there are no laws?
Uhm. There are other species of fish than bluefin tuna. I really like sushi but I certainly won't eat bluefin tuna, dolphinmeat (no. freaking. way.) sushi or any other endangered species. I also like farmed fish.
Of course, if we need to ban fishing completely to preserve wild fish then so be it.
Ok. Let's wait until 2013 - I'm pretty sure Germany is going to become reliant on imports again. Especially on imports of baseline power.
Duh. They're turned off nuclear power plants in August/September, so they are net exporter because nuclear power plants worked through most of the year.
Uhm. I hate to say, but you know nothing about power transmission. First, it matters very much where consumer and producer are located if power is transmitted over AC power lines simply because transit countries have to apply phase corrections to keep phases in sync. And phase shifters very much care about distances between producer and consumer. Then there's N+1 redundancy requirement and synchronization issues.
Nope. This year Germany is going to be a net importer (albeit not a large importer). Interconnectedness does not matter per se, no electricity from Germany is used in East Siberia and vice versa. Simply because of huge transmission losses. It's rare for electric power to be used more than a thousand kilometers from its source. And notion of transit countries is very much real and Germany is one of them. Or do you think that current simply goes through the air?
Yup. Germany has switched from energy exporter to weak energy importer with the shutdown of nuclear powerplants which your data omits. 2012 will be the first year with net imports.
Here's a link to a relevant chart: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiemarkt#Entwicklung_der_Stromhandelsbilanz - notice how the power balance fell in 2011.
But don't worry! Greenpeace has a plan for it - build more dirty coal powerplants: http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110713-36277.html
Germany is NOT a net exporter. However, it's one of the main Central European electricity transit countries.
Molten salt storage is not a 'technology', but more of 'extract money from government' thing. It can't scale enough even in theory and it's horribly expensive and inefficient to boot.
By a ROCKET! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_mail#United_States_Postal_Service Oh, and fully armed nuclear warheads would of course be merely a courtesy detail.
You seem to have a short memory. New Labour under Blair and Brown were running an increased deficit during the boom, even after increasing taxes. There was no room left for the government to do something with the economy when the recession came.
On the contrary, I have a very good memory.
Government debt stood at 29% of GDP in 2002, and had increased to 37% before the crash in 2007, despite incredibly strong economic conditions. What exactly do you think was going to happen? That's why it's spiralled so quickly to 90% of GDP.
WRONG!
UK debt end 1998 : 410,2 G£, i. e. 46,7 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 1999 : 405,7 G£, i. e. 43,7 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2000 : 400,6 G£, i. e. 41,0 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2001 : 385,5 G£, i. e. 37,7 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2002 : 402,9 G£, i. e. 37,5 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2003 : 441,1 G£, i. e. 38,7 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2004 : 487,9 G£, i. e. 40,4 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2005 : 529,4 G£, i. e. 42,3 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2006 : 573,3 G£, i. e. 43,4 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2007 : 618,4 G£, i. e. 44,2 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2008 : 750,3 G£, i. e. 52,0 % of GDP (ONS)
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1950_2010UKp_11s1li011lcn_G0t_UK_National_Debt_As_Pct_GDP
So where's the debt crisis? It oscillated around 40% during the recent "good" years. It only started growing in 2008 because of the freaking global crisis. There was NO reason for austerity. And the effects of austerity turned out to be self-defeating - the projections show that their effects on deficit are minimal.
Everyone preaching about debt should read http://www.amazon.com/End-This-Depression-Paul-Krugman/dp/0393088774 . Go on, read it.
I've looked at the numbers and I haven't seen any country in Europe (besides Greece by a little bit) reduce their spending year-over-year. That doesn't sound like austerity.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10810962 - it was futile and unable to reduce deficits, of course. But spending cuts were very real.
He did raise taxes to reduce the deficit. And that will suck money out of the private sector and slow the economy. But I'm not sure if that warrants the label austerity.
Not 'will' but 'has'. The UK is in the midst of the SECOND recession and falling down still. Cameron achieved quite a dubious feat - UK has now been depressed more than in the Great Depression of 30-s. With no way out in sight.
That'd be true if Cameron at the same time tried to actually do something with the economy, instead of trying to squeeze it as much as possible with new austerity measures. The ones that have already caused a new recession in the UK.
I pay $10 for unlimited symmetric 100Mb with real static IP address. Poor Americans.
Wrong. Most small companies DO NOT get initial capital from 'investment'. They get it either in the form of bank loans (which are not considered income) or by personal savings. Now, bank loans are backed by deposits can be considered investments. And maybe simple bank deposits should be exempt from taxes. But that's it. Speculation on stock market (even HFT) right now is considered 'investment' which it isn't.
Only it doesn't work this way in practice. Investment for the sake of investment has become an industry. Which produces less and less tangible benefits. Just look at the likes of Bain Capital.
If you did this 100-200 years ago then yes, it would be an internal matter. Otherwise Britain would still consider the US _its_ internal matter.
Do you have any idea how many drugs fail their 2-nd and 3-rd stages of clinical trials? TONS of them. You simply don't hear about them. I recommend subscribing to http://pipeline.corante.com/ - it's a blog of a research chemist. You'll be amazed about complexity of drug development.
Being active doesn't help a lot. An hour of walking is just under 500 kCal and that's less than one candybar. There's additional help from increasing your basal rate, but it's not that big.
No they don't. Oh, there'll be some difference but it's well within 10-15%.