didn't a couple years ago they say that in a couple years remote robotic surgeory would be commonplace?
Yeah, like those flat-proof tires that could even sustain a bullet puncture, that were showcased in Popular Science about 40 years ago. They were going to be available soon and were supposed to revolutionize the field of automobile tires. We never heard a peep about them after that.
then you still have the problem of where a ready-created universe came from...
That's not any kind of problem. Scale it down for easy comprehension... the Game of Life. You (the "Creator") can set up any state of the Life universe you like, including states indistinguishable from those resulting from evolution from earlier states. When you let it run, it continues evolving according to the rules of its universe, just as if you had merely paused it in the midst of some vastly longer evolution.
The Game of Life, and simulations in general, give a couple of clues to our universe. One is described above... that apparent evolution in no way invalidates a Creator outside the model. The other is that some simulations, especially ones that simulate large numbers of particles or amounts of energy, may most easily be started by aggregating all the simulated energy and/or particles at a single point: the Big Bang.
So a reasonable explanation of our universe and Creator is that our universe is a simulation, the Creator is outside the simulation, and the Creator started the simulation with all its energy defined to be in a single point -- the Big Band -- or restarted it (like a saved game) from some point that had evolved from a Big Bang in an earlier run of the simulation.
If we live in a simulation, it's utterly impossible to know or even guess at the nature of what is outside the simulation. "Outside" may not follow what we believe to be the physical and other laws that govern our universe. Ours could be an experiment... "Now, children, your term assignment is to simulate a universe with these laws, and tweak these four parameters until you get a stable, long-term evolution of objects. Extra credit will be given if your universe evolves life forms."
The Matrix hinted at this. The Thirteenth Floor dealt with the concept directly, but the simulated world was identical in nature to the world outside the simulation.
No one can prove that our universe is anything other than a simulation being run in some outside universe whose nature and characteristics would be completely invisible to us and therefore unknown to us.
But... just as in simulations we can build, the Creator or Manager or Programmer of the simulation is free to tweak things in the simulation data and even to open channels of communication through the boundary of the simulation, especially interesting if the simulation contains self-aware life forms.
Maybe I'm missing something here... who spends all their connection time communicating with Google? I use Google to find things, and I spend most of my browsing time connected either to sites already bookmarked or sites I find via Google. So what is the model that would have anyone connecting almost exclusively to Google?
As for Verizon and SBC and their talk about use of "their networks," it's our money that built those networks. The whole of the Internet with all its marvelous and wonderful technologies has been funded by us, from the bottom up. The carriers are exhibiting what has to be the lowest form of clueless suite-ism since the RIAA in claiming that Google and others are "freeloading." I certainly want to see the carriers get their come-uppance before they destroy the Internet.
Arkansas set to pull the plug on ERP-driven budgeting approach...lawsuit continues against SAP
An irony in this is that the Ark. Dept. of Health serves something like 2,200 users with a Wang VS mainframe cluster that runs like a clock -- it keeps on ticking. The VS cluster has a repository of about 50,000 programs, some 38,000 of which are actually utilized by users of the system. A very small group of five or six programmers maintains the code and accommodates all legislative and regulatory changes, often in a tiny fraction of the time it takes for adaptations of newer software technologies, especially those provided by outside firms. Of course the State of Ark. wants to "get rid of the Wang" ASAP (or should that be "A sap?").
It's unclear how it would even be possible to spend money like $60 million creating VS clusters because the stuff just doesn't cost that much. A single VS to serve 500-1000 users can't cost more than low six figures, and new VS technology puts the largest, fastest VS into 3.5" of rack space using industry standard hardware in a Linux host.
The intenational law is the product of the agreements between all the nations.
Wrong. "International law" is a euphemism for long standing but unenforceable understandings of how sovereign nations interact. International law is not made in the United Nations.
UN is a result of one such agreement and the forum where such laws are made.
Wrong. The U.N. was formed by an agreement of some sovereign nations as a way to provide a forum for working things out without immediate resort to war, and for various lesser humanitarian purposes. It has nothing to do with making "international law."
They are binding on all the nations and override the national constitutions in regards to international affairs.
Wrong. Nothing in the United Nations is binding or overrides national constitutions or sovereignty except when and where the UN is willing and able to mount an armed force to exercise its joint will, which is little different than the enforcement of national wlil in the wars waged by sovereign nations, wars that the U.N. was formed to forestall.
The last time I checked our Constitution vested the legislative power of the United States in our Congress.
It is, as long as the results your actions do not leave your borders. As soon as they do, they become subject to international scrutiny.
Scrutiny, yes. Control, no. And it didn't take the U.N. for the actions of nations to be subject to the scrutiny of other nations.
the politics and compromises within the UN leave a lot to be desired. As are its anti-corruption measures. It is a work in progress and everyone acknowledges that serious reforms are needed.
The U.N. is a clusterfuck in progress. It will never be anything better than that.
My personal belief (which I picked up from one of the posters on Slashdot) is that the best policy would be, as a part of UN reform, to move UN HQ to a truly neutral place, such as a small island, preferrably of very unhospitable climate. I am saying this in all seriousness, as someone who believes in the mission of UN, because that isolation and harshness of environment would eliminate all sorts of career crooks and seekers of diplomatic comforts who manouver their diseased hides into the halls of important institutions such as UN only to be able to shop at the 5th Avenue and double-park in front of some local whorehouse. We do not need that sort of "diplomatic" crowd in the UN.
Ah! We find a point of complete agreement! I would further point out that a small island far from anything else would also be more susceptible to an effective solution should the U.N. turn out to be the clusterfuck it is in spite of your proposed austere environment: it would be easy and efficient to nuke the small island while the U.N. is in plenary session with all members in attendance, without damaging anything of real value.
I'm a U.S. Citizen and I think it's a fine idea, too. We'll relieve you of our "pesky vetoes" as well as our pesky billions in contributions and support. Oh yeah, we'll have to evict the U.N. from U.S. property, too, a side benefit of which will be to reduce our expenses of trying to keep track of all those espionage agents masquerading as U.N. diplomats and personnel. Personally I'd favor the U.N. relocating its headquarters to an impoverished third world location. Then the representatives of the industrialized countries could share in the hardships of their lesser brethren and the third world representatives would be spared the confusion and embarrassment of having to deal with clean running water, indoor toilets, five star restaurants and Broadway shows. I think it would work out better all around.
The U.S. is not and never has been a democracy in the sense you employ.
The whole point of democracy is to do the will of the majority...
That's called a "popular democracy" and was held in contempt by the Founders because it is inherently unstable and allows the majority to plunder and terrorize any minority. One of the many articulations of this concept:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:from bondage to spiritual faith;from spiritual faith to great courage;from courage to liberty;from liberty to abundance;from abundance to selfishness;from selfishness to complacency;from complacency to apathy;from apathy to dependency;from dependency back again to bondage.
--Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813) Scottish jurist and historian
What the U.S. has is best called a "representative, constitutional republic." The majority generally has its way, tempered by acting through proxies consisting of representatives and legislatures of representatives. When the majority collides with the Constitution, though, the Constitution wins, as long as the courts are functioning correctly. And ultimately that is why federal judges at all levels are appointed for life: to remove them from the political fray and allow them the greatest chance to apply the Constitution objectively.
So in the U.S. system the Constitution is king, with the majority free to maneuver within its bounds through their elected representatives. Only through a supermajoriy of States (or an entirely new constitutional convention) can the Constitution be amended. Amendment was intentionally made difficult in order to promote stability and to minimize the always-present threat of the tyrrany of the majority.
Another of the many non-democratic institutions in the U.S. system is the jury system. The grand jury is supposed to be a check on prosecutors and the petit jury (the trial jury) is supposed to be a check on judges. It is not the positive action of either kind of jury that empowers the people; it is their ability to block prosecutions and convictions in the face of legislatures and executives and even judges. Thus it was trial juries who disabled the Runaway Slave Act and Prohibition, not voting majorities.
The U.S. system has more than a dozen features in its very genes that present obstacles to the execution of bad laws. All of them work, in one way or another, to thwart the will of the majority when that will goes over the top.
The United Nations is mostly a cheesy assortment of corrupt blowhards jockeying for and exercising undeserved powers for their own petty national and personal interests. Not to mention that many members don't come anywhere close to being "democracies" in any sense of the word. The very thought of turning over control of the root of the Internet to the U.N. is misguided and absurd on its face.
There was no advocacy of having a new Constitution every so often. Thomas Jefferson's advocacy of the occasional rebellion had to do with keeping everyone on their toes, not with changing the form of government. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." That's a call for refreshing the ideals by action instead of hot air, but it's not a call for changing the Constitution every 20 years like a couch potato changing channels on the TV. To the contrary, the Founders made sure that it would be damned difficult to make major changes. One of the guiding ideas inserted into the philosophy of American government at the time was that significant changes should not be permitted to be fueled by "faction or passing passion."
Wouldn't they be better putting it on the mainland?
Actually they put it off the mein isle since their database revealed that men often like Chinese takeout with their beer and diapers and the idea of an exotic tropical vacation enhances sales.
i am guessing that you are a fifteen year old male who has just read his first ayn rand novel.
Your powers of observation and deduction are anemic. I'm guessing that you are a 20-year-old college student who hasn't been out in life yet to learn how things work.
Um, I can't tell who you are, so it's difficult to answer that.
or just looking for a random place to be swarmy?
"Swarmy?" No insects here, so no.
My comment was directed at IntlHarvester's characterization of someone else's opinion that "The public should decide how much money the government gets to spend" as "Boring stock libertarian dogma." The idea that the public should decide how much money the government gets to spend seriously predates libertarian philosophy and is, in fact, enshrined in our constitutions and form of government.
If you still feel swarmed, please occiput my most hubble, object apogee.
Oh, gosh! It that a natural law or did you find it somewhere in the Constitution? Or maybe just pull it straight out of your asshole? What you evidently don't know about the law could fill volumes. Oh wait... it already does.
It is not the job of the federal government to give free rides to for-profit businesses, or shield them from local taxes.
NASA stated that Google will pay rent and will not save money by virtue of locating at Moffett. So, um, where is the free ride? Google, as a renter, is not responsible for property taxes no matter from whom they rent. If you had even a low-grade, recycled clue you'd understand that rather than Google getting a break on the rent because NASA doesn't pay local property taxes, NASA will charge Google full market rent. If you don't like NASA's ability to operate independently of local tax jurisdictions and build its own infrastructure, tough. Write your representative. Otherwise, get over it.
Of course it's my dream to work hard and make it rich.
Funny, it's difficult to discern that from what you write. You seem to be in love with government and in favor of high taxes. It sounds more likely that you've given up, soured on the American Dream, and don't want anyone else to have what you've realized you may never have.
But it's not my dream that all of my decendants get to sit around on their asses while everyone around them has to bust theirs to make a living.
My dream is to be free of people like you, in all levels of government, in homeowner associations, in professional societies, etc., and for my descendents to hire and fire yours. I hadn't thought of it that way until you made it clear that you'd like your descendents to be as disadvantaged as possible. May they curse your name.
Wow, I see that patented right-wing Tardlogic is out in force today.
Your eloquence overwhelms me.
You think a for-profit owner of an apartment building or office complex is exempt from property taxes?
(looking around to see if perhaps someone else is being addressed)
I see you're a master of the non sequitur as well. Whether a for-profit owner of commercial property is exempt or not from property taxes has nothing to do with TFA or the discussion. Even less do a landlord's practices in passing on costs have anything to to with this.
And it's not the federal government's job to give corporations a free ride, especially ones that are worth billions.
Were that the case here you'd have a point -- the only point in all your rantings. But neither you nor anyone else has shown that that is the case here. Google will be paying rent. NASA has already stated that Google will not be saving any money by the deal.
Lay off the Tardlogic, pal, and you'll go far. Otherwise I hope you move to this town and have to pay higher taxes to make up for the $3 million a year that Google will be exempt from.
In your dreams, "pal." It is with some care that I choose the places where I live and do business, and I wrote off California a long time ago for both purposes. California has taxed and regulated itself completely out of my universe.
Are we to take your words to mean that you live in Santa Clara County? If so here's hoping that Google pulls out of the deal and goes far away, and that NASA pulls up and leaves, too. I've seen those decommissioned air bases turned over to local government and the pitiful attempts that follow to "revitalize" the areas by turning them into business parks. I've seen few things as sad or depressing, and the folks in Santa Clara County sound like they richly deserve that instead of having vibrant scientific communities in their midst, forging new futures.
I also hope you win a lottery, so you can discover that things on the other side are not as you believe them to be, at least until you blow it all and end up worse off than you are now.
Wow, miss the point much? Just how does all of that not reinforce the point that Google will be running a million square foot facility while not paying a cent in property taxes?
What don't you understand about renters not being responsible for property taxes?
Yes, and one of the usual taxes is property taxes. Which Google will be exempt from in the case. Hence the anger on the part of the city. Obviously.
Renters are not responsible for property taxes. Google is exempt from nothing in this case. Hence the anger on the part of local officials is irrational. Obviously.
Wow, here's a clue. Even if you rent, your landlord pays property taxes.
Wow, here's a bigger clue: property taxes are not the renter's responsibility. If I rent from Joe Schmoe Holdings, LLP, they pay property taxes. If I rent from NASA, NASA doesn't.
It's so funny to watch a renter crow about not paying property taxes when he's the one who gets hit by them the hardest.
I'm not a renter, but you sure sound like one. I don't rent my home and I don't rent my business space.
Now NASA is a federal agency, and thus exempt from local taxes.
"Exempt" is probably not the best term for it, since that suggests that NASA receives a property tax exemption from the locals. And it's not NASA that makes the difference -- it's the federal ownership of the property. Federal property is immune from local taxation, not exempt.
In short, can you lose something that you don't already have?
No, of course not. The idea comes from liberal Democrat tax spin, where Dems view every penny not taxed as a "cost" to gummint and every tax or spending issue that is not raised as a "cut."
You must be new to the American Constitutional republic. The idea that the public decides how much money the government gets to spend is, oh, at least 216 years old. It's called "representative government." It was institutionalized here with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and is also embodied in most of the State constitutions (other than Louisiana's, of course).
Why isn't this a better, fairer, and arguably more more market-based approach?
Actually it would be. The federal government has no business owning as much property as it does. When a clear government use ends, it would make a lot of sense and comport better with the Constitution if the land were returned to private ownership and use. Don't hold your breath, though.
Um, yes it does. Paying taxes is a basic civic duty.
Um, no, only in the most general sense. In any specific case it is only a duty to pay the taxes for which one is liable. To try to extend the argument past that is to introduce political wishful thinking and political spin. Your spin appears to be anti-private enterprise and pro-government. From that I conclude you are in the wrong country if indeed you are even in the U.S.A.
But that's the point: they aren't paying their fair share of taxes.
"Fair share" is a bogus concept. Everyone has to pay the taxes for which they are liable and no one has to pay any taxes for which they are not liable. Why don't you tell us of the taxes you don't owe that you pay out of your strong fantasy belief in the perfect goodness of government?
Or in this case, the city employees who will actually get a retirement plan.
Nonsense. An unfunded pension liability already indicates something grossly inept, incompetent and/or corrupt in the local government. That's not NASA's problem and it certainly isn't Google's problem.
except it will cost you 4x as much to get services from private business that you currently get from public taxes. And they wont be as good.
Ha! You seem to have it exactly backward. There is nothing as inefficient or as wasteful in this country as government.
Or just trying to get taxes from people who should be paying taxes.
Nonsense. Santa Clara County wants taxes in this case from people who SHOULD NOT be paying them, and won't be paying them.
And I have a serious problem with rich estates not being taxed, so the decendants of the rich are exempt from work. They can work for a living, just like the rest of us.
Ah, so you're one of those who wants to tear everyone down to the same low level. You must be the only one who doesn't aspire to being wealthy. Thanks for trying to trash the American dream, fuckwit.
How is it greedy to want taxes from somebody who should be paying taxes?
Easy: It's greedy to want or expect taxes from anyone not liable for them, and/or to want or expect taxes from anyone not in one's tax jurisdiction. Google, as renter, is not liable for any property taxes no matter from whom they rent. NASA, a federal agency operating on a federal reservation or enclave, is not within the local or State tax jurisdiction. Enter Greed from stage left. Far left.
How about not making local taxpayers fork out more cash so a multi-billion dollar corporation is exempt?
The taxes they should be paying in the first place, maybe?
There is no "should" about it. Google pays rent to NASA. NASA's federal facility is untaxable by State or local authorities. NASA provides Google with the infrastructure and services; Google pays to build out what isn't already there. Santa Clara County should be happy to have more enterprise in their area, and people spending in their retail businesses. There is no beef whatsoever.
Which means...what exactly? That Google should be exempt from paying taxes themselves?
Just how would Google be exempt from paying taxes themselves, hmmm? Aren't they a corporation subject to all the usual taxes? Renters, it should be noted, are never responsible for property taxes in any case.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, blechh!
"OK, the cut went well. CLAMP!"
"Uh, Doctor, blood pressure went to zero between the cut and the clamp."
Yeah, like those flat-proof tires that could even sustain a bullet puncture, that were showcased in Popular Science about 40 years ago. They were going to be available soon and were supposed to revolutionize the field of automobile tires. We never heard a peep about them after that.
That's not any kind of problem. Scale it down for easy comprehension... the Game of Life. You (the "Creator") can set up any state of the Life universe you like, including states indistinguishable from those resulting from evolution from earlier states. When you let it run, it continues evolving according to the rules of its universe, just as if you had merely paused it in the midst of some vastly longer evolution.
The Game of Life, and simulations in general, give a couple of clues to our universe. One is described above... that apparent evolution in no way invalidates a Creator outside the model. The other is that some simulations, especially ones that simulate large numbers of particles or amounts of energy, may most easily be started by aggregating all the simulated energy and/or particles at a single point: the Big Bang.
So a reasonable explanation of our universe and Creator is that our universe is a simulation, the Creator is outside the simulation, and the Creator started the simulation with all its energy defined to be in a single point -- the Big Band -- or restarted it (like a saved game) from some point that had evolved from a Big Bang in an earlier run of the simulation.
If we live in a simulation, it's utterly impossible to know or even guess at the nature of what is outside the simulation. "Outside" may not follow what we believe to be the physical and other laws that govern our universe. Ours could be an experiment... "Now, children, your term assignment is to simulate a universe with these laws, and tweak these four parameters until you get a stable, long-term evolution of objects. Extra credit will be given if your universe evolves life forms."
The Matrix hinted at this. The Thirteenth Floor dealt with the concept directly, but the simulated world was identical in nature to the world outside the simulation.
No one can prove that our universe is anything other than a simulation being run in some outside universe whose nature and characteristics would be completely invisible to us and therefore unknown to us.
But... just as in simulations we can build, the Creator or Manager or Programmer of the simulation is free to tweak things in the simulation data and even to open channels of communication through the boundary of the simulation, especially interesting if the simulation contains self-aware life forms.
I'm in Texas and I agree.
Oh, wait...
You're too young to work for my company.
Maybe I'm missing something here... who spends all their connection time communicating with Google? I use Google to find things, and I spend most of my browsing time connected either to sites already bookmarked or sites I find via Google. So what is the model that would have anyone connecting almost exclusively to Google? As for Verizon and SBC and their talk about use of "their networks," it's our money that built those networks. The whole of the Internet with all its marvelous and wonderful technologies has been funded by us, from the bottom up. The carriers are exhibiting what has to be the lowest form of clueless suite-ism since the RIAA in claiming that Google and others are "freeloading." I certainly want to see the carriers get their come-uppance before they destroy the Internet.
An irony in this is that the Ark. Dept. of Health serves something like 2,200 users with a Wang VS mainframe cluster that runs like a clock -- it keeps on ticking. The VS cluster has a repository of about 50,000 programs, some 38,000 of which are actually utilized by users of the system. A very small group of five or six programmers maintains the code and accommodates all legislative and regulatory changes, often in a tiny fraction of the time it takes for adaptations of newer software technologies, especially those provided by outside firms. Of course the State of Ark. wants to "get rid of the Wang" ASAP (or should that be "A sap?").
It's unclear how it would even be possible to spend money like $60 million creating VS clusters because the stuff just doesn't cost that much. A single VS to serve 500-1000 users can't cost more than low six figures, and new VS technology puts the largest, fastest VS into 3.5" of rack space using industry standard hardware in a Linux host.
Wrong. "International law" is a euphemism for long standing but unenforceable understandings of how sovereign nations interact. International law is not made in the United Nations.
Wrong. The U.N. was formed by an agreement of some sovereign nations as a way to provide a forum for working things out without immediate resort to war, and for various lesser humanitarian purposes. It has nothing to do with making "international law."
Wrong. Nothing in the United Nations is binding or overrides national constitutions or sovereignty except when and where the UN is willing and able to mount an armed force to exercise its joint will, which is little different than the enforcement of national wlil in the wars waged by sovereign nations, wars that the U.N. was formed to forestall.
Scrutiny, yes. Control, no. And it didn't take the U.N. for the actions of nations to be subject to the scrutiny of other nations.
The U.N. is a clusterfuck in progress. It will never be anything better than that.
Ah! We find a point of complete agreement! I would further point out that a small island far from anything else would also be more susceptible to an effective solution should the U.N. turn out to be the clusterfuck it is in spite of your proposed austere environment: it would be easy and efficient to nuke the small island while the U.N. is in plenary session with all members in attendance, without damaging anything of real value.
I'm a U.S. Citizen and I think it's a fine idea, too. We'll relieve you of our "pesky vetoes" as well as our pesky billions in contributions and support. Oh yeah, we'll have to evict the U.N. from U.S. property, too, a side benefit of which will be to reduce our expenses of trying to keep track of all those espionage agents masquerading as U.N. diplomats and personnel. Personally I'd favor the U.N. relocating its headquarters to an impoverished third world location. Then the representatives of the industrialized countries could share in the hardships of their lesser brethren and the third world representatives would be spared the confusion and embarrassment of having to deal with clean running water, indoor toilets, five star restaurants and Broadway shows. I think it would work out better all around.
The U.S. is not and never has been a democracy in the sense you employ.
That's called a "popular democracy" and was held in contempt by the Founders because it is inherently unstable and allows the majority to plunder and terrorize any minority. One of the many articulations of this concept:
What the U.S. has is best called a "representative, constitutional republic." The majority generally has its way, tempered by acting through proxies consisting of representatives and legislatures of representatives. When the majority collides with the Constitution, though, the Constitution wins, as long as the courts are functioning correctly. And ultimately that is why federal judges at all levels are appointed for life: to remove them from the political fray and allow them the greatest chance to apply the Constitution objectively.
So in the U.S. system the Constitution is king, with the majority free to maneuver within its bounds through their elected representatives. Only through a supermajoriy of States (or an entirely new constitutional convention) can the Constitution be amended. Amendment was intentionally made difficult in order to promote stability and to minimize the always-present threat of the tyrrany of the majority.
Another of the many non-democratic institutions in the U.S. system is the jury system. The grand jury is supposed to be a check on prosecutors and the petit jury (the trial jury) is supposed to be a check on judges. It is not the positive action of either kind of jury that empowers the people; it is their ability to block prosecutions and convictions in the face of legislatures and executives and even judges. Thus it was trial juries who disabled the Runaway Slave Act and Prohibition, not voting majorities.
The U.S. system has more than a dozen features in its very genes that present obstacles to the execution of bad laws. All of them work, in one way or another, to thwart the will of the majority when that will goes over the top.
The United Nations is mostly a cheesy assortment of corrupt blowhards jockeying for and exercising undeserved powers for their own petty national and personal interests. Not to mention that many members don't come anywhere close to being "democracies" in any sense of the word. The very thought of turning over control of the root of the Internet to the U.N. is misguided and absurd on its face.
There was no advocacy of having a new Constitution every so often. Thomas Jefferson's advocacy of the occasional rebellion had to do with keeping everyone on their toes, not with changing the form of government. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." That's a call for refreshing the ideals by action instead of hot air, but it's not a call for changing the Constitution every 20 years like a couch potato changing channels on the TV. To the contrary, the Founders made sure that it would be damned difficult to make major changes. One of the guiding ideas inserted into the philosophy of American government at the time was that significant changes should not be permitted to be fueled by "faction or passing passion."
Actually they put it off the mein isle since their database revealed that men often like Chinese takeout with their beer and diapers and the idea of an exotic tropical vacation enhances sales.
OK, shoot me now.
Your powers of observation and deduction are anemic. I'm guessing that you are a 20-year-old college student who hasn't been out in life yet to learn how things work.
Aside: The Shift key can be your friend.
You're forgiven.
Um, I can't tell who you are, so it's difficult to answer that.
"Swarmy?" No insects here, so no.
My comment was directed at IntlHarvester's characterization of someone else's opinion that "The public should decide how much money the government gets to spend" as "Boring stock libertarian dogma." The idea that the public should decide how much money the government gets to spend seriously predates libertarian philosophy and is, in fact, enshrined in our constitutions and form of government.
If you still feel swarmed, please occiput my most hubble, object apogee.
Oh, gosh! It that a natural law or did you find it somewhere in the Constitution? Or maybe just pull it straight out of your asshole? What you evidently don't know about the law could fill volumes. Oh wait... it already does.
NASA stated that Google will pay rent and will not save money by virtue of locating at Moffett. So, um, where is the free ride? Google, as a renter, is not responsible for property taxes no matter from whom they rent. If you had even a low-grade, recycled clue you'd understand that rather than Google getting a break on the rent because NASA doesn't pay local property taxes, NASA will charge Google full market rent. If you don't like NASA's ability to operate independently of local tax jurisdictions and build its own infrastructure, tough. Write your representative. Otherwise, get over it.
Funny, it's difficult to discern that from what you write. You seem to be in love with government and in favor of high taxes. It sounds more likely that you've given up, soured on the American Dream, and don't want anyone else to have what you've realized you may never have.
My dream is to be free of people like you, in all levels of government, in homeowner associations, in professional societies, etc., and for my descendents to hire and fire yours. I hadn't thought of it that way until you made it clear that you'd like your descendents to be as disadvantaged as possible. May they curse your name.
Your eloquence overwhelms me.
(looking around to see if perhaps someone else is being addressed)
I see you're a master of the non sequitur as well. Whether a for-profit owner of commercial property is exempt or not from property taxes has nothing to do with TFA or the discussion. Even less do a landlord's practices in passing on costs have anything to to with this.
Were that the case here you'd have a point -- the only point in all your rantings. But neither you nor anyone else has shown that that is the case here. Google will be paying rent. NASA has already stated that Google will not be saving any money by the deal.
In your dreams, "pal." It is with some care that I choose the places where I live and do business, and I wrote off California a long time ago for both purposes. California has taxed and regulated itself completely out of my universe.
Are we to take your words to mean that you live in Santa Clara County? If so here's hoping that Google pulls out of the deal and goes far away, and that NASA pulls up and leaves, too. I've seen those decommissioned air bases turned over to local government and the pitiful attempts that follow to "revitalize" the areas by turning them into business parks. I've seen few things as sad or depressing, and the folks in Santa Clara County sound like they richly deserve that instead of having vibrant scientific communities in their midst, forging new futures.
I also hope you win a lottery, so you can discover that things on the other side are not as you believe them to be, at least until you blow it all and end up worse off than you are now.
What don't you understand about renters not being responsible for property taxes?
Renters are not responsible for property taxes. Google is exempt from nothing in this case. Hence the anger on the part of local officials is irrational. Obviously.
Wow, here's a bigger clue: property taxes are not the renter's responsibility. If I rent from Joe Schmoe Holdings, LLP, they pay property taxes. If I rent from NASA, NASA doesn't.
I'm not a renter, but you sure sound like one. I don't rent my home and I don't rent my business space.
"Exempt" is probably not the best term for it, since that suggests that NASA receives a property tax exemption from the locals. And it's not NASA that makes the difference -- it's the federal ownership of the property. Federal property is immune from local taxation, not exempt.
No, of course not. The idea comes from liberal Democrat tax spin, where Dems view every penny not taxed as a "cost" to gummint and every tax or spending issue that is not raised as a "cut."
You must be new to the American Constitutional republic. The idea that the public decides how much money the government gets to spend is, oh, at least 216 years old. It's called "representative government." It was institutionalized here with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and is also embodied in most of the State constitutions (other than Louisiana's, of course).
Actually it would be. The federal government has no business owning as much property as it does. When a clear government use ends, it would make a lot of sense and comport better with the Constitution if the land were returned to private ownership and use. Don't hold your breath, though.
Um, no, only in the most general sense. In any specific case it is only a duty to pay the taxes for which one is liable. To try to extend the argument past that is to introduce political wishful thinking and political spin. Your spin appears to be anti-private enterprise and pro-government. From that I conclude you are in the wrong country if indeed you are even in the U.S.A.
"Fair share" is a bogus concept. Everyone has to pay the taxes for which they are liable and no one has to pay any taxes for which they are not liable. Why don't you tell us of the taxes you don't owe that you pay out of your strong fantasy belief in the perfect goodness of government?
Nonsense. An unfunded pension liability already indicates something grossly inept, incompetent and/or corrupt in the local government. That's not NASA's problem and it certainly isn't Google's problem.
Ha! You seem to have it exactly backward. There is nothing as inefficient or as wasteful in this country as government.
Nonsense. Santa Clara County wants taxes in this case from people who SHOULD NOT be paying them, and won't be paying them.
Ah, so you're one of those who wants to tear everyone down to the same low level. You must be the only one who doesn't aspire to being wealthy. Thanks for trying to trash the American dream, fuckwit.
Easy: It's greedy to want or expect taxes from anyone not liable for them, and/or to want or expect taxes from anyone not in one's tax jurisdiction. Google, as renter, is not liable for any property taxes no matter from whom they rent. NASA, a federal agency operating on a federal reservation or enclave, is not within the local or State tax jurisdiction. Enter Greed from stage left. Far left.
What are you talking about???
There is no "should" about it. Google pays rent to NASA. NASA's federal facility is untaxable by State or local authorities. NASA provides Google with the infrastructure and services; Google pays to build out what isn't already there. Santa Clara County should be happy to have more enterprise in their area, and people spending in their retail businesses. There is no beef whatsoever.
Just how would Google be exempt from paying taxes themselves, hmmm? Aren't they a corporation subject to all the usual taxes? Renters, it should be noted, are never responsible for property taxes in any case.