Those are exchange rates, not relative purchasing power.
The exchange rate has little to do with purchasing power, since it is heavily dependent on trade. The exchange rate has gone up because the US has a trade defecit, which is flooding foregin markets with dollars. Add to this the fact that the dollar has long been overvalued, and it's not hard to understand why the exchange rate is falling. It is basically a market correction, which should utimatelly ballance out our trade defecit (as exchange rates fall, imports will decrease and exports will increase).
Relative purchasing power must be determined by compairing some kind of price index (such as the CPI). Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's simply the only way to compare relative purchasing power. The exchange rate only effects the price of imported goods, and therefore does not say a lot about price levels in general. Especially when you consider that China fixes their exchange rate to the dollar, and all petrolium is sold in dollars.
No, most people never attempt a burglary because most people are kind, decent individuals. People who would carry out a crime absent the threat of punishment are sociopaths. Criminals are simply sociopaths who think they can get away with it. Regardless, the government's deterrent threat comes from it's ability to prosecute crimes which have been committed, not it's ability to intercept eminent crimes.
"In cases of conflicting claims of property, the government holds the authority to decide and can enforce, up to and including seizure."
But these cases usually stem from a situation where someone feels their property rights have been violated. That would mean the "crime" has already been committed.
The government's enforcement powers are only forensic in nature. They have great difficulty actually detecting crimes which are eminent or in-progress. Even when they do know that a crime is occurring, they are often powerless to stop it.
For example, if there is a bugler in your house, and you call the police, they will not generally enter the house, even if they believe your life is in danger. This is because intervention can make the situation worse, and endanger the lives of police-officers. In reality, they are almost completely powerless to help you.
But once everything is over, they will investigate the crime scene and, hopefully, bring the assailant to justice so that he will do no more harm to society.
In the end, it's going to be up to you weather you (and your family) live or die when faced with such a situation. If that ever happened to me, I know I'd feel a lot better owning a gun.
I understand that this is your viewpoint. But you should know that it is not a tolerant one. It's more of a "either you're with us or you're against us" attitude.
I feel like you're saying that since this is a democracy, the majority viewpoint should dictate all behaviors. While agree that some standards must be set, I don't agree that anyone should expected to submit to governmental authority. Especially not when it comes to personal issues such as drug-use or sex (ironically, I don't use drugs or have permiscuous sex)or how I spend and earn my money (I think I know how how much my time is worth and how I will spend the money I earn, thank you very much). As far as I'm concerned the government is just there to support my personal boundries (I want to be secure in my body and my possessions, and if someone infringes on that I want to be able to take them to court to get due compensation and/or justice, but only as a last resort).
They were compensated in full for the time spent already, and they bear no risk. I could see asking for a cut of the profits in return for a lower wage (or no wage) but I don't see why someone who bears no risk should expect a portion of the profits. Furthermore, I don't see why you would want to stake a part of your compensation on the game's success, since you have so little control over the quality of the final product (unlike a singer or a writer).
The compromise is really simple. Leave them alone. If someone doesn't want to interact with you, don't force them. You may find that they will be more open to society if they don't feel the heel its boot on their throat every day.
"I'm intolerant of intolerant people, does that make me a hypocrite?"
No, you would be a hypocrite if you were to demand other people not be intolerant, then you were intolerant yourself. Wishing to consign someone to the watery deep simply because they do not want to be a part of society is an extremely intolerant stance. It would be one thing if they were harming you, but they aren't.
"your moral relativism is frankly ridiculous"
What are you talking about? I'm not a moral relativist. Where would you get that idea?
What? These people just want to be left alone to live their lives the way they see fit. If you can't deal with them you can hardly call yourself "tolerant" and "willing to compromise".
Why should a business be accessible to people who don't want to go there? WTF? Maybe I should just not register it as a business and do everything under the table so people like you won't get up in my face. You are just out to ruin everyone's fun.
Though you should note that their definition of high-end is >$1,000 which includes all their laptops, and the iMac. What is the world coming to? I remember when the imac was the bargain-basement mac that everyone said would fail. Now it's high-end.
In most cases, obesity results from emotional distress. People who are poorly adjusted sometimes turn to food as a coping mechanism. Almost all obese people use food to meet their emotional needs in this way.
If we want to end obesity, we need to educate parents about the link between associating food with nurturing behavior and obesity. This way people will learn to cope with their stress in healthier ways, such as feigning illness, attempting suicide or picking fights to get attention.
Presumably, you will become aware of the hole once you encounter it. In fact, the belated nature of its discovery will likely be an important attribute once it becomes part of your awareness.
This is the thing people don't get about freedom. It doesn't matter if everyone in the country save for one person favored censorship, censorship still infringes on the freedom of that one person. This is why I worry so much when I see people equate deomcracy with freedom. Freedom has nothing what so ever to do with democracy.
I don't think I'm an egomaniac, but I was thrilled when I saw myself on street view. The excavator I was having unloaded even stopped them from imaging most of the street! I don't know why, but it's exciting.
Copyright infringement has always been a criminal offense. But the burden of proof is higher in criminal trials, so it's mostly remained in the civil realm (maybe they should rename that "un-civil" since you've ended up taking them to court).
The US is a heavily industrialized nation, and we are the world's major agricultural producer (especially when it comes to milk, beef, corn and wheat).
The problem is that these industries are not growing with our population.
Agriculture can't grow (no pun intended), because there is only so much land, and industry can't grow because of restrictions imposed by various forms of the anti-industrialist movement (including but not limited to environmentalist organizations and entrenched business intrests).
There's a hundred things in front of it that are more important. It's not like you'll die if you can't download videos for free. You've got to keep things in perspective.
They just don't like boring news. You can listen to NPR if you want to take a nap, but it you want something to keep you awake while you're driving, you listen to KFI (my apologies to people who don't live in southern California, I'm sure you know what kind of radio station I'm talking about). It doesn't matter how offensive or stupid it is, as long as it's entertaining.
Slashdot Mirror
Those are exchange rates, not relative purchasing power.
The exchange rate has little to do with purchasing power, since it is heavily dependent on trade. The exchange rate has gone up because the US has a trade defecit, which is flooding foregin markets with dollars. Add to this the fact that the dollar has long been overvalued, and it's not hard to understand why the exchange rate is falling. It is basically a market correction, which should utimatelly ballance out our trade defecit (as exchange rates fall, imports will decrease and exports will increase).
Relative purchasing power must be determined by compairing some kind of price index (such as the CPI). Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's simply the only way to compare relative purchasing power. The exchange rate only effects the price of imported goods, and therefore does not say a lot about price levels in general. Especially when you consider that China fixes their exchange rate to the dollar, and all petrolium is sold in dollars.
No, most people never attempt a burglary because most people are kind, decent individuals. People who would carry out a crime absent the threat of punishment are sociopaths. Criminals are simply sociopaths who think they can get away with it. Regardless, the government's deterrent threat comes from it's ability to prosecute crimes which have been committed, not it's ability to intercept eminent crimes.
"In cases of conflicting claims of property, the government holds the authority to decide and can enforce, up to and including seizure."
But these cases usually stem from a situation where someone feels their property rights have been violated. That would mean the "crime" has already been committed.
The government's enforcement powers are only forensic in nature. They have great difficulty actually detecting crimes which are eminent or in-progress. Even when they do know that a crime is occurring, they are often powerless to stop it.
For example, if there is a bugler in your house, and you call the police, they will not generally enter the house, even if they believe your life is in danger. This is because intervention can make the situation worse, and endanger the lives of police-officers. In reality, they are almost completely powerless to help you.
But once everything is over, they will investigate the crime scene and, hopefully, bring the assailant to justice so that he will do no more harm to society.
In the end, it's going to be up to you weather you (and your family) live or die when faced with such a situation. If that ever happened to me, I know I'd feel a lot better owning a gun.
I understand that this is your viewpoint. But you should know that it is not a tolerant one. It's more of a "either you're with us or you're against us" attitude.
I feel like you're saying that since this is a democracy, the majority viewpoint should dictate all behaviors. While agree that some standards must be set, I don't agree that anyone should expected to submit to governmental authority. Especially not when it comes to personal issues such as drug-use or sex (ironically, I don't use drugs or have permiscuous sex)or how I spend and earn my money (I think I know how how much my time is worth and how I will spend the money I earn, thank you very much). As far as I'm concerned the government is just there to support my personal boundries (I want to be secure in my body and my possessions, and if someone infringes on that I want to be able to take them to court to get due compensation and/or justice, but only as a last resort).
They were compensated in full for the time spent already, and they bear no risk. I could see asking for a cut of the profits in return for a lower wage (or no wage) but I don't see why someone who bears no risk should expect a portion of the profits. Furthermore, I don't see why you would want to stake a part of your compensation on the game's success, since you have so little control over the quality of the final product (unlike a singer or a writer).
The compromise is really simple. Leave them alone. If someone doesn't want to interact with you, don't force them. You may find that they will be more open to society if they don't feel the heel its boot on their throat every day.
"I'm intolerant of intolerant people, does that make me a hypocrite?"
No, you would be a hypocrite if you were to demand other people not be intolerant, then you were intolerant yourself. Wishing to consign someone to the watery deep simply because they do not want to be a part of society is an extremely intolerant stance. It would be one thing if they were harming you, but they aren't.
"your moral relativism is frankly ridiculous"
What are you talking about? I'm not a moral relativist. Where would you get that idea?
What? These people just want to be left alone to live their lives the way they see fit. If you can't deal with them you can hardly call yourself "tolerant" and "willing to compromise".
"Groups inside a society who have no tolerance for other views are a serious issue."
"sending them all out into the middle of the ocean sounds like a great idea"
Great! When were you planning to leave?
Why should a business be accessible to people who don't want to go there? WTF? Maybe I should just not register it as a business and do everything under the table so people like you won't get up in my face. You are just out to ruin everyone's fun.
Have you ever tried HFCS? It is the most amazing thing ever! I love it.
Though you should note that their definition of high-end is >$1,000 which includes all their laptops, and the iMac. What is the world coming to? I remember when the imac was the bargain-basement mac that everyone said would fail. Now it's high-end.
You are looking at a 4-dimensional problem 3-dimensionally.
In most cases, obesity results from emotional distress. People who are poorly adjusted sometimes turn to food as a coping mechanism. Almost all obese people use food to meet their emotional needs in this way.
If we want to end obesity, we need to educate parents about the link between associating food with nurturing behavior and obesity. This way people will learn to cope with their stress in healthier ways, such as feigning illness, attempting suicide or picking fights to get attention.
Presumably, you will become aware of the hole once you encounter it. In fact, the belated nature of its discovery will likely be an important attribute once it becomes part of your awareness.
Some of us might want to read the whole letter.
This is the thing people don't get about freedom. It doesn't matter if everyone in the country save for one person favored censorship, censorship still infringes on the freedom of that one person. This is why I worry so much when I see people equate deomcracy with freedom. Freedom has nothing what so ever to do with democracy.
I don't think I'm an egomaniac, but I was thrilled when I saw myself on street view. The excavator I was having unloaded even stopped them from imaging most of the street! I don't know why, but it's exciting.
I didn't notice the car go by at the time.
Copyright infringement has always been a criminal offense. But the burden of proof is higher in criminal trials, so it's mostly remained in the civil realm (maybe they should rename that "un-civil" since you've ended up taking them to court).
The US is a heavily industrialized nation, and we are the world's major agricultural producer (especially when it comes to milk, beef, corn and wheat).
The problem is that these industries are not growing with our population.
Agriculture can't grow (no pun intended), because there is only so much land, and industry can't grow because of restrictions imposed by various forms of the anti-industrialist movement (including but not limited to environmentalist organizations and entrenched business intrests).
Well, aren't you fancy! Your tastes are too sophisticated for an ordinary person like me.
There's a hundred things in front of it that are more important. It's not like you'll die if you can't download videos for free. You've got to keep things in perspective.
Just because someone can vote doesn't mean the government serves them.
They just don't like boring news. You can listen to NPR if you want to take a nap, but it you want something to keep you awake while you're driving, you listen to KFI (my apologies to people who don't live in southern California, I'm sure you know what kind of radio station I'm talking about). It doesn't matter how offensive or stupid it is, as long as it's entertaining.
The entertainment industry is based on copyright, and LA is dependent on the entertainment industry. It's not really a surprise.
I am not retarded. What I'm saying is that if you have to use grid power, your not 100% wind.