Have you any idea how much time and energy has gone into getting people to give up Tobacco now that they're accustomed to it? Or to get people to drink responsibly?
I don't know an approximate figure, but a considerable amount of resources have been spent on tobacco and alcohol awareness and cessation programs. By now, it's probably in the hundreds of millions if not the few billion (cumulative), but hey, what isn't?
Of course, the tax revenue from these legal drugs is probably considerably greater. The fact is that a sizable portion of the populace has a strong desire to alter their bodily chemistry and mental state. This has been the case since Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt and is not in any way likely to change. Now, we can either continue to fail at attempting to change human nature (as in the case of "The War on Drugs") or we can legalize, regulate, and generate revenue from it. I strongly prefer that we tax vices, not necessities.
This is on page 4 - "2.2 Current and expected future importance of broadband internet at home Broadband at home is currently on the cusp between being useful and vital The qualitative research found that, at present, it is generally regarded as 'useful' or 'important', but not quite 'essential', for people to have broadband access at home. There are many benefits perceived from having broadband at home, with greater speed and convenience of undertaking a range of activities being top of mind amongst these. However, the continuing presence of offline alternatives, as well as the possibility of accessing the internet elsewhere, prevent those without broadband at home from being seen as entirely 'missing out'. Thus, while people are perceived to derive benefit from having broadband at home, they are less likely to be seen as significantly disadvantaged by not having it."
This is on page 16 - "Respondents in the quantitative survey were also asked how personally important broadband at home is to them. This question was asked separately of those currently with and without broadband at home, however combining the data shows that, overall, three in ten (31%) regard broadband at home as being personally 'essential' and that they couldn't be without it, while an additional one in four (24%) perceive it as being 'important' although not quite 'essential'. Thus, more than half of the UK population (55%) can be considered to place a high priority on having broadband at home, although only a minority regard it as vital."
Many people outside population centers are still stuck on dialup..."
So what? Living in a suburban or rural area has its advantages and disadvantages. If the residents of an area want to have higher speed Internet access, then they can petition their local government to have a referendum in which the local residents determine if they want to fund the necessary infrastructure.
Broadband is probably one of the most disproportionally distributed services, everywhere you can get power and water and phones but 10Mbit+ lines is almost exclusively in big cities.
High speed Internet access is a luxury.
Not only that, but speculation using debt is also the root cause of every financial collapse in modern history (except those caused by war), including the one we're going through now. It's not just "jackassery," it's also harmful to society at large!
There. Fixed that for you.
Debt is indentured servitude.
Speculation of any sort should be frowned upon in our society.
By that reasoning, investing in stocks and commodities is a bad thing. You may want to think about how it would negatively affect Capitalism.
I'm sure Disney has more sway in the world than say Virginia (USA) or even a coalition of states.
Don't be so sure of that; otherwise, it would have built the "Civil War Theme Park" near Manassas. It may have more sway in the world, but not more sway in Virginia.
From my point of view, the entire universe will simply cease to exist when I die. Still, I'm not going to waste time "documenting my life" on Facebook or Twitter.
This may be out of date. I hope it is, since my favorite is Sainsbury's. I'm very concerned after seeing the Sainsbury's web site has a "finance" section. Either food has gotten VERY expensive in the UK, or Sainsbury's is getting involved in financial services. Both possibilities are unsettling.
In other countries, "Disrespect for the president, legislature, or government" is grounds for jail time. In America it's "disrespect for a CEO, the board, or corporation" that leads to jail time.
Really? Go ahead and throw a shoe at the President if you want to prove that statement. Muntadhar al-Zeidi got three years in Iraq; anyone doing that in the US would probably get at least that much jail time.
What you are missing through your fog of suspect thought patterns is that European financial problems, as well as those of Asia and most of the rest of the world, were the direct result of American (US) lack of regulation and the interconnected nature of the current global economic system. To put it country simple, it only takes ONE APPLE to spoil the barrel, and that rotten apple was destined for an American apple pie.
Although that is the accepted explanation, by no means is it complete. There was an enormous real estate asset bubble in Europe (most notably in Spain) and one in the Middle East (the UAE and Qatar). It was inevitable that these bubbles would burst, but the one in the USA burst first.
One major cause of the current fiasco is that the Regulatory Agencies were simply not doing their jobs. The incompetence and sloth of the "civil servants" is what is meant by the term of "failure of oversight". What good are more regulations if regulators fail to enforce the existing ones?
I agree that the government should not be involved. There should be no financial incentives or tax breaks for marriages. The government should not define marriage or families for that matter, whatever their form. People should be free to designate any individual they trust to make legal decisions on their behalf (including but not limited to financial, estate, healthcare, and guardianship) with a minimum of difficulty.
I believe we want the same thing, Separation of Church and State. However, you aren't going to get religious people to be the first to disassociate the religious aspects of marriage from the legal ones. That just isn't going to happen. My original assertion is a basis of a far more likely positive outcome, which is that government should not be involved in marriage. As I stated in another post, Religion gets to keep the word "marriage" as a consolation prize. There is a lot of political value in that.
Perhaps what would be better would be for marriage to remain in the civil realm, thus avoiding any religious influence on who can marry whom, and instead allow religious institutes to perform "spiritual unions".
The end effect would be the same. As long as religious and legal requirements are not mixed, it would be a significant advancement. Separation of Church and State should be absolute.
When I dealt with the customer, I tended to deal with middle-upper officers MAJ, LTC, and COL. While not nerds per se, they were among some of the most clueful and intelligent people I have worked with.
Current defense contractor here, and I agree with you. However, I've also noticed that the DoD Civilians are usually the opposite. Rarely do I get to work for or with DoD Civilians who are mission oriented, diligent, and competent.
...all marriages are "civil unions"
Government really should not be involved with religious sacraments and marriage is a religious sacrament. Legal benefits of "civil unions" can be more simply handled by designation.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you proposing that the DoD use some sort of decentralized command and control system? That's crazy talk.
And never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Unless you're immune to iocane of course.
I don't know an approximate figure, but a considerable amount of resources have been spent on tobacco and alcohol awareness and cessation programs. By now, it's probably in the hundreds of millions if not the few billion (cumulative), but hey, what isn't?
Of course, the tax revenue from these legal drugs is probably considerably greater. The fact is that a sizable portion of the populace has a strong desire to alter their bodily chemistry and mental state. This has been the case since Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt and is not in any way likely to change. Now, we can either continue to fail at attempting to change human nature (as in the case of "The War on Drugs") or we can legalize, regulate, and generate revenue from it. I strongly prefer that we tax vices, not necessities.
You've got to keep an eye on those Amish. You don't want all your quilts and "As Seen on TV" fireplaces to go missing now, do you?
I'm glad to see a precedent for a tax repeal. Now, if that would happen more often, I'd be even more pleased.
I read the Research Report to which the article refers, "Not online, not included: consumers say broadband essential for all".
It appears that the article did not accurately reflect the content of the report.
http://www.communicationsconsumerpanel.org.uk/smartweb/not-online-not-included/not-online-not-included
This is on page 4 -
"2.2 Current and expected future importance of broadband internet at home
Broadband at home is currently on the cusp between being useful and vital
The qualitative research found that, at present, it is generally regarded as 'useful' or
'important', but not quite 'essential', for people to have broadband access at home. There are
many benefits perceived from having broadband at home, with greater speed and
convenience of undertaking a range of activities being top of mind amongst these. However,
the continuing presence of offline alternatives, as well as the possibility of accessing the
internet elsewhere, prevent those without broadband at home from being seen as entirely
'missing out'. Thus, while people are perceived to derive benefit from having broadband at
home, they are less likely to be seen as significantly disadvantaged by not having it."
This is on page 16 -
"Respondents in the quantitative survey were also asked how personally important broadband
at home is to them. This question was asked separately of those currently with and without
broadband at home, however combining the data shows that, overall, three in ten (31%)
regard broadband at home as being personally 'essential' and that they couldn't be without it,
while an additional one in four (24%) perceive it as being 'important' although not quite
'essential'. Thus, more than half of the UK population (55%) can be considered to place a
high priority on having broadband at home, although only a minority regard it as vital."
It hasn't happened yet.
It's still your move.
Many people outside population centers are still stuck on dialup..."
So what? Living in a suburban or rural area has its advantages and disadvantages. If the residents of an area want to have higher speed Internet access, then they can petition their local government to have a referendum in which the local residents determine if they want to fund the necessary infrastructure.
Broadband is probably one of the most disproportionally distributed services, everywhere you can get power and water and phones but 10Mbit+ lines is almost exclusively in big cities.
High speed Internet access is a luxury.
There. Fixed that for you.
Debt is indentured servitude.
Speculation of any sort should be frowned upon in our society.
By that reasoning, investing in stocks and commodities is a bad thing. You may want to think about how it would negatively affect Capitalism.
They're going to have to classify your post. It's way too accurate.
Don't be so sure of that; otherwise, it would have built the "Civil War Theme Park" near Manassas. It may have more sway in the world, but not more sway in Virginia.
I, for one, welcome our new nano-gecko footed robotic explorer overlords.
Why is this modded at -1 Flamebait when it's one of the most succinct explanations of what's wrong with American politics?
The saying is now invalid since both Liberals and Conservatives no longer exist but the terms still do.
He could go to Napoli and no one would do anything.
From my point of view, the entire universe will simply cease to exist when I die. Still, I'm not going to waste time "documenting my life" on Facebook or Twitter.
Asda is the second largest chain in the UK after Tesco..
This may be out of date. I hope it is, since my favorite is Sainsbury's. I'm very concerned after seeing the Sainsbury's web site has a "finance" section. Either food has gotten VERY expensive in the UK, or Sainsbury's is getting involved in financial services. Both possibilities are unsettling.
Really? Go ahead and throw a shoe at the President if you want to prove that statement. Muntadhar al-Zeidi got three years in Iraq; anyone doing that in the US would probably get at least that much jail time.
Although that is the accepted explanation, by no means is it complete. There was an enormous real estate asset bubble in Europe (most notably in Spain) and one in the Middle East (the UAE and Qatar). It was inevitable that these bubbles would burst, but the one in the USA burst first.
One major cause of the current fiasco is that the Regulatory Agencies were simply not doing their jobs. The incompetence and sloth of the "civil servants" is what is meant by the term of "failure of oversight". What good are more regulations if regulators fail to enforce the existing ones?
I believe we want the same thing, Separation of Church and State. However, you aren't going to get religious people to be the first to disassociate the religious aspects of marriage from the legal ones. That just isn't going to happen. My original assertion is a basis of a far more likely positive outcome, which is that government should not be involved in marriage. As I stated in another post, Religion gets to keep the word "marriage" as a consolation prize. There is a lot of political value in that.
Religion gets to keep the word "marriage" as a consolation prize. There is a lot of political value in that.
The end effect would be the same. As long as religious and legal requirements are not mixed, it would be a significant advancement. Separation of Church and State should be absolute.
Current defense contractor here, and I agree with you. However, I've also noticed that the DoD Civilians are usually the opposite. Rarely do I get to work for or with DoD Civilians who are mission oriented, diligent, and competent.
...all marriages are "civil unions"
Government really should not be involved with religious sacraments and marriage is a religious sacrament. Legal benefits of "civil unions" can be more simply handled by designation.