Let's say that, for whatever reason, all manufacturers cease being EPEAT certified at some point in the future. In that event all the devices they made during the period they were certified are recyclable under the EPEAT standard.
On the other hand, imagine a scenario where Apple's recycling program has ended. Maybe Apple goes out of business, as unlikely as that may seem, or maybe they just decide the recycling program isn't profitable. All the equipment made prior to that change wouldn't be recyclable under the standard, and with nowhere for it to go it becomes a problem.
...he has a long association with Communist 5th columnists. Even more confusing (to small minds), Obama is a bought-and-paid-for tool of the international banksters.
Could you please explain to my "small mind" why such a devoted communist would be working for presumably hard-core capitalist bankers? It makes zero sense to me that a person in favor of public ownership of production and a sharing of wealth would be in a "bought-and-paid-for" relationship with a group of men favoring private ownership and a consolidation of wealth under their ownership? But I guess I'm just too "stupid" to see the "truth".
It was also collected in "All the Myriad Ways" and "N-Space". They also apparently made it into an episode of "The Outer Limits", with the script written by Larry Niven himself.
Are you sorting your news feed by "Most Recent" or "Top Stories"? For me "Top Stories" means the same five people's crap keeps showing up, to the exclusion of anything newer by anyone else. Last I checked there's no setting to default to "Most Recent", so I need to remember to manually change it every time I go to my feed page.
The USPS is struggling because they've been required by a vindictive right-wing to maintain an absurd 75-year pension plan commitment,
My grandfather, a postmaster for decades and a life-long Democrat, was the Secretary-Treasurer of the National Association of Postmasters (NAPUS) from 1953 to 1971, and set up that pension plan. That is his baby.
The PAEA stipulates that the USPS is to take any surplus at the end of a fiscal year, and put that amount into the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund to prepay for employees retirement costing the USPS a total of 500 billion dollars between 2007 and 2015. This requirement also explicitly stated the USPS it stop using its savings to reduce postal debt, which was stipulated in Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003. This is in addition to deductions from pay for federal contribution to social services . This pre-funding method is unique to the USPS. In June of 2011, the USPS had to suspend its weekly payment of 115 million into the fund because it had reached 8 billion dollars in debt and the retirement plan had a surplus of 6.9 billion dollars. The schedule rate of payment has been changed and the USPS is currently expected to make a payment of 5.6 billion no later than September 30, 2012.
So no, nobody is complaining about your grandfather's baby. We're complaining about the absurd stipulations from Congress that keep the USPS from using it's surpluses to pay off debt, ensuring they'll be constantly underwater, and confiscates that money to pre-pay, in less than a decade, the cost of retirements for the next 75 years. Most of that money will go to the retirements of employees who haven't even been born, and possibly even some of their parents. Of course, that assumes those employees will even exist, since there won't be any employees in 75 years if this onerous burden kills the Postal Service, an objective this legislation seems to be aiming for.
He'd put a slide on the overhead projector, talk about it while we'd copy it down into our notes. Then he'd put up another slide, repeat, repeat. No time for interaction with the students. Just switch slides, copy, switch slides copy, for 50 excruciating minutes.
I once had a professor who did that (honestly I think everyone has), but, just to make it more frustrating, he'd switch out the slide when you were about three-quarters done copying it down. On top of that he'd refuse to give out a copy of his powerpoint for some reason. I hated his class, between that and his tendency to turn start talking about something, then suddenly turn around and mumble at the blackboard right when he gets to the important part. Honestly, I don't know anyone who liked him as a teacher.
Big Brother was originally conceived of in the Netherlands, and has over 40 national or regional variations. Even if the GP is American, everyone from the UK to the Philippines can relate to his comment.
Apparently they are building their own. As a prelude to this they've been buying up both ships and ship plans from Western navies. I think their plan is to use these to learn how to build and operate carriers before they start making them at home.
On a side note, they turned the decommissioned 1970's era Soviet carrier Minsk into a military theme park called "Minsk World"! They did the same thing with the Kiev, but it's name isn't nearly as amusing...
Same thing with Mormonism, albeit with more recent origins. Of course, given that "Mormon leaders and theologians have taught that these inhabitants are similar or identical to humans", one might imagine they'd not react well to tentacles or eye stalks.
Fruit has both a culinary AND scientific meaning. Culinary, it is a sweet part of the plant that is almost always a botanical fruit, but that does not imply that a botanical fruit is also a culinary fruit. Scientifically, milkweed pods, cotton pods, and those little helicopters that fall from maple trees are fruits.
OK, I can understand the idea that the terms used by cooks and the terms used by botanists can have different definitions that shouldn't be conflated with eachother. But what about from the standpoint of a nutritionist? Given that fruits and vegetables are often considered different food groups, if I eat a serving of tomato does it count toward my recommended daily servings of fruits or my recommended daily servings of vegetables?
I'm just clarifying that the only reason we allow it is the US is a profoundly racist country.
Of course! Obviously it's because they're dirty yellow slant-eyed chinks! There is absolutely no fucking way that we're just lazy, selfish bastards who, acting in our own greedy self-interest, have decided that we want the benefits of cheap goods without the negatives of polluted air and water. Nope, if they were white we'd live with the more expensive goods and be happy for it. We're only letting them poison themselves because we hate all the fucking gook bastards and want them to suffer and die.
Yeah, I'm sure there's some racism towards the Chinese out there, and some people might not care about the issue because of it, but to jump straight on racism as the one and only true reason, especially when plain old greed and avarice fit the bill, is just ridiculous.
The whole Green Dam (or was it River) of China's blocking a website.
Yeah, it's Green Dam. The software controls the flow of information in the same way that a real dam controls the flow of water in a river. The name makes special sense when you remember the Three Gorges Dam, which the Chinese government finished a few years ago to control the seasonal flooding on the Yangtze River. I might imagine that they view the flood of information resulting from an uncensored Internet to be analogous to those yearly inundations which have, in the past, caused billions of dollars in damages and killed thousands of people.
But, as long as you tax a corporation, they should be able to represent themselves. And their donations and influence should be in proportion to the amount they are taxed.
So you're saying that, if corporations are taxed, then they should be represented in our government, much like regular persons are represented via the voting process? Here's my problem with your logic:
Corporations are not natural persons but legal fictions. They only exist in order to pool resources and create legal barriers between the property of the corporation and the property of its owners for the purpose of liability. The corporation does not have any will of its own, its decisions being made by its owners. Since through this process the corporation essentially represents its owners, and the owners are already represented via the voting process, by giving the corporation representation in government you are giving the owners greater representation than non-owners.
...he's talking about blocking individuals from social networks, not blocking the social networks themselves.
Blocking individuals from social networks is still stupid, since it removes a source of intel about what the rioters are planning. Besides, it's not like they wouldn't find other ways of communicating if they couldn't get on Twitter.
After the US defaults the Tea Party is planning to blame Obama.
Let them try. Everyone knows that it's the Republicans and Tea Party who coupled the debt ceiling issue to the deficit issue, and they're the ones who refused to raise the debt ceiling limit to begin with. Sure, the negotiations on the issue(s) might sour you on Obama if you're opposed to tax increases for the "job creators", but in that case you're probably already against him to begin with. Even with some Republicans supporting the idea of decoupling the debt ceiling and deficit it's largely right wingers blocking those efforts. If they think they're going to fool the majority of America into blaming this on the President then the only ones they're fooling are themselves.
The money that a government worker receives from government is already collected by the government, so it does not make sense for government to collect that, just to give it away, just to collect it again.
Just because it "does not make sense" doesn't mean they couldn't do it that way anyway. You're acting like not only is it government policy not to make their employees pay income tax, but that making them pay income tax would somehow violate some fundamental law of nature or something of the sort. I think you're underestimating the love that accountants and bureaucrats have for paperwork, process, and accounting.
Furthermore, it actually does make sense. That government worker might have a second job, or they might a spouse who also has a job with whom they jointly file. Add to that income any other sources of income they might have made throughout the year, and that extra income might put them into a higher tax bracket. If that puts them into a higher bracket that would entitle the government to keep a larger cut of their withheld wages. I think it goes without saying that the government wants all the money it can get.
I'd also like to take the time to note that both the Federal government and many State governments collect income taxes, and that they do so separately from each other. Even if your "why would they collect money they already have" argument made sense, each level of government would pay the applicable income taxes to the other levels. Federal workers would still pay State taxes, State workers would still pay Federal taxes, and local workers would pay both, since they are all separate entities who collect their own separate taxes and pay their own employees out of the separate coffers filled by these taxes.
Presumably, given your attitudes on government employees and the sound of your general political beliefs, I'd be willing to bet you view government as some sort of horribly inefficient money burning engine. If this is the case then why do you have such a hard time believing that they'd go through the seemingly inefficient and convoluted process of collecting tax money from the general populace, paying their employees with a portion of that money, withholding some portion of that pay, and then refunding some further portion of that come April? And shouldn't someone like you be happy if you are right, that the government just bypasses the whole inefficient passing-money-back-and-forth bit, and just skips straight to reducing worker pay by the amount they'd be taxed anyway?
As has always happened in the past legal suicide will not be fully voluntary for long , because it will be used as an excuse to not take care of those people who choose not to use the 'option' when they are no longer 'worthy' of support.
If you're talking about the Nazi euthanasia program, Action T4, it's worth noting that "euthanasia was still a criminal act in Germany during that time, and there is no record of doctors engaging in voluntary euthanasia or in physician-assisted suicide".
It also seems like there is a decent sized overlap between those who support capital punishment and those who condemn euthanasia. I've frequently heard the claim from that crowd that voluntary euthanasia leads down a "slippery slope" to involuntary euthanasia and a "culture of death". If that's the case, then what does letting the government execute people lead to?
The state of Colorado (along with some other western states) forbids collection of rainwater without a permit. While this seems insane to those of us from areas with frequent rain, this is largely due to the general scarcity of water in these areas and the system of allocating water rights due to this fact. Water is such a contentious issue that the state of Wyoming took Colorado to the Supreme Court over Colorado's plans to divert the Laramie River, which they claimed was a violation of their water rights, and Arizona and California have gone to court nine times over the last 80-odd years to determine Arizona's cut of the water from the Colorado River.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's say that, for whatever reason, all manufacturers cease being EPEAT certified at some point in the future. In that event all the devices they made during the period they were certified are recyclable under the EPEAT standard.
On the other hand, imagine a scenario where Apple's recycling program has ended. Maybe Apple goes out of business, as unlikely as that may seem, or maybe they just decide the recycling program isn't profitable. All the equipment made prior to that change wouldn't be recyclable under the standard, and with nowhere for it to go it becomes a problem.
Could you please explain to my "small mind" why such a devoted communist would be working for presumably hard-core capitalist bankers? It makes zero sense to me that a person in favor of public ownership of production and a sharing of wealth would be in a "bought-and-paid-for" relationship with a group of men favoring private ownership and a consolidation of wealth under their ownership? But I guess I'm just too "stupid" to see the "truth".
It was also collected in "All the Myriad Ways" and "N-Space". They also apparently made it into an episode of "The Outer Limits", with the script written by Larry Niven himself.
Are you sorting your news feed by "Most Recent" or "Top Stories"? For me "Top Stories" means the same five people's crap keeps showing up, to the exclusion of anything newer by anyone else. Last I checked there's no setting to default to "Most Recent", so I need to remember to manually change it every time I go to my feed page.
No, that's not what they're talking about. Please see the last section of the Changes under the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 section of the article on the Postal Regulatory Commission (bolded emphasis added):
So no, nobody is complaining about your grandfather's baby. We're complaining about the absurd stipulations from Congress that keep the USPS from using it's surpluses to pay off debt, ensuring they'll be constantly underwater, and confiscates that money to pre-pay, in less than a decade, the cost of retirements for the next 75 years. Most of that money will go to the retirements of employees who haven't even been born, and possibly even some of their parents. Of course, that assumes those employees will even exist, since there won't be any employees in 75 years if this onerous burden kills the Postal Service, an objective this legislation seems to be aiming for.
They didn't get him in the original ending.
I once had a professor who did that (honestly I think everyone has), but, just to make it more frustrating, he'd switch out the slide when you were about three-quarters done copying it down. On top of that he'd refuse to give out a copy of his powerpoint for some reason. I hated his class, between that and his tendency to turn start talking about something, then suddenly turn around and mumble at the blackboard right when he gets to the important part. Honestly, I don't know anyone who liked him as a teacher.
Big Brother was originally conceived of in the Netherlands, and has over 40 national or regional variations. Even if the GP is American, everyone from the UK to the Philippines can relate to his comment.
Apparently they are building their own. As a prelude to this they've been buying up both ships and ship plans from Western navies. I think their plan is to use these to learn how to build and operate carriers before they start making them at home.
On a side note, they turned the decommissioned 1970's era Soviet carrier Minsk into a military theme park called "Minsk World"! They did the same thing with the Kiev, but it's name isn't nearly as amusing...
Same thing with Mormonism, albeit with more recent origins. Of course, given that "Mormon leaders and theologians have taught that these inhabitants are similar or identical to humans", one might imagine they'd not react well to tentacles or eye stalks.
In a similar, and equally amusing, vein, the 2008 Ig Nobel Prize for Medicine was awarded to a team of researchers for "demonstrating that high-priced fake medicine is more effective than low-priced fake medicine".
OK, I can understand the idea that the terms used by cooks and the terms used by botanists can have different definitions that shouldn't be conflated with eachother. But what about from the standpoint of a nutritionist? Given that fruits and vegetables are often considered different food groups, if I eat a serving of tomato does it count toward my recommended daily servings of fruits or my recommended daily servings of vegetables?
Of course! Obviously it's because they're dirty yellow slant-eyed chinks! There is absolutely no fucking way that we're just lazy, selfish bastards who, acting in our own greedy self-interest, have decided that we want the benefits of cheap goods without the negatives of polluted air and water. Nope, if they were white we'd live with the more expensive goods and be happy for it. We're only letting them poison themselves because we hate all the fucking gook bastards and want them to suffer and die.
Yeah, I'm sure there's some racism towards the Chinese out there, and some people might not care about the issue because of it, but to jump straight on racism as the one and only true reason, especially when plain old greed and avarice fit the bill, is just ridiculous.
Yeah, it's Green Dam. The software controls the flow of information in the same way that a real dam controls the flow of water in a river. The name makes special sense when you remember the Three Gorges Dam, which the Chinese government finished a few years ago to control the seasonal flooding on the Yangtze River. I might imagine that they view the flood of information resulting from an uncensored Internet to be analogous to those yearly inundations which have, in the past, caused billions of dollars in damages and killed thousands of people.
So you're saying that, if corporations are taxed, then they should be represented in our government, much like regular persons are represented via the voting process? Here's my problem with your logic: Corporations are not natural persons but legal fictions. They only exist in order to pool resources and create legal barriers between the property of the corporation and the property of its owners for the purpose of liability. The corporation does not have any will of its own, its decisions being made by its owners. Since through this process the corporation essentially represents its owners, and the owners are already represented via the voting process, by giving the corporation representation in government you are giving the owners greater representation than non-owners.
Or, you know, a radar gun.
I swear, officer, she told me she was 4.567 billion years old!
Yes, freed from the dead hand of the outmoded capitalist system! Freed by the dead hand of COMMUNIST! bureaucracy! Huzzah!
Blocking individuals from social networks is still stupid, since it removes a source of intel about what the rioters are planning. Besides, it's not like they wouldn't find other ways of communicating if they couldn't get on Twitter.
Let them try. Everyone knows that it's the Republicans and Tea Party who coupled the debt ceiling issue to the deficit issue, and they're the ones who refused to raise the debt ceiling limit to begin with. Sure, the negotiations on the issue(s) might sour you on Obama if you're opposed to tax increases for the "job creators", but in that case you're probably already against him to begin with. Even with some Republicans supporting the idea of decoupling the debt ceiling and deficit it's largely right wingers blocking those efforts. If they think they're going to fool the majority of America into blaming this on the President then the only ones they're fooling are themselves.
Just because it "does not make sense" doesn't mean they couldn't do it that way anyway. You're acting like not only is it government policy not to make their employees pay income tax, but that making them pay income tax would somehow violate some fundamental law of nature or something of the sort. I think you're underestimating the love that accountants and bureaucrats have for paperwork, process, and accounting.
Furthermore, it actually does make sense. That government worker might have a second job, or they might a spouse who also has a job with whom they jointly file. Add to that income any other sources of income they might have made throughout the year, and that extra income might put them into a higher tax bracket. If that puts them into a higher bracket that would entitle the government to keep a larger cut of their withheld wages. I think it goes without saying that the government wants all the money it can get.
I'd also like to take the time to note that both the Federal government and many State governments collect income taxes, and that they do so separately from each other. Even if your "why would they collect money they already have" argument made sense, each level of government would pay the applicable income taxes to the other levels. Federal workers would still pay State taxes, State workers would still pay Federal taxes, and local workers would pay both, since they are all separate entities who collect their own separate taxes and pay their own employees out of the separate coffers filled by these taxes.
Presumably, given your attitudes on government employees and the sound of your general political beliefs, I'd be willing to bet you view government as some sort of horribly inefficient money burning engine. If this is the case then why do you have such a hard time believing that they'd go through the seemingly inefficient and convoluted process of collecting tax money from the general populace, paying their employees with a portion of that money, withholding some portion of that pay, and then refunding some further portion of that come April? And shouldn't someone like you be happy if you are right, that the government just bypasses the whole inefficient passing-money-back-and-forth bit, and just skips straight to reducing worker pay by the amount they'd be taxed anyway?
Switch back to the Classic Discussion System.
If you're talking about the Nazi euthanasia program, Action T4, it's worth noting that "euthanasia was still a criminal act in Germany during that time, and there is no record of doctors engaging in voluntary euthanasia or in physician-assisted suicide".
It also seems like there is a decent sized overlap between those who support capital punishment and those who condemn euthanasia. I've frequently heard the claim from that crowd that voluntary euthanasia leads down a "slippery slope" to involuntary euthanasia and a "culture of death". If that's the case, then what does letting the government execute people lead to?
The state of Colorado (along with some other western states) forbids collection of rainwater without a permit. While this seems insane to those of us from areas with frequent rain, this is largely due to the general scarcity of water in these areas and the system of allocating water rights due to this fact. Water is such a contentious issue that the state of Wyoming took Colorado to the Supreme Court over Colorado's plans to divert the Laramie River, which they claimed was a violation of their water rights, and Arizona and California have gone to court nine times over the last 80-odd years to determine Arizona's cut of the water from the Colorado River.