I have no idea what "progressive" means. What I do know is that people who just discard research simply because they're contrarians or don't like what the research points to are indeed, for lack of a better word, stupid. You don't like the term,. then stop being stupid.
Translation: I don't like what science says, so I'll declare them "progressives" and that way I don't have to use my very small neural capacity to try to come up with an actual critique.
Not to worry. Someone is making money, so it's fine if pollutants kill our brains and bodies. All that matters is the rich get richer with as few impediments as possible.
GDP is a measure of production. While it is true that there is significant influence from consumer spending, that isn't the only way GDP is affected, and most certainly the exchange of services also plays its part.
Coming eventually, but it seems a few dinosaurs are going to have to kick the bucket first. Sooner or later, politicians, boards, senior managers, shareholders, bankers and the like are going to have to accept lower returns. It is inevitable.
What business exactly gives a damn about the licensing the product is under? Unless it's a development shop looking at making and distributing modifications, and wants to be able to control whether it has to make those changes available, no business just using the software gives a rat's ass whether it's an Apache license, GPL, BSD License, or proprietary closed license. They just want the software to work and be supported.
I buy most of my ebooks from Google Play or Kobo, and in both cases I can easily decrypt the epubs, so I have a nice little library that can fit on my phone and tablet.
The problem here is that rocks of this age are pretty damned rare, and only a few locations on Earth have them. And really, this ID geologist (about as unreliable a source as I can imagine) isn't really representing how geologists work at all. Where there are lots of samples, that might make things easier, but where there isn't, you work with what you have. It's not as if stromatolites are rare, and there are a few locations where there are very ancient stromatolites, so if you find one that dates earlier, why is that somehow invalid?
The biggest problem with panspermia, other than suggesting that life could survive thousands or millions of years in hard vacuum in the very hostile environment of a young solar system to seed another planet than the one it originated on is simply "Why do we need it as an explanation." Since the current abiogenesis theories mainly require some organic chemistry and lots of excess energy, is there some reason the early Earth, with all the bombardments and likely huge amounts amount of energy available via volcanism and other geological forces, wouldn't fit that bill?
Nothing that sophisticated, I'm afraid. Spamassasin just flags it as spam and then Exchange filters it into the users' Junk folder. I'd love a more comprehensive solution, but that's likely to mean forking over some $$$.
Believe me, if I had a choice, I wouldn't, but a lot of the organization's infrastructure is built on top of Exchange, and while there are ways to replace various parts of that infrastructure, Exchange-Outlook is the way things have run here for a decade. I'm no fan of Exchange, I think it's a bloated unstable monstrosity that I confess I even feel trepidation applying updates to, but it is here and it is what we use. That being said, now that I'm a partner, I've made it clear that Exchange 2010 will be the last version of Exchange we run, and we'll likely be farming email and scheduling out to the Cloud.
We've been running a Postfix-based SMTP gateway that utilizes SpamAssassin and Postgrey, along with some basic header checks, for years now on the front end of Exchange. I wouldn't dream of actually opening up Exchange on to the Internet.
They are being forced to collect what should have been collected. And Apple is being forced to pay what they should have paid. The deal should never have been made, it violated the Common Market rules that Ireland has been party to for decades.
So you're saying the EC should sit by and let Ireland violate the terms of its membership in the Common Market? Is that your view, that Ireland is above the very laws it is party to?
It isn't about whether Apple followed the law or not, it's about the fact that Ireland had no right, by the terms of its international agreements with the EU and as part of its obligations as a member of the Common Market, to negotiate this special deals with Apple, Microsoft and the rest.
I don't think it's Oracle astroturfing. That would involve an entire paragraph dedicated to how Google is an evil IP pirate that must be destroyed at all costs.
What they haven't learned is the Universe doesn't care about the FBI, or even criminals for that matter. If mathematics makes hard-to-break encryption possible, then that is simply that. Unless Congress plans to pass laws banning encryption, or demanding back doors, which will set it up for a big fight in the Supreme Court, the government should just shut its fucking pie hole and get about investigating crimes. Criminals have been hiding and destroying evidence as long as there have been criminals, and I've seen absolutely nothing that suggests that more criminals are getting away with crimes now than they did a couple of decades ago.
It's not like a treaty, it IS a treaty. The ECC has been around in one form or another for nearly sixty years, and the whole point of the common market is to allow the free flow of goods and services between member states. That requires rules to deal with member states who try to gain unfair advantage by, say, granting large multinationals absurdly low tax rates, and, once they've set up shop, can now gain access to the entire Common Market.
I'm not clear what critics are objecting to here. Are they saying nations should be able to just ignore treaty provisions which they willingly and freely signed up for whenever they want? Are critics saying that other signatories to said treaties have no right to demand redress?
If they want to be part of the European Common Market, they have to abide by the rules all the members, including Ireland, agreed to. If Ireland wishes to go its own way, it can invoke Article 50 like Britain has. Of course, that would likely mean companies like Apple and Microsoft would move their European headquarters, because the real reason that Ireland and these companies struck up these rather favorable tax deals was because they could gain access to the Common Market while gaining a very advantageous tax rate from being taxed in Ireland, rather than, say, Britain or Germany.
If Ireland doesn't like EU rules it can always depart the EU. If course then it will lose its privileged access to the Common Market, and let's be clear here, the tax deal with Apple was littl more than the creation of a tax haven for Apple to gain cheap access to the Common Market.
If Irish tax law contravenes it's treaties with the rest of the EU, that very treaty requires Ireland to abide by the EU's decision. Ireland willingly and knowingly violated it's treaty obligations in its deals with Application and Google, so there is nothing arbitrary or capricious about this ruling.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no idea what "progressive" means. What I do know is that people who just discard research simply because they're contrarians or don't like what the research points to are indeed, for lack of a better word, stupid. You don't like the term,. then stop being stupid.
Translation: I don't like what science says, so I'll declare them "progressives" and that way I don't have to use my very small neural capacity to try to come up with an actual critique.
Not to worry. Someone is making money, so it's fine if pollutants kill our brains and bodies. All that matters is the rich get richer with as few impediments as possible.
Perhaps they can find a language and object model that is far better suited to actual development.
GDP is a measure of production. While it is true that there is significant influence from consumer spending, that isn't the only way GDP is affected, and most certainly the exchange of services also plays its part.
It will look like the Scandinavian model on steroids; much higher taxes, but in exchange people won't be starving to death.
Coming eventually, but it seems a few dinosaurs are going to have to kick the bucket first. Sooner or later, politicians, boards, senior managers, shareholders, bankers and the like are going to have to accept lower returns. It is inevitable.
What business exactly gives a damn about the licensing the product is under? Unless it's a development shop looking at making and distributing modifications, and wants to be able to control whether it has to make those changes available, no business just using the software gives a rat's ass whether it's an Apache license, GPL, BSD License, or proprietary closed license. They just want the software to work and be supported.
I buy most of my ebooks from Google Play or Kobo, and in both cases I can easily decrypt the epubs, so I have a nice little library that can fit on my phone and tablet.
The problem here is that rocks of this age are pretty damned rare, and only a few locations on Earth have them. And really, this ID geologist (about as unreliable a source as I can imagine) isn't really representing how geologists work at all. Where there are lots of samples, that might make things easier, but where there isn't, you work with what you have. It's not as if stromatolites are rare, and there are a few locations where there are very ancient stromatolites, so if you find one that dates earlier, why is that somehow invalid?
The biggest problem with panspermia, other than suggesting that life could survive thousands or millions of years in hard vacuum in the very hostile environment of a young solar system to seed another planet than the one it originated on is simply "Why do we need it as an explanation." Since the current abiogenesis theories mainly require some organic chemistry and lots of excess energy, is there some reason the early Earth, with all the bombardments and likely huge amounts amount of energy available via volcanism and other geological forces, wouldn't fit that bill?
Nothing that sophisticated, I'm afraid. Spamassasin just flags it as spam and then Exchange filters it into the users' Junk folder. I'd love a more comprehensive solution, but that's likely to mean forking over some $$$.
Believe me, if I had a choice, I wouldn't, but a lot of the organization's infrastructure is built on top of Exchange, and while there are ways to replace various parts of that infrastructure, Exchange-Outlook is the way things have run here for a decade. I'm no fan of Exchange, I think it's a bloated unstable monstrosity that I confess I even feel trepidation applying updates to, but it is here and it is what we use. That being said, now that I'm a partner, I've made it clear that Exchange 2010 will be the last version of Exchange we run, and we'll likely be farming email and scheduling out to the Cloud.
We've been running a Postfix-based SMTP gateway that utilizes SpamAssassin and Postgrey, along with some basic header checks, for years now on the front end of Exchange. I wouldn't dream of actually opening up Exchange on to the Internet.
They are being forced to collect what should have been collected. And Apple is being forced to pay what they should have paid. The deal should never have been made, it violated the Common Market rules that Ireland has been party to for decades.
So you're saying the EC should sit by and let Ireland violate the terms of its membership in the Common Market? Is that your view, that Ireland is above the very laws it is party to?
It isn't about whether Apple followed the law or not, it's about the fact that Ireland had no right, by the terms of its international agreements with the EU and as part of its obligations as a member of the Common Market, to negotiate this special deals with Apple, Microsoft and the rest.
Because companies run by male CEOs never have ethical problems. No sirreee, we must look at companies run by women, their gender makes them suspect!
I don't think it's Oracle astroturfing. That would involve an entire paragraph dedicated to how Google is an evil IP pirate that must be destroyed at all costs.
What they haven't learned is the Universe doesn't care about the FBI, or even criminals for that matter. If mathematics makes hard-to-break encryption possible, then that is simply that. Unless Congress plans to pass laws banning encryption, or demanding back doors, which will set it up for a big fight in the Supreme Court, the government should just shut its fucking pie hole and get about investigating crimes. Criminals have been hiding and destroying evidence as long as there have been criminals, and I've seen absolutely nothing that suggests that more criminals are getting away with crimes now than they did a couple of decades ago.
It's not like a treaty, it IS a treaty. The ECC has been around in one form or another for nearly sixty years, and the whole point of the common market is to allow the free flow of goods and services between member states. That requires rules to deal with member states who try to gain unfair advantage by, say, granting large multinationals absurdly low tax rates, and, once they've set up shop, can now gain access to the entire Common Market.
I'm not clear what critics are objecting to here. Are they saying nations should be able to just ignore treaty provisions which they willingly and freely signed up for whenever they want? Are critics saying that other signatories to said treaties have no right to demand redress?
If they want to be part of the European Common Market, they have to abide by the rules all the members, including Ireland, agreed to. If Ireland wishes to go its own way, it can invoke Article 50 like Britain has. Of course, that would likely mean companies like Apple and Microsoft would move their European headquarters, because the real reason that Ireland and these companies struck up these rather favorable tax deals was because they could gain access to the Common Market while gaining a very advantageous tax rate from being taxed in Ireland, rather than, say, Britain or Germany.
The EC does have authority over subsidies, and that's what this is.
If Ireland doesn't like EU rules it can always depart the EU. If course then it will lose its privileged access to the Common Market, and let's be clear here, the tax deal with Apple was littl more than the creation of a tax haven for Apple to gain cheap access to the Common Market.
If Irish tax law contravenes it's treaties with the rest of the EU, that very treaty requires Ireland to abide by the EU's decision. Ireland willingly and knowingly violated it's treaty obligations in its deals with Application and Google, so there is nothing arbitrary or capricious about this ruling.