Corporations are paying what they are obliged to, under the law. It is the law that makes these things possible, so corporations do it. This is exactly like when you minimize your tax burden under the terms of the law.
No it is not! It is not possible for me to establish another portion of my body in another part of the world to receive taxation benefits from another part of the world. It is *possible* for companies as large as Apple to commit tax avoidance under the law. That does not make it legal. the only obligation they have to commit tax avoidance is because they are obliged to maximise shareholder return under the law. But apple hasn't paid dividends for how long?
Government has no "right" to tax money. And, without business, would have nothing to tax. So, the business is already doing its part to support the community by furnishing the jobs (and thus.. the payroll tax revenue).
Yes it does, under the law, because the community expect the government to provide services. There will always be businesses because there is always a desire to turn profit. Business does not support the community by providing jobs, it supports the community by being *viable*. Providing jobs is not a concern of business, it's an operational requirement. If businesses did it's part in supporting the community then slavery would never have existed, unions would have never been necessary and there would be no need for a minimum wage.
Now.. you can bet money that your tax obligation is a lot higher than company tax obligations, although.. this is incredibly vague. Its also very likely to be wrong. Apple paid 3.3 billion in taxes. What'd you pay? Unless your answer is "3.31 billion" or more, you'd lose your bet. I'm willing to wager that you didn't pay that much in taxes.
Absolute blatant strawman.
I'm also willing to wager that you're a hypocrite.
Says the Anonymous Coward who wants all of the benefits of airing an opinion with none of the commensurate responsibility.
How many things do you own that were manufactured in foreign jurisdictions specifically because those foreign jurisdictions are more lax in environment, safety, or living standards resulting in a cost advantage that you took? Oh, lots? Congratulations, you want to live in a state with some package of benefits, while exploiting the laws of some other jurisdiction (which.. also removes taxable events from your resident jurisdiction). If you want access to inexpensive goods, then move.
If I didn't look for alternatives then you might be right, but price is not the only factor in my purchasing decisions. The first one is "can I buy this from a local manufacturer" - Especially with large purchases.
And.. if governments required some minimum employment before they could take advantage of the tax breaks, I'd expect your jurisdiction to lose a bunch of jobs quickly. There is unlikely to be anything special about your jurisdiction that makes locating the business there a necessity. If it covered an entire country, watch the domestic corporations suddenly become subsidiaries to a foreign corporation. The domestic subsidiary will turn a minimal profit, because most of the revenues will go to the untouchable foreign parent. What possible response is there? "File comprehensive returns or... be closed down!" "Okay.. give us a call when you're broke and starving because everybody is unemployed"
Complete rubbish. Your statement completely whitewashes the business *requirement* to operate these tax avoidance locations with minimal staff and overhead otherwise they would be bright shiney building with APPLE plastered all over them. That they are small, discrete and have no discernible relationship to Apple means they are completely aware that they are going against the known intention of the law according to their legal departments.
Why should anyone have to pay more tax than they're required to by law?
Tax avoidance is different from maximising your tax entitlements under law. This is clearly avoidance.
Corporations have more loopholes than natural people to reduce the amount of tax that they pay, but even normal people have a number of ways that they can minimise the amount of tax that they're required to pay. If these methods are perfectly legal, then why would you not avail yourself of them?
Minimising your tax obligation according to your entitlements is legal and expected. Tax avoidance by setting up tiny offices in places with favourable tax laws to collect revenue is a deliberate construct made to avoid paying tax to the community, not a loophole.
Would you voluntarily pay more tax than you are legally obliged to?
The key word here is "obliged". I meet my obligation under law. If a company want to operate with all the benefits my state provides then why is it too much to expect them to contribute to the community that supports their profitability. If they want access to great tax laws, then move. What they want though is access to great talent from one community and exploit the tax laws of another community trying to attract business and employment to theirs.
If the law was amended so that the offices had to have a *minimum* employee count before being eligible for the tax breaks and they were made to conform to the intention of the tax laws then the story would change very quickly.
I'll bet money that personal tax obligation is a lot higher than company tax obligation.
Furthermore, I can absolutely guarantee you that Apple are not the only company doing this, they're just the flavour of the month and they generate page views around here. s/Apple/Microsoft/g, s/Apple/IBM/g or s/Apple/Google/g or pretty well any other large company at all and the story will read the same.
All that says is this is a widespread problem that has to be addressed. It would seem that all of these companies want the benefit of the talents that the community provides but they have no interest in paying their fair share in developing that community with schools, hospitals, roads etc. The flip side is that the technical talent to create that technology in the first place is devalued, driving IT salaries lower because the demand for the jobs are focused in an area of their benefit. The state with the favourable tax laws still hasn't attracted jobs for taxpayers who drive up demand for other services and the state with the population still has the cost of the services the community needs, offsetting those costs onto the individual taxpayer who receives poorer community services.
Theirs is not ethical taxation behaviour, it's called plundering communities with tax avoidance.
Re:Just read proposed legislation
on
Hacking the Law
·
· Score: 1
...because they have been sold an opinion or they have to tow the party line.
It's 'toe' not 'tow'.
Yes, thanks for looking that up...jerk.
Re:Just read proposed legislation
on
Hacking the Law
·
· Score: 1
Do you have any specific stories or evidence which let you to believe you made a difference?
Absolutely, and not just one, but enough time for one.
My first effort was at a state level. The proposed legislation would impose a censorship regime on all web sites for businesses in our state, a cool $25,000 per business that wanted a web site and the associated departmental time and paperwork to process it before you could publish - lest be liable for severe penalties.
I know they didn't read email so that is where I had the idea of using word processing macros to generate letters. I decided then that if I was going to use macros then I may as well write to every member on the floor, both sides of the house.
I cost me about 2-3 evenings of work and about $20 in stamps which I later found that the post office would frank them for me if I had a lot of letter (which I did) - which would have saved me an evening. I pointed out in the letters that the bill, if passed, would cause enormous economic damage to the state and drive a prosperous industry out of the state to avoid the rule.
The bill was unanimously defeated.
I received letters from both sides of the house thanking me for my insight, in all about 17 letters from the politicians with all sorts of different comments. I was invited by the house to be an advisor to the house on technological issues with relationship to law.
Just read proposed legislation
on
Hacking the Law
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I've read legislation and proposed changes or even proposed that the legislation be dropped altogether. I mainly got interested in the first round of cybercrime laws that proposed making me a criminal for using netcat nessus and the like.
I set up simple word processing macros that addresses a well written and respectful letter to a list of target politicians (usually all of them). Most of the time I've received some sort of response. It makes it easier for the politician too because they can go straight to the parts of the legislation that are bothersome and move those amendments. If many politicians move the amendments they look insightful to the media, co-operative to their party and hard working to their supporters. Your correspondence, on paper, may make them consider things they hadn't. Also forget email - the retention rate is to low and not portable enough for them to talk to a colleague.
There are many politicians that don't read the legislation at all and just vote on it because they have been sold an opinion or they have to tow the party line. This is why many of the non-partisan issues never get solved and no party want to give the other party the credit for solving a structural issue. So it remains an issue, if enough people write then they can say "Well I tried to do something".
If more people do this it would really make a difference to the quality of the laws we get. I hope it catches on.
Bullshit OH&S regs are for people who have the double-deficit of not being able to think for themselves, and being too jack-shit scared of life to get any work done.
They aren't my experiences. I've done work in the mining industry and it's a place where people DIE if you don't follow OH&S rules. Case in point someone DIED because they did not follow OH&S rules while I was working there. Safety rules exist for a reason.
My safety indoctrination had 5 levels of qualification to certify you for working in particular areas, if you didn't have them you could not work in those areas. These included designated walking areas, swing, heat and molten metal safety, crush and sever awareness. It's not just about dying, it's about losing a limb or a head injury or being crushed by something.
At the very least an injured work who loses a limb faces years of physiotherapy. if someone dies colleagues are tramatised, fearful an unproductive for a long time and their families are tramaised for the rest of their live.
You are certainly not the type of colleague any of the professional industrial engineers I've worked with would like to have around, I'm fairly sure they'd think you are an idiot.
I've been coding since I was 16 years old. I bought my first suits in my 20's. Got physically bigger as my musculature matured, shoulders got bigger in my 30's. I'm in my forties and I'm muscular and leaner than I ever have been, compete in Jui Jitsu competitions and know I look hot in a suit because of the way females look at me when I wear them.
When I saw the title I thought it was referring to those robot graders that they use to level the road substrate whilst making roads (A new bridge is being built near my work) They are quite fascinating to watch work but I wouldn't want to get in the way of one of them.
I wont ever use the GPL and prefer MIT and BSD style licensing.
That's great but it seems to me that those licenses give you less latitude for negotiation with business entities who are simply able to pick up code projects and use it as they see fit. Apple and Microsoft are two fine examples of companies making lots of money of BSD licenses.
To me GPL code was more about the software being "freed" with it's own intrinsic set of rights, specifically, on modification. Which also meant it's possible to create cashflow based on expertise using that software.
Frankly, the GPL is ANTI-SOCIAL as it restricts freedom and creates a burden of enforcement upon those who put the license to use.
Exactly. It restricts the freedom of those who seek to exploit the work of those who develop it. The "burden of enforcement" only exists if you choose to enforce and may only be relevant if your software reaches some critical mass.
If you are unable to capitalise the work then perhaps the market for the software isn't there and it needs a less restrictive license so that someone else can turn it into something that can be capitalised. Personally I always think it's better to negotiate from a position of strength, that's what the GPL allows.
Learning to move and asteroid now is probably a good idea because one day we will *have* to learn how to move an asteroid larger than 500 tons. The only problem I have is getting it too close to the Earth and creating a problem.
The upside is a private project in space would be a good step forward in developing mankind as a spacefaring species.
I'll probably get modded down, but this is exactly the scenario the disassembly of PUCHA in the 2005 Energy act allowed.
The vendor doesn't *have* to build the reactor to get the funding or the tax credits, it just has to be proposed. Can we see the design of the reactor, where it is going to be sited etc.
If five are proposed that's a tidy return on the investment of the license fee. Of course more of these will be proposed for funding remember; Obtaining the license would not require Ameren to add the reactors. Which is a similar scenario that led to the depression and the passing of PUCHA, Why provide the funding if they don't *have* to build the utility? But that's what the act allows. Would you seriously pay money for *anything* up front if you weren't guaranteed that you were getting what you chip in for?
Lame Car analogy: Hey Fred lets go halves in a car. Ok Jack here is half the money. Thanks for that money Fred but I've changed my mind.
"The fact that we are speeding so quickly into the whole small modular nuclear reactor is so frightening," Smith said.
Of course - but not because these things will ever be built. It's because it's a con. Pro Nuke or Nuke Free, it doesn't matter. This is a scheme to plunder rate and tax payers money into the coffers of the large business,,, again.
I guess bubbles aren't just limited to the tech sector.
> Also: where did you read the nonsense about "tiny amounts"?
There was no major breach. The Japanese build a lot better than the Russians so there isn't going to be a huge no man's land that will be required to be maintained for generations around the site. Some nasty stuff managed to outgas, some 'hot' water leaked and so yes there are some hotspots to deal with because of that. But lets get a grip on reality here. If that was anything like the worst case scenario it was certainly survivable and always remember that this was a first generation reactor that was ran decades beyond its design lifetime because the anticipated replacements got lost in the paperwork created by the very greens who oppose any nukes at all.
You have clear demonstrated you don't understand how Nuclear Power works, how an energetic return is made or much about reactor technology at all.
In other words, this was an own goal more than a natural disaster. Yelling and hollering about no nukes can convince politicians to snarl up licensing on new plants but barring a disaster on this scale it won't push em to shut down running plants and force everyone to sweat in the summer. So the old plants kept running while politicians and greens preened in front of the cameras. And because they control the media they haven't been forced to answer for their actions.
Guess you should check the 2005 energy act, because the Law is a polar opposite to your opinion. And forced to answer for what action, that the Nuclear Power industry CANNOT build a safe, reliable cost effective Nuclear reactor - pick any two characteristics and that is what you can have.
There isn't a safe method of power generation. And there won't be. No, unicorn farts aren't going to be available someday. Even if fusion, which is fifty years off and has been for the last fifty years, comes along we already know it will also have problems. We all know the problems with fossil fuels and all the 'green' alternatives are flawed in at least one way. So we either accept the risks, doing what is possible to mitigate the worst of them, or declare the whole civilization thing a big mistake and go back into the trees.
Green this Green that. You illustrate the main problem with the Nuclear power industry, an inability to take responsibility for their own actions, quite effectively. Luckily democracy won and the people made their voice heard quite clearly. Bye Bye Nuclear Power, and nothing you can say will change that, so suck it up, fanboi.
Now we might see the world leading technological manufacturing nation focus on Solar, wind and wave power instead of Cowboy Nukler.
I was reading about the flight safety record of the pilot flying this
B-52 bomber. These incidents were recorded of him breaking flight
safety regulations.
Over the ridge he is within 1 metre of the ground, which prompted his
own flight crew to complain. Notice how the photographers get lower on
his second pass.
The steep banks were waaaaaay beyond the manufacturers guidelines. When
he puts the plane into a steep climb and does a wing-over (from memory) you see what looks like
contrails from the wing tips, it's actually aviation fuel coming out of
the fuel tank vents as he flips the plane over - fighter aircraft sure
B52 bomber, not a good idea.
In the final moments when he looses control
consider that he crashed the aircraft within 20 meter of a nuclear
weapons bunker, that's the reason it was a no fly zone. This was his wing commanders retirement flight who didn't want his other crew aboard while he witnessed for himself what this guy was doing. His family were watching as he failed to eject.
Ok, I don't know the specifics of US Unions. Are they legally liable for strike actions? If they are then this dramatically affects their effectiveness when confronted with a hostile employer. Membership then becomes more critical and the actions available to the Union attract individuals who seek power to the management ranks of the Union.
I have long been curious about this situation in the US. Having seen some of the woeful situations for workers in US companies it seems obvious that the need for a representative Union is more important than ever. often though/. is so biased against them it's hard to separate facts from dogmatism.
I think that the way Unionism is done in Germany is a interesting model. Middle management are also Union stewards and are thus positioned to represent the affairs of both parties with some balance. I'm from Australia, the tampering of union affairs by business was uncovered but the power of the unions was tempered by law, so it's more balanced here.
My knowledge of US Unions is that they have achieved quite a lot for the average US worker over many decades. Is it the Unions that you object to or the way people conduct themselves in Unions? Do you think there is something that can be done to improve them? People gathering into a group is a fundamental expression of democracy, to me Unionism is an expression of democracy and one of the few balances against Corporatism, because with enough people you can change laws, politicians listen to votes.
In my experience Unions are run by people who want to be Wealth influential people. They don't really care about the works they are supposed to represent.
Well your free to have your opinion Mr Murdoch.
He's right though. If unions were about representing the worker, they wouldn't be so hard to leave or disband. Once they are created they care more about growing and consolidating their power and influence. I've seen firsthand the lengths unions will go to to try to stay in power. Harassing people at their homes, getting the NLRB to change rules to give them a better chance to get voted in, and complaining and charging interference when the company advertises to its employees when the vote is. Not who to vote for, just when it is. You cannot claim to represent the workers when you don't even want the workers to vote.
In my experience Unions are run by people who want to be Wealth influential people. They don't really care about the works they are supposed to represent.
Corporate profits always come first. Coal fires are a problem in some areas and at least one town had to be abandoned since the fires can last for decades and possibly centuries. Many towns had to be abandoned over industrial pollution and yet I constantly hear it's government regulations that cause the problems. How much of the planet do we sacrifice to greed? I'm not talking about halting progress this is about people cutting corners to make higher profits. Coal companies were supposed to have phased in safe guards to limit mercury and other heavy metals from being released but they ignored the regulations and now want them thrown out. A lot of cheap power depends on ignoring the problems it causes. In coal country areas near power plants have cancer rates through the roof. There's a price of pain and suffering. Often in the end the government ends up picking up the bill for health care and clean up. So long as corporations are protected and the people that run them are safe from being held accountable this will continue to happen. Change the rules and bankrupt the owners and corporate heads of the companies and see how fast it all changes.
Slashdot Mirror
No it is not! It is not possible for me to establish another portion of my body in another part of the world to receive taxation benefits from another part of the world. It is *possible* for companies as large as Apple to commit tax avoidance under the law. That does not make it legal. the only obligation they have to commit tax avoidance is because they are obliged to maximise shareholder return under the law. But apple hasn't paid dividends for how long?
Yes it does, under the law, because the community expect the government to provide services. There will always be businesses because there is always a desire to turn profit. Business does not support the community by providing jobs, it supports the community by being *viable*. Providing jobs is not a concern of business, it's an operational requirement. If businesses did it's part in supporting the community then slavery would never have existed, unions would have never been necessary and there would be no need for a minimum wage.
Absolute blatant strawman.
Says the Anonymous Coward who wants all of the benefits of airing an opinion with none of the commensurate responsibility.
If I didn't look for alternatives then you might be right, but price is not the only factor in my purchasing decisions. The first one is "can I buy this from a local manufacturer" - Especially with large purchases.
Complete rubbish. Your statement completely whitewashes the business *requirement* to operate these tax avoidance locations with minimal staff and overhead otherwise they would be bright shiney building with APPLE plastered all over them. That they are small, discrete and have no discernible relationship to Apple means they are completely aware that they are going against the known intention of the law according to their legal departments.
Why should anyone have to pay more tax than they're required to by law?
Tax avoidance is different from maximising your tax entitlements under law. This is clearly avoidance.
Corporations have more loopholes than natural people to reduce the amount of tax that they pay, but even normal people have a number of ways that they can minimise the amount of tax that they're required to pay. If these methods are perfectly legal, then why would you not avail yourself of them?
Minimising your tax obligation according to your entitlements is legal and expected. Tax avoidance by setting up tiny offices in places with favourable tax laws to collect revenue is a deliberate construct made to avoid paying tax to the community, not a loophole.
Would you voluntarily pay more tax than you are legally obliged to?
The key word here is "obliged". I meet my obligation under law. If a company want to operate with all the benefits my state provides then why is it too much to expect them to contribute to the community that supports their profitability. If they want access to great tax laws, then move. What they want though is access to great talent from one community and exploit the tax laws of another community trying to attract business and employment to theirs.
If the law was amended so that the offices had to have a *minimum* employee count before being eligible for the tax breaks and they were made to conform to the intention of the tax laws then the story would change very quickly.
I'll bet money that personal tax obligation is a lot higher than company tax obligation.
Furthermore, I can absolutely guarantee you that Apple are not the only company doing this, they're just the flavour of the month and they generate page views around here. s/Apple/Microsoft/g, s/Apple/IBM/g or s/Apple/Google/g or pretty well any other large company at all and the story will read the same.
All that says is this is a widespread problem that has to be addressed. It would seem that all of these companies want the benefit of the talents that the community provides but they have no interest in paying their fair share in developing that community with schools, hospitals, roads etc. The flip side is that the technical talent to create that technology in the first place is devalued, driving IT salaries lower because the demand for the jobs are focused in an area of their benefit. The state with the favourable tax laws still hasn't attracted jobs for taxpayers who drive up demand for other services and the state with the population still has the cost of the services the community needs, offsetting those costs onto the individual taxpayer who receives poorer community services.
Theirs is not ethical taxation behaviour, it's called plundering communities with tax avoidance.
...because they have been sold an opinion or they have to tow the party line.
It's 'toe' not 'tow'.
Yes, thanks for looking that up...jerk.
Do you have any specific stories or evidence which let you to believe you made a difference?
Absolutely, and not just one, but enough time for one.
My first effort was at a state level. The proposed legislation would impose a censorship regime on all web sites for businesses in our state, a cool $25,000 per business that wanted a web site and the associated departmental time and paperwork to process it before you could publish - lest be liable for severe penalties.
I know they didn't read email so that is where I had the idea of using word processing macros to generate letters. I decided then that if I was going to use macros then I may as well write to every member on the floor, both sides of the house.
I cost me about 2-3 evenings of work and about $20 in stamps which I later found that the post office would frank them for me if I had a lot of letter (which I did) - which would have saved me an evening. I pointed out in the letters that the bill, if passed, would cause enormous economic damage to the state and drive a prosperous industry out of the state to avoid the rule.
The bill was unanimously defeated.
I received letters from both sides of the house thanking me for my insight, in all about 17 letters from the politicians with all sorts of different comments. I was invited by the house to be an advisor to the house on technological issues with relationship to law.
I've read legislation and proposed changes or even proposed that the legislation be dropped altogether. I mainly got interested in the first round of cybercrime laws that proposed making me a criminal for using netcat nessus and the like.
I set up simple word processing macros that addresses a well written and respectful letter to a list of target politicians (usually all of them). Most of the time I've received some sort of response. It makes it easier for the politician too because they can go straight to the parts of the legislation that are bothersome and move those amendments. If many politicians move the amendments they look insightful to the media, co-operative to their party and hard working to their supporters. Your correspondence, on paper, may make them consider things they hadn't. Also forget email - the retention rate is to low and not portable enough for them to talk to a colleague.
There are many politicians that don't read the legislation at all and just vote on it because they have been sold an opinion or they have to tow the party line. This is why many of the non-partisan issues never get solved and no party want to give the other party the credit for solving a structural issue. So it remains an issue, if enough people write then they can say "Well I tried to do something".
If more people do this it would really make a difference to the quality of the laws we get. I hope it catches on.
Drinking water from a source that is unprotected by the magnetosphere of earth seems like a risky proposition.
I'm sure that you can filter the radio isotopes out of it for $20,000 per litre
Bullshit OH&S regs are for people who have the double-deficit of not being able to think for themselves, and being too jack-shit scared of life to get any work done.
They aren't my experiences. I've done work in the mining industry and it's a place where people DIE if you don't follow OH&S rules. Case in point someone DIED because they did not follow OH&S rules while I was working there. Safety rules exist for a reason.
My safety indoctrination had 5 levels of qualification to certify you for working in particular areas, if you didn't have them you could not work in those areas. These included designated walking areas, swing, heat and molten metal safety, crush and sever awareness. It's not just about dying, it's about losing a limb or a head injury or being crushed by something.
At the very least an injured work who loses a limb faces years of physiotherapy. if someone dies colleagues are tramatised, fearful an unproductive for a long time and their families are tramaised for the rest of their live.
You are certainly not the type of colleague any of the professional industrial engineers I've worked with would like to have around, I'm fairly sure they'd think you are an idiot.
Except for most of the music...especially towards the end of the decade...ugh.
Faith No More "The real Thing" has GOT to be an exception to that - 1989 - Still an exceptional album.
gotta love the one finger in the air to the synth action
Clothes make the man.
Grades rob you!
We now return you to normal discussion.
When I saw the title I thought it was referring to those robot graders that they use to level the road substrate whilst making roads (A new bridge is being built near my work) They are quite fascinating to watch work but I wouldn't want to get in the way of one of them.
I wont ever use the GPL and prefer MIT and BSD style licensing.
That's great but it seems to me that those licenses give you less latitude for negotiation with business entities who are simply able to pick up code projects and use it as they see fit. Apple and Microsoft are two fine examples of companies making lots of money of BSD licenses.
To me GPL code was more about the software being "freed" with it's own intrinsic set of rights, specifically, on modification. Which also meant it's possible to create cashflow based on expertise using that software.
Frankly, the GPL is ANTI-SOCIAL as it restricts freedom and creates a burden of enforcement upon those who put the license to use.
Exactly. It restricts the freedom of those who seek to exploit the work of those who develop it. The "burden of enforcement" only exists if you choose to enforce and may only be relevant if your software reaches some critical mass.
If you are unable to capitalise the work then perhaps the market for the software isn't there and it needs a less restrictive license so that someone else can turn it into something that can be capitalised. Personally I always think it's better to negotiate from a position of strength, that's what the GPL allows.
The upside is a private project in space would be a good step forward in developing mankind as a spacefaring species.
Now send more money!
$100m is cheap.
This, is why we are 15 trillion dollars in debt.
This is what an insightful comment looks like.
I'll probably get modded down, but this is exactly the scenario the disassembly of PUCHA in the 2005 Energy act allowed.
The vendor doesn't *have* to build the reactor to get the funding or the tax credits, it just has to be proposed. Can we see the design of the reactor, where it is going to be sited etc.
If five are proposed that's a tidy return on the investment of the license fee. Of course more of these will be proposed for funding remember; Obtaining the license would not require Ameren to add the reactors. Which is a similar scenario that led to the depression and the passing of PUCHA, Why provide the funding if they don't *have* to build the utility? But that's what the act allows. Would you seriously pay money for *anything* up front if you weren't guaranteed that you were getting what you chip in for?
Lame Car analogy: Hey Fred lets go halves in a car. Ok Jack here is half the money. Thanks for that money Fred but I've changed my mind.
"The fact that we are speeding so quickly into the whole small modular nuclear reactor is so frightening," Smith said. Of course - but not because these things will ever be built. It's because it's a con. Pro Nuke or Nuke Free, it doesn't matter. This is a scheme to plunder rate and tax payers money into the coffers of the large business,,, again.
I guess bubbles aren't just limited to the tech sector.
I have a bicycle, so I laugh at your post-apocalyptic dependence on fossil fuels.
Since, you know, I'm a farmer, doctor, engineer, and marksman. Also my bike doesn't require lubricant or tires for some reason.
What an effort walking has become.
> Also: where did you read the nonsense about "tiny amounts"?
There was no major breach. The Japanese build a lot better than the Russians so there isn't going to be a huge no man's land that will be required to be maintained for generations around the site. Some nasty stuff managed to outgas, some 'hot' water leaked and so yes there are some hotspots to deal with because of that. But lets get a grip on reality here. If that was anything like the worst case scenario it was certainly survivable and always remember that this was a first generation reactor that was ran decades beyond its design lifetime because the anticipated replacements got lost in the paperwork created by the very greens who oppose any nukes at all.
You have clear demonstrated you don't understand how Nuclear Power works, how an energetic return is made or much about reactor technology at all.
In other words, this was an own goal more than a natural disaster. Yelling and hollering about no nukes can convince politicians to snarl up licensing on new plants but barring a disaster on this scale it won't push em to shut down running plants and force everyone to sweat in the summer. So the old plants kept running while politicians and greens preened in front of the cameras. And because they control the media they haven't been forced to answer for their actions.
Guess you should check the 2005 energy act, because the Law is a polar opposite to your opinion. And forced to answer for what action, that the Nuclear Power industry CANNOT build a safe, reliable cost effective Nuclear reactor - pick any two characteristics and that is what you can have.
There isn't a safe method of power generation. And there won't be. No, unicorn farts aren't going to be available someday. Even if fusion, which is fifty years off and has been for the last fifty years, comes along we already know it will also have problems. We all know the problems with fossil fuels and all the 'green' alternatives are flawed in at least one way. So we either accept the risks, doing what is possible to mitigate the worst of them, or declare the whole civilization thing a big mistake and go back into the trees.
Green this Green that. You illustrate the main problem with the Nuclear power industry, an inability to take responsibility for their own actions, quite effectively. Luckily democracy won and the people made their voice heard quite clearly. Bye Bye Nuclear Power, and nothing you can say will change that, so suck it up, fanboi.
Now we might see the world leading technological manufacturing nation focus on Solar, wind and wave power instead of Cowboy Nukler.
I was reading about the flight safety record of the pilot flying this B-52 bomber. These incidents were recorded of him breaking flight safety regulations.
Over the ridge he is within 1 metre of the ground, which prompted his own flight crew to complain. Notice how the photographers get lower on his second pass.
The steep banks were waaaaaay beyond the manufacturers guidelines. When he puts the plane into a steep climb and does a wing-over (from memory) you see what looks like contrails from the wing tips, it's actually aviation fuel coming out of the fuel tank vents as he flips the plane over - fighter aircraft sure B52 bomber, not a good idea.
In the final moments when he looses control consider that he crashed the aircraft within 20 meter of a nuclear weapons bunker, that's the reason it was a no fly zone. This was his wing commanders retirement flight who didn't want his other crew aboard while he witnessed for himself what this guy was doing. His family were watching as he failed to eject.
fyi
Are you talking about US unions?
Very much so.
Ok, I don't know the specifics of US Unions. Are they legally liable for strike actions? If they are then this dramatically affects their effectiveness when confronted with a hostile employer. Membership then becomes more critical and the actions available to the Union attract individuals who seek power to the management ranks of the Union.
I have long been curious about this situation in the US. Having seen some of the woeful situations for workers in US companies it seems obvious that the need for a representative Union is more important than ever. often though /. is so biased against them it's hard to separate facts from dogmatism.
I think that the way Unionism is done in Germany is a interesting model. Middle management are also Union stewards and are thus positioned to represent the affairs of both parties with some balance. I'm from Australia, the tampering of union affairs by business was uncovered but the power of the unions was tempered by law, so it's more balanced here.
My knowledge of US Unions is that they have achieved quite a lot for the average US worker over many decades. Is it the Unions that you object to or the way people conduct themselves in Unions? Do you think there is something that can be done to improve them? People gathering into a group is a fundamental expression of democracy, to me Unionism is an expression of democracy and one of the few balances against Corporatism, because with enough people you can change laws, politicians listen to votes.
In my experience Unions are run by people who want to be Wealth influential people. They don't really care about the works they are supposed to represent.
Well your free to have your opinion Mr Murdoch.
He's right though. If unions were about representing the worker, they wouldn't be so hard to leave or disband. Once they are created they care more about growing and consolidating their power and influence. I've seen firsthand the lengths unions will go to to try to stay in power. Harassing people at their homes, getting the NLRB to change rules to give them a better chance to get voted in, and complaining and charging interference when the company advertises to its employees when the vote is. Not who to vote for, just when it is. You cannot claim to represent the workers when you don't even want the workers to vote.
Are you talking about US unions?
In my experience Unions are run by people who want to be Wealth influential people. They don't really care about the works they are supposed to represent.
Well your free to have your opinion Mr Murdoch.
Agreed,
intentions ain't worth nothing in law. Intentions can turn at any time. Rather just let not happen such a law in the first place.
It will be interesting to see how those who oppose the policy on facebook are treated by facebook.
Corporate profits always come first. Coal fires are a problem in some areas and at least one town had to be abandoned since the fires can last for decades and possibly centuries. Many towns had to be abandoned over industrial pollution and yet I constantly hear it's government regulations that cause the problems. How much of the planet do we sacrifice to greed? I'm not talking about halting progress this is about people cutting corners to make higher profits. Coal companies were supposed to have phased in safe guards to limit mercury and other heavy metals from being released but they ignored the regulations and now want them thrown out. A lot of cheap power depends on ignoring the problems it causes. In coal country areas near power plants have cancer rates through the roof. There's a price of pain and suffering. Often in the end the government ends up picking up the bill for health care and clean up. So long as corporations are protected and the people that run them are safe from being held accountable this will continue to happen. Change the rules and bankrupt the owners and corporate heads of the companies and see how fast it all changes.
must...use.....white.space.