But which of them would want to make a dirty bomb? Not really helpful for a drug cartel or corrupt official - only a terrorist wanting to make an area uninhabitable.
Point 3: the transaction is deemed to take place at the location of the business. That is the only workable way to do it: the transaction doesn't take place at the purchaser's location, because companies would have to keep track of tens of thousands of individual taxing districts throughout the country, and put up with tens of thousands of different sets of regulations concerning how to collect and distribute the taxes. That won't work. Even today, when computers could tell you what the taxes are, keeping track of how much tax to collect, and all the different reporting and payment requirements, would only be possible for giant corporations. Small companies would be out of business.
There's software that does it - even a small business can do it. What a small business can't do as easily as a large one is "relocate" its headquarters to a state with no sales tax (rent a one room office with mailing address there).
That's not true in any sense. The US owns most of its debt. China owns the largest share of foreign held debt (though less than 1/4 of that). Altogether they hold less than 10% of the US debt.
Yeah, if you believe United Nations' reports on the matter.
Why believe the UN? Just look at satellite images of the North Pole. Plenty of non-UN come to the same conclusion.
Yeah, right. Wake me up, when Al Gore sells his — recently purchased — ocean front villa and moves to the hills.
He's got a few years before he should be worried - the places in trouble are those only a few feet above sea level.
Bzzz! Wrong... Revising history again.
Did you read the article you linked or just picked the first google result? Even that article agrees corn isn't a great choice for fuel. There might be something to be said for other types of ethanol as fuel, but you'll find the majority of scientists (or those that have done research into the matter - yourself included) agree that corn isn't helping. If it weren't for the money going to farmers (and the promise of energy independence) do you think we'd really have these subsidies?
Oh, another wonderful quote... The world-destroying lightbulbs — Edison (and Tesla) laughing sadly.
I didn't think I'd have to spell out everything so much - the lightbulbs are just one example of something that uses electricity. We have better ones now that use less electricity and save you money! Using lots of electricity is bad because our electricity comes from sources that release a lot of gases that lead to global warming. Global warming is bad. The lightbulbs themselves are OK.
This might frighten you, but the government is coercing you to do lots of stuff you probably don't like. Did you know that they are COERCING you not to run over pedestrians at crosswalks? Crazy right! When will this tyranny end!
This is not about me — you'd do better next time, if you refrain from outright ad-hominems...
It's about everyone, you included. Saying you're not going to do anything about global warming was an observation based on your posts, not an attack on your person. Are you going to do something? Seems you won't accept even basic facts about the planet (ice/sea levels, temperature, CO2, etc) and assume that if you don't like the ones you read, then they must be false, without doing any research on your own.
Unless there are government grants to be had for not correcting oneself. Hence the infamous "hide the decline".
In that case, the science was still accurate, but the politicians would get confused. Multiple reviews have shown there to be nothing to be corrected.
In any case, the sole measure of science quality is the reliability of its predictions, and in the case of Global Warming, err., pardon me, Climate Change the passionately-made predictions stubbornly fail to materialize: icebergs fail to melt, waters fail to rise, etc.
"Global Warming" is still an accurate description. You can check my previous post to see the graph showing global temperatures rising. Those predictions have actually materialized. The Arctic (and icebergs) are melting, sea levels rise, etc. Just because you ignore global warming and its effects, doesn't mean it's not happening.
Urged? That would've been fine. How about coerced — and outright forced?
You missed the "urge" stage - things have been getting a bit more urgent so you're not being allowed to destroy the world anymore. No one's forcing you to use bulbs with mercury in them - there are plenty of alternatives.
Neither of these two activities has anything to do with global warming directly. I think, you messed up your "climate change" talking points with the more general anti-Capitalism ones...
By mining, I was referring to mining for coal/natural gas (large sources of global warming) . By factories I was referring to the boilers and machinery used in large factories the emit gases contributing to global warming. Didn't think I'd have to be that specific...
Things like corn ethanol aren't about helping global warming - they're about subsidizing farmers and energy independence.
Sure it may be a little inconvenient that your light bulb costs $1.20 instead of $0.60, but you know what's even more inconvenient? Superstorms, flooding, excessive heat, the list goes on... When members of our society think that their savings on lightbulbs are worth destroying the world over, sometimes we have to coerce them to do the right thing.
It's obvious you would never do anything to prevent global warming. You don't believe in it despite the overwhelming evidence and it looks like you'd be the type to burn tires just to spite people that like the environment.
The climate isn't a consistent thing, there will be outliers - the period in the 1880's is one of them. The issue is the average is going up, while the standard deviation is going down, so we're getting a higher number of storms, but we're getting them every year, not just once every 25/50 years. Note the density in recent years compared to historic in the graph of hurricanes per year.
NOAA recently released a report detailing 12 major weather events we've been having (droughts, floods, storms) and their link to climate. There's yet to be a "debunking" of this that uses science instead of conspiracy theories.
The great thing about science is that it corrects itself when it's wrong - hence why the global cooling theories were overturned and replaced with the more accurate global warming. Now, while global warming is happening , it confuses some because it causes more shifts in climate often resulting in colder temperatures (or more snow), so even though the global temperature on average is rising, there are pockets of cold. The models also show this to produce more extreme weather events as shown in the NOAA report above.
The labels may vary, but the proposed action is the same - citizens are urged to change to cleaner energy sources. The libertarians should love this idea, because renewables mean they can be completely independent from utilities or governments and provide their own sources of power with solar or wind. The ones that get hurt are the poor little guy strip-mining a mountain or running a factory.
It's not about control, it's about moving to better energy sources. The first step is education, but there have always been greedy people that don't care what they're doing to everyone else - the same type that output poison into the river killing everything. Then the big government has to come in and tell them that it's not OK to be killing everything.
They already use the corporate email server for corporate emails. They're just trying push them from using the Outlook client to the webmail client. I doubt "HR" has access to webmail, but not the email server.
I did like the summary's descriptions of events. Solyndra went bankrupt in 2011 and 'coincidentally' prices plummeted at the same time. China heavily subsidizes their businesses, so it's only fair we do the same (or put in place restrictions/tariffs) unless we want the "free market" to wipe out our companies.
It's not possible for there to be DRM in my chair either, but that doesn't really add much to the conversation. Sure we could add digital locks to your car, but the issue is with new cars and if it's going to be a trend.
So just because something might break means we shouldn't use it? I know that the use of different tools in woodshop gave me much more ways to work on my projects, and even broken parts gave insight into how they worked and how to repair them. For instance, film projectors stuttering is most often due to damaged film or faulty loop sizes.
FACT: The first attempt at Healthcare reform was during the Clinton era
Incorrect. There have been numerous attempts at health care reform - we got medicaid and medicare from some of them. Also, the insurance companies were mostly against the Clinton era plan.
FACT: Obamacare was done in much the same way, except that Obama had a majority in both houses.
Obamacare was started with a Republican plan and cooperating with insurance companies. Republicans could have been included if they wanted health care reform instead of to destroy Obama. They obviously didn't since they wasted 8 years.
FACT: Romney care started with open doors, and three years of bipartisan meetings, where all sides had a seat at the table, and contributed.
Yep, so good thing Obamacare is based on the that.
FACT: No major piece of social legislation of this size has ever been passed the way ObamaCare was. Not ever. Not once.
Probably true, but likewise, no party has been so resistant to working with the majority party. Ever.
FACT: Romney Care was implemented slowly, is not a mandate to purchase insurance, and did not result in the cancellation of existing health plans. Romney care is NOT single payer.
ObamaCare has been implemented over a few years too - it's also definitely not single payer (that'd be a huge improvement). You may not be familiar with the plans though. RomneyCare certainly does mandate people to purchase insurance (we have to pay a tax penalty if we don't have it). Some plans were canceled under RomneyCare because they were made illegal in the state.
A similar thing is happening with ObamaCare. The law stated people wouldn't have to lose their insurance that they had before the law was passed. The insurance companies noticed a loophole that they could change people's insurance plans between when the law was passed and when it went into effect to avoid that part of the law. Then they could send out all these cancellation notices because the intermediate plans didn't meet the standards.
Sounds like you had crappy insurance before if it wasn't ACA compliant. Did you have low lifetime caps or something like that? I don't know a single person here in MA that had their plan canceled and people around here are very happy with their health care (in general).
It's easy to find people getting better insurance. Just look for sob stories of people who lost their crappy "supplemental insurance" or scam insurance - then look for a follow up on the same people where they actually find out what they can get. You may be living somewhere that had very lax laws to begin with, but once you move to better insurance plans, people will be happy.
If the Republicans were working on actual health care solutions instead of the pointless and constant "repeal Obamacare", they might get some support (well aside from the crazy "legitimate rape" types). Really they should be working on "Amending ObamaCare", and not just in a way that removes funding. All major legislation goes through amendments to fix issues with it, but thanks to the obstructionism, that hasn't been possible.
You don't see any similarities between the Republican created idea (implemented in Massachusetts) where citizens are all required to have health insurance, and the ACA where citizens are required to have health insurance? Do we really have to go through the years of bipartisan meetings every time we look at the issue?
But subsidizing insurance for people unable afford it comes close. Forcing insurance providers to provide real plans that aren't just available to scam people out of money without providing care helps too. There are plenty of cases where people discover that they can get a real insurance plan on the health care exchange for less money than they were paying for their scam plan.
These people that aren't able to afford it aren't just going to stay out of the medical market. They're going to get sick and run up huge bills they can pay.
Better preventative care is likely to bring down long term costs, but that's really a side effect of insuring everyone. The main point was that a health care plan should attempt to tackle the major problems, either the number of people insured or controlling the increase in health costs.
You can find weird ways to skew it, but giving people actual insurance (not "supplemental insurance" that just cover a couple doctor's visits or scam insurances with a high deductible and low lifetime cap) is a major improvement. I haven't heard of this government healthcare that covers 30 million people that we currently have, do you have more details on that?
Republicans never showed any serious willingness to help with the process. They were caught up in the Tea Party movement and the idea that anything coming from Obama was the devil's work.
The plans the Republicans provided as alternatives were ineffective. They didn't do anything to help cover the tens of millions of uninsured, and they didn't do anything to control long term health costs. Typically they would cut short term health costs while at the same time cutting benefits and coverage to the poor and elderly.
But it started from a Republican idea previously implemented by a Republican governor. The absurdity of the whole thing is that Republicans would not even try to work on supporting an idea that they came up with!
The metal hand force thingy was one part that didn't fit in with the book. Sure it could be explained by magnets or whatever technology, but the controls for the battledomes were suppose to just unfreeze the suits.
In the book there were multiple battledomes attached to the station that rotated slightly. Bean catches on to this to figure out that the humans have gravity control technology to make them weightless (which the obtained from the aliens). It's suppose to be a secret, not something you learn the first day. Ender learns about their gravity control when they get to the base created by the aliens which was suppose to be on an asteroid that should have much lower gravity.
I think the point is to emulate the movie V for Vendetta (where the mask was used by millions of people upset with the government) rather than the actual Guy Fawkes. In the movie it was quite successful.
Slashdot Mirror
But which of them would want to make a dirty bomb? Not really helpful for a drug cartel or corrupt official - only a terrorist wanting to make an area uninhabitable.
Often it's also "What side will keep me in office?" in which case calling helps.
Point 3: the transaction is deemed to take place at the location of the business. That is the only workable way to do it: the transaction doesn't take place at the purchaser's location, because companies would have to keep track of tens of thousands of individual taxing districts throughout the country, and put up with tens of thousands of different sets of regulations concerning how to collect and distribute the taxes. That won't work. Even today, when computers could tell you what the taxes are, keeping track of how much tax to collect, and all the different reporting and payment requirements, would only be possible for giant corporations. Small companies would be out of business.
There's software that does it - even a small business can do it. What a small business can't do as easily as a large one is "relocate" its headquarters to a state with no sales tax (rent a one room office with mailing address there).
To make matters worse, they own most of our debt
That's not true in any sense. The US owns most of its debt. China owns the largest share of foreign held debt (though less than 1/4 of that). Altogether they hold less than 10% of the US debt.
Vista, of course - a solid failure.
Well they had a nice name for it - guess they only spend money on marketing OR development.
But in that case you also have to throw in shipping costs as well which aren't a factor for ebooks
Yeah, if you believe United Nations' reports on the matter.
Why believe the UN? Just look at satellite images of the North Pole. Plenty of non-UN come to the same conclusion.
Yeah, right. Wake me up, when Al Gore sells his — recently purchased — ocean front villa and moves to the hills.
He's got a few years before he should be worried - the places in trouble are those only a few feet above sea level.
Bzzz! Wrong ... Revising history again.
Did you read the article you linked or just picked the first google result? Even that article agrees corn isn't a great choice for fuel. There might be something to be said for other types of ethanol as fuel, but you'll find the majority of scientists (or those that have done research into the matter - yourself included) agree that corn isn't helping. If it weren't for the money going to farmers (and the promise of energy independence) do you think we'd really have these subsidies?
Oh, another wonderful quote... The world-destroying lightbulbs — Edison (and Tesla) laughing sadly.
I didn't think I'd have to spell out everything so much - the lightbulbs are just one example of something that uses electricity. We have better ones now that use less electricity and save you money! Using lots of electricity is bad because our electricity comes from sources that release a lot of gases that lead to global warming. Global warming is bad. The lightbulbs themselves are OK.
This might frighten you, but the government is coercing you to do lots of stuff you probably don't like. Did you know that they are COERCING you not to run over pedestrians at crosswalks? Crazy right! When will this tyranny end!
This is not about me — you'd do better next time, if you refrain from outright ad-hominems...
It's about everyone, you included. Saying you're not going to do anything about global warming was an observation based on your posts, not an attack on your person. Are you going to do something? Seems you won't accept even basic facts about the planet (ice/sea levels, temperature, CO2, etc) and assume that if you don't like the ones you read, then they must be false, without doing any research on your own.
Unless there are government grants to be had for not correcting oneself. Hence the infamous "hide the decline".
In that case, the science was still accurate, but the politicians would get confused. Multiple reviews have shown there to be nothing to be corrected.
In any case, the sole measure of science quality is the reliability of its predictions, and in the case of Global Warming, err., pardon me, Climate Change the passionately-made predictions stubbornly fail to materialize: icebergs fail to melt, waters fail to rise, etc.
"Global Warming" is still an accurate description. You can check my previous post to see the graph showing global temperatures rising. Those predictions have actually materialized. The Arctic (and icebergs) are melting, sea levels rise, etc. Just because you ignore global warming and its effects, doesn't mean it's not happening.
Urged? That would've been fine. How about coerced — and outright forced?
You missed the "urge" stage - things have been getting a bit more urgent so you're not being allowed to destroy the world anymore. No one's forcing you to use bulbs with mercury in them - there are plenty of alternatives.
Neither of these two activities has anything to do with global warming directly. I think, you messed up your "climate change" talking points with the more general anti-Capitalism ones...
By mining, I was referring to mining for coal/natural gas (large sources of global warming) . By factories I was referring to the boilers and machinery used in large factories the emit gases contributing to global warming. Didn't think I'd have to be that specific...
Things like corn ethanol aren't about helping global warming - they're about subsidizing farmers and energy independence.
Sure it may be a little inconvenient that your light bulb costs $1.20 instead of $0.60, but you know what's even more inconvenient? Superstorms, flooding, excessive heat, the list goes on... When members of our society think that their savings on lightbulbs are worth destroying the world over, sometimes we have to coerce them to do the right thing.
It's obvious you would never do anything to prevent global warming. You don't believe in it despite the overwhelming evidence and it looks like you'd be the type to burn tires just to spite people that like the environment.
The climate isn't a consistent thing, there will be outliers - the period in the 1880's is one of them. The issue is the average is going up, while the standard deviation is going down, so we're getting a higher number of storms, but we're getting them every year, not just once every 25/50 years. Note the density in recent years compared to historic in the graph of hurricanes per year.
NOAA recently released a report detailing 12 major weather events we've been having (droughts, floods, storms) and their link to climate. There's yet to be a "debunking" of this that uses science instead of conspiracy theories.
The great thing about science is that it corrects itself when it's wrong - hence why the global cooling theories were overturned and replaced with the more accurate global warming. Now, while global warming is happening , it confuses some because it causes more shifts in climate often resulting in colder temperatures (or more snow), so even though the global temperature on average is rising, there are pockets of cold. The models also show this to produce more extreme weather events as shown in the NOAA report above.
The labels may vary, but the proposed action is the same - citizens are urged to change to cleaner energy sources. The libertarians should love this idea, because renewables mean they can be completely independent from utilities or governments and provide their own sources of power with solar or wind. The ones that get hurt are the poor little guy strip-mining a mountain or running a factory.
It's not about control, it's about moving to better energy sources. The first step is education, but there have always been greedy people that don't care what they're doing to everyone else - the same type that output poison into the river killing everything. Then the big government has to come in and tell them that it's not OK to be killing everything.
They already use the corporate email server for corporate emails. They're just trying push them from using the Outlook client to the webmail client. I doubt "HR" has access to webmail, but not the email server.
So they can exchange them for other currancies
I did like the summary's descriptions of events. Solyndra went bankrupt in 2011 and 'coincidentally' prices plummeted at the same time. China heavily subsidizes their businesses, so it's only fair we do the same (or put in place restrictions/tariffs) unless we want the "free market" to wipe out our companies.
I think it means "third-party" in relation to Chrome, not PDFs
It's not possible for there to be DRM in my chair either, but that doesn't really add much to the conversation. Sure we could add digital locks to your car, but the issue is with new cars and if it's going to be a trend.
So just because something might break means we shouldn't use it? I know that the use of different tools in woodshop gave me much more ways to work on my projects, and even broken parts gave insight into how they worked and how to repair them. For instance, film projectors stuttering is most often due to damaged film or faulty loop sizes.
$120,000 per year is only around $500 per work day (~$330/day). You don't have to have a large business to hit that amount
FACT: The first attempt at Healthcare reform was during the Clinton era
Incorrect. There have been numerous attempts at health care reform - we got medicaid and medicare from some of them. Also, the insurance companies were mostly against the Clinton era plan.
FACT: Obamacare was done in much the same way, except that Obama had a majority in both houses.
Obamacare was started with a Republican plan and cooperating with insurance companies. Republicans could have been included if they wanted health care reform instead of to destroy Obama. They obviously didn't since they wasted 8 years.
FACT: Romney care started with open doors, and three years of bipartisan meetings, where all sides had a seat at the table, and contributed.
Yep, so good thing Obamacare is based on the that.
FACT: No major piece of social legislation of this size has ever been passed the way ObamaCare was. Not ever. Not once.
Probably true, but likewise, no party has been so resistant to working with the majority party. Ever.
FACT: Romney Care was implemented slowly, is not a mandate to purchase insurance, and did not result in the cancellation of existing health plans. Romney care is NOT single payer.
ObamaCare has been implemented over a few years too - it's also definitely not single payer (that'd be a huge improvement). You may not be familiar with the plans though. RomneyCare certainly does mandate people to purchase insurance (we have to pay a tax penalty if we don't have it). Some plans were canceled under RomneyCare because they were made illegal in the state.
A similar thing is happening with ObamaCare. The law stated people wouldn't have to lose their insurance that they had before the law was passed. The insurance companies noticed a loophole that they could change people's insurance plans between when the law was passed and when it went into effect to avoid that part of the law. Then they could send out all these cancellation notices because the intermediate plans didn't meet the standards.
Sounds like you had crappy insurance before if it wasn't ACA compliant. Did you have low lifetime caps or something like that? I don't know a single person here in MA that had their plan canceled and people around here are very happy with their health care (in general).
It's easy to find people getting better insurance. Just look for sob stories of people who lost their crappy "supplemental insurance" or scam insurance - then look for a follow up on the same people where they actually find out what they can get. You may be living somewhere that had very lax laws to begin with, but once you move to better insurance plans, people will be happy.
If the Republicans were working on actual health care solutions instead of the pointless and constant "repeal Obamacare", they might get some support (well aside from the crazy "legitimate rape" types). Really they should be working on "Amending ObamaCare", and not just in a way that removes funding. All major legislation goes through amendments to fix issues with it, but thanks to the obstructionism, that hasn't been possible.
You don't see any similarities between the Republican created idea (implemented in Massachusetts) where citizens are all required to have health insurance, and the ACA where citizens are required to have health insurance? Do we really have to go through the years of bipartisan meetings every time we look at the issue?
But subsidizing insurance for people unable afford it comes close. Forcing insurance providers to provide real plans that aren't just available to scam people out of money without providing care helps too. There are plenty of cases where people discover that they can get a real insurance plan on the health care exchange for less money than they were paying for their scam plan.
These people that aren't able to afford it aren't just going to stay out of the medical market. They're going to get sick and run up huge bills they can pay.
Better preventative care is likely to bring down long term costs, but that's really a side effect of insuring everyone. The main point was that a health care plan should attempt to tackle the major problems, either the number of people insured or controlling the increase in health costs.
You can find weird ways to skew it, but giving people actual insurance (not "supplemental insurance" that just cover a couple doctor's visits or scam insurances with a high deductible and low lifetime cap) is a major improvement. I haven't heard of this government healthcare that covers 30 million people that we currently have, do you have more details on that?
Republicans never showed any serious willingness to help with the process. They were caught up in the Tea Party movement and the idea that anything coming from Obama was the devil's work.
The plans the Republicans provided as alternatives were ineffective. They didn't do anything to help cover the tens of millions of uninsured, and they didn't do anything to control long term health costs. Typically they would cut short term health costs while at the same time cutting benefits and coverage to the poor and elderly.
But it started from a Republican idea previously implemented by a Republican governor. The absurdity of the whole thing is that Republicans would not even try to work on supporting an idea that they came up with!
Pretty sure they're called "Buggers" because they look like giant bugs.
The metal hand force thingy was one part that didn't fit in with the book. Sure it could be explained by magnets or whatever technology, but the controls for the battledomes were suppose to just unfreeze the suits.
In the book there were multiple battledomes attached to the station that rotated slightly. Bean catches on to this to figure out that the humans have gravity control technology to make them weightless (which the obtained from the aliens). It's suppose to be a secret, not something you learn the first day. Ender learns about their gravity control when they get to the base created by the aliens which was suppose to be on an asteroid that should have much lower gravity.
I think the point is to emulate the movie V for Vendetta (where the mask was used by millions of people upset with the government) rather than the actual Guy Fawkes. In the movie it was quite successful.