The GP is either ignorant or petulant (or both). The EU will arrange free trade with the UK, like they had pre-EU back in the EEC days. After all, the UK is a top-3 trading partner for most of the EU (7%+ for France, 7%+ for Germany, 9%+ for Spain and Netherlands, etc). Tariffs will backfire as those countries will see a pretty significant cut in their own exports as the UK retaliates. Each of those countries (save Germany) exports more per GDP than the UK does reciprocally. Implement higher tariffs, and the repercussions will be more severe on the EU than on the UK.
The UK was never a part of the Schengen agreement and thus did not have the freedom of movement that exists in the rest of the EU. There won't be any change in immigration in the UK as a result - because there was no EU regulations over immigration in the first place.
The UK is typically one of the top-3 export destinations for goods and services from Spain, France, Germany, Netherlands, etc. Yes, wise to slap massive tariffs on someone who single-handedly consumes 9% (or more) of your total exports. Start a trade war with one of your top-3 trading partners - great!
Yep, best to retaliate against an economy bigger than France, twice the size of Spain, bigger than all in Europe save Germany. That'll show them! After all, the UK only imports 7% of France's exports. 10% of Germany's exports. 7.3% of Spain's exports. 9% of the Dutch exports. Yep, throw up those regulations and tariffs and put one of your top trading partners on notice. That'll show them!
What benefits were there to being a member of the EU, relative to being a member of the EEC? What did the EU bring that wasn't already basically in place with just the EEC?
Note that whilst I am not a citizen of an EU country, I've been traveling to and in Europe for 25 years. And pre-EU, I had freedom of movement. Post-EU, the same thing. And the ONLY time I had a surprise "passport inspection" on an international train (Paris to Brussels) was in 1999, after the EU was created (we stopped in the middle of nowhere, several police got on board and asked to see everyone's passport. They departed at the next tiny nowhere stop with 2 men in handcuffs).
That's WHY it's retained its position as the financial capital of Europe. It's "outside" the major monetary policies of the EU and thus cannot be "spoiled" but any of the EU members. That doesn't change...
China competes - rather well, considering it's about as big as the US in terms of the economy. Perhaps you can explain a trade union that is dominated by the USA, how it dominates, and what the downside is? From what I see - our tariffs are almost always lower than anyone else's tariffs, and we have to deal with quotas when we do not apply them ourselves.
NAFTA pre-dates the EU/Euro. APEC's been around longer, with a MUCH more varied makeup (Asia, Australia, South America, North America). Trade treaties have a very good track record...
As far as a "race to the bottom", is that what we see with APEC, or NAFTA? No - we see all countries getting better overall. Enivronmental issues tend to get addressed when the populace gets wealthier (they start to worry about clean food and water after they get past the worry for any food or water).
Trade union not dominated by a single larger country: APEC.
The UK can do the same on a per-country basis. You do realize that the UK economy is larger than all in Europe except for Germany? Your position makes zero economic sense, especially since many of those countries in the EU have the UK as a main trading partner. As far as finances, they won't move - the infrastructure and PEOPLE are already in-place. The reason the UK stayed the financial hub is precisely BECAUSE it didn't jump on the Euro, it never really became part of the EU. That's why it's going to stay the financial hub as well.
Rather than taking those 27-odd nations and trying to forge a new nation, how about a simple free trade/economic cooperation treaty, along the lines of APEC, FTAA, and NAFTA? Why do you need an "EU Constitution" unless you're trying to build a new uber-nation?
Texas keeps threatening to leave, personally I'd tell them yes. Then watch as they try to pay for all of the military bases and hardware that would be removed.
If the bases and hardware was removed, why would they have to pay for it? Is that like the Expat tax of the US but applied in reverse when talking about States?
Or is it your position that the EU is effectively one nation, and what used to be countries are now States/Provinces within that new country, so you can look at the EU as one-on-one with the US? Of course, that completely explains why countries like Britain (and France, Italy, Sweden, and the Netherlands potentially looking to join)...
I'd like to see the math that gets 1000 ppm from 270 years at current consumption. We've added 100 PPM from ~1850 until now, I think you'll find it takes a LOT more than 270 years at current consumption rates to get to 1000 ppm.
But the bigger point is that we have a LOT of fossil fuels available and remaining, we're not going to run out any time soon. And yes, we should work to get off of them - but in a reasonable, sane manner. When other sources are ready, transition to them. The rush is simply a lot of feel-good activity that wastes a lot of money that would be better spent helping humanity in other ways.
About those oil reserves... In the US, in just the Green River formation (UT, WY, CO) we have a 270 YEAR proven supply at current consumption rates. And it's affordable to collect at $40/barrel (below current market cost). It's locked up by Federal decree, but we have massive reserves in that proven field alone. There are a LOT more resources available than most people imagine, but it doesn't help the "we need to eliminate 90% of the population" crowd's argument...
If the minimum wage is to be a "livable" wage, then that minimum wage is way too low in many places - and too high in others. That's the problem with a Federal minimum wage - it doesn't make sense in the vast majority of These United States. Leave it to each State to set its own minimum. Which, ideally, should be regional - for example, San Francisco should probably be $17/hr to be livable, but down in Gilroy it could be $10/hr.
Good luck doing that write off of the plan! You only get to deduct YOUR PORTION, not the whole thing, and only the portion that is 100% used for your business. Claim more - and you're setting yourself up for an audit. And $200/yr for a good accountant? Try that PER HOUR. You'll need to keep your own expenses, receipts, and costs fully documented as well (dates, amounts, copies of receipts) for that accountant to spend a few thousand to get you lowish taxes.
And that good accountant will NOT go for a 100% write off of a shared cell phone plan. Not if he's good and wants to keep his CPA license and avoid fines...
No, your battery will drain much faster than that. Because the phone is serving the music as well, so the CPU is running, you may have a 4G connection streaming, the screen will be on as you increase/decrease the volume or select the next track, memory is accessed, etc.
I realize you're just trying to dodge the point: an outboard, SECONDARY DAC and amp (yes, secondary because you HAVE to have one inside the phone for its own speaker) will always increase the power draw off the battery as compared to just using the primary DAC and amp already in the phone. And of course, to be MFi compatible, you have to have a USB (which is what the Lightning port speaks, but with the MFi wrapper around it) interface and an MFi chip (bought, of course, from Apple). You're powering two circuits (one of which is much more complex), rather than just one. But the fact is that an outboard system will always draw more, since it's redundant to already-existing systems internally.
The easiest way to do this is with the Apple Lighting Audio Module - and it pulls a constant 25 mA in addition to whatever is needed for any additional amp you want to use (their built-in amp is so-so, relatively low power and with a high output impedance). If you roll-your-own via Cypress PSoC or XMOS, you're probably around 25-35 mA continuous. Not including amplifier. Nor including the microphone bias circuit and preamplifier and ADC (you DO want to use that mic on your headphone, right? The one built into the little MFi 3 button controller?) And yes, I've done these kinds of adapters for headphone companies down here in SoCal...
This move will NOT cut power consumption - it will, in fact, increase it significantly over the current status quo (probably a solid 50 mA extra current draw). Every single time. But hey, it's more revenue and profit for Apple so it's all good, right?
Do we do that for cranes and trains and backhoes? That's the same thing... One crane replaces the work of hundreds of men. One train replaces thousands of horse-drawn carts. One backhoe will out-dig 100 men. Do we consider the effect of these machines on the labor force? No? Then we shouldn't for robots either.
Where do 1st world electronics get disassembled and disposed of? Overwhelmingly the 3rd world. This will be a 3rd world problem in 2-3 years after the release of the new audio-jack-less iPhone.
Try buying MFi chips without an approval from Apple. Go ahead. Won't work. You have to play by THEIR rules (which change every 2 months or so), prove you only work as THEY want you to work (not as your customers or you want to work - including what kinds of connectors you can mix-and-match on your device), and then pay for the MFi chip after running it through certification AT THE MANUFACTURER (not the designer - hope your factory is Apple certified!)
Slashdot Mirror
The GP is either ignorant or petulant (or both). The EU will arrange free trade with the UK, like they had pre-EU back in the EEC days. After all, the UK is a top-3 trading partner for most of the EU (7%+ for France, 7%+ for Germany, 9%+ for Spain and Netherlands, etc). Tariffs will backfire as those countries will see a pretty significant cut in their own exports as the UK retaliates. Each of those countries (save Germany) exports more per GDP than the UK does reciprocally. Implement higher tariffs, and the repercussions will be more severe on the EU than on the UK.
The UK was never a part of the Schengen agreement and thus did not have the freedom of movement that exists in the rest of the EU. There won't be any change in immigration in the UK as a result - because there was no EU regulations over immigration in the first place.
Not to mention the UK was never part of the Schengen Agreement, so freedom of movement was NOT guaranteed in the first place...
The UK is typically one of the top-3 export destinations for goods and services from Spain, France, Germany, Netherlands, etc. Yes, wise to slap massive tariffs on someone who single-handedly consumes 9% (or more) of your total exports. Start a trade war with one of your top-3 trading partners - great!
It's OK. They are in the UK and so their team using maths to solve the red tapes problem will be a non-issue..
The UK never had Shengen in the first place, why would they have to have it now?
Yep, best to retaliate against an economy bigger than France, twice the size of Spain, bigger than all in Europe save Germany. That'll show them! After all, the UK only imports 7% of France's exports. 10% of Germany's exports. 7.3% of Spain's exports. 9% of the Dutch exports. Yep, throw up those regulations and tariffs and put one of your top trading partners on notice. That'll show them!
What benefits were there to being a member of the EU, relative to being a member of the EEC? What did the EU bring that wasn't already basically in place with just the EEC?
Note that whilst I am not a citizen of an EU country, I've been traveling to and in Europe for 25 years. And pre-EU, I had freedom of movement. Post-EU, the same thing. And the ONLY time I had a surprise "passport inspection" on an international train (Paris to Brussels) was in 1999, after the EU was created (we stopped in the middle of nowhere, several police got on board and asked to see everyone's passport. They departed at the next tiny nowhere stop with 2 men in handcuffs).
That's WHY it's retained its position as the financial capital of Europe. It's "outside" the major monetary policies of the EU and thus cannot be "spoiled" but any of the EU members. That doesn't change...
China competes - rather well, considering it's about as big as the US in terms of the economy. Perhaps you can explain a trade union that is dominated by the USA, how it dominates, and what the downside is? From what I see - our tariffs are almost always lower than anyone else's tariffs, and we have to deal with quotas when we do not apply them ourselves.
NAFTA pre-dates the EU/Euro. APEC's been around longer, with a MUCH more varied makeup (Asia, Australia, South America, North America). Trade treaties have a very good track record...
As far as a "race to the bottom", is that what we see with APEC, or NAFTA? No - we see all countries getting better overall. Enivronmental issues tend to get addressed when the populace gets wealthier (they start to worry about clean food and water after they get past the worry for any food or water).
Trade union not dominated by a single larger country: APEC.
The UK can do the same on a per-country basis. You do realize that the UK economy is larger than all in Europe except for Germany? Your position makes zero economic sense, especially since many of those countries in the EU have the UK as a main trading partner. As far as finances, they won't move - the infrastructure and PEOPLE are already in-place. The reason the UK stayed the financial hub is precisely BECAUSE it didn't jump on the Euro, it never really became part of the EU. That's why it's going to stay the financial hub as well.
Rather than taking those 27-odd nations and trying to forge a new nation, how about a simple free trade/economic cooperation treaty, along the lines of APEC, FTAA, and NAFTA? Why do you need an "EU Constitution" unless you're trying to build a new uber-nation?
It's also the same as giving a 10% cut to all purchases of goods and services from the UK...
Texas keeps threatening to leave, personally I'd tell them yes. Then watch as they try to pay for all of the military bases and hardware that would be removed.
If the bases and hardware was removed, why would they have to pay for it? Is that like the Expat tax of the US but applied in reverse when talking about States?
It can be disputed that the EU is bigger than the US, economically. And if you want to talk "groups of countries" rather than actual countries, NAFTA (US, Canada, and Mexico) is bigger than the EU (about $2 trillion larger than the World Bank estimate of the GDP of the US). Or perhaps we should talk APEC (which includes the US and China) which is 2.5 times greater than the EU (with fewer countries, I might add)?
Or is it your position that the EU is effectively one nation, and what used to be countries are now States/Provinces within that new country, so you can look at the EU as one-on-one with the US? Of course, that completely explains why countries like Britain (and France, Italy, Sweden, and the Netherlands potentially looking to join)...
I'd like to see the math that gets 1000 ppm from 270 years at current consumption. We've added 100 PPM from ~1850 until now, I think you'll find it takes a LOT more than 270 years at current consumption rates to get to 1000 ppm.
But the bigger point is that we have a LOT of fossil fuels available and remaining, we're not going to run out any time soon. And yes, we should work to get off of them - but in a reasonable, sane manner. When other sources are ready, transition to them. The rush is simply a lot of feel-good activity that wastes a lot of money that would be better spent helping humanity in other ways.
About those oil reserves... In the US, in just the Green River formation (UT, WY, CO) we have a 270 YEAR proven supply at current consumption rates. And it's affordable to collect at $40/barrel (below current market cost). It's locked up by Federal decree, but we have massive reserves in that proven field alone. There are a LOT more resources available than most people imagine, but it doesn't help the "we need to eliminate 90% of the population" crowd's argument...
If the minimum wage is to be a "livable" wage, then that minimum wage is way too low in many places - and too high in others. That's the problem with a Federal minimum wage - it doesn't make sense in the vast majority of These United States. Leave it to each State to set its own minimum. Which, ideally, should be regional - for example, San Francisco should probably be $17/hr to be livable, but down in Gilroy it could be $10/hr.
Good luck doing that write off of the plan! You only get to deduct YOUR PORTION, not the whole thing, and only the portion that is 100% used for your business. Claim more - and you're setting yourself up for an audit. And $200/yr for a good accountant? Try that PER HOUR. You'll need to keep your own expenses, receipts, and costs fully documented as well (dates, amounts, copies of receipts) for that accountant to spend a few thousand to get you lowish taxes.
And that good accountant will NOT go for a 100% write off of a shared cell phone plan. Not if he's good and wants to keep his CPA license and avoid fines...
No, your battery will drain much faster than that. Because the phone is serving the music as well, so the CPU is running, you may have a 4G connection streaming, the screen will be on as you increase/decrease the volume or select the next track, memory is accessed, etc.
I realize you're just trying to dodge the point: an outboard, SECONDARY DAC and amp (yes, secondary because you HAVE to have one inside the phone for its own speaker) will always increase the power draw off the battery as compared to just using the primary DAC and amp already in the phone. And of course, to be MFi compatible, you have to have a USB (which is what the Lightning port speaks, but with the MFi wrapper around it) interface and an MFi chip (bought, of course, from Apple). You're powering two circuits (one of which is much more complex), rather than just one. But the fact is that an outboard system will always draw more, since it's redundant to already-existing systems internally.
The easiest way to do this is with the Apple Lighting Audio Module - and it pulls a constant 25 mA in addition to whatever is needed for any additional amp you want to use (their built-in amp is so-so, relatively low power and with a high output impedance). If you roll-your-own via Cypress PSoC or XMOS, you're probably around 25-35 mA continuous. Not including amplifier. Nor including the microphone bias circuit and preamplifier and ADC (you DO want to use that mic on your headphone, right? The one built into the little MFi 3 button controller?) And yes, I've done these kinds of adapters for headphone companies down here in SoCal...
This move will NOT cut power consumption - it will, in fact, increase it significantly over the current status quo (probably a solid 50 mA extra current draw). Every single time. But hey, it's more revenue and profit for Apple so it's all good, right?
Do we do that for cranes and trains and backhoes? That's the same thing... One crane replaces the work of hundreds of men. One train replaces thousands of horse-drawn carts. One backhoe will out-dig 100 men. Do we consider the effect of these machines on the labor force? No? Then we shouldn't for robots either.
Where do 1st world electronics get disassembled and disposed of? Overwhelmingly the 3rd world. This will be a 3rd world problem in 2-3 years after the release of the new audio-jack-less iPhone.
Try buying MFi chips without an approval from Apple. Go ahead. Won't work. You have to play by THEIR rules (which change every 2 months or so), prove you only work as THEY want you to work (not as your customers or you want to work - including what kinds of connectors you can mix-and-match on your device), and then pay for the MFi chip after running it through certification AT THE MANUFACTURER (not the designer - hope your factory is Apple certified!)
The Samsung S7 has a 3.5mm jack, and as Lil' Wayne shows, it's waterproof enough...