I think you misunderstand what the bill is trying to say. The bill is allowing the Utah government to levy a tax on any organization that rents out military property from organizations like Utah National Guard or DoD. Previously, the state of Utah would tax levy taxes against private corporations just fine. However, the NSA is a federal entity so it can't tax the NSA. What this bill does is allow the the state of Utah to tax Rocky Mountain Power and allow Rocky Mountain Power to pass on the additional costs to the NSA. Read this article for a more layman explanation of what the bill says. And to drive the point home, they specifically said this during the motion for the bill...
"We don’t tax the federal government," Mayfield explained to a Utah Senate committee March 7. "So what this bill does is tax Rocky Mountain Power and then gives them the ability to pass that on as an increase in their energy bills. So we collect an equivalent of what would have been a tax on the federal government."
"We don’t tax the federal government," Mayfield explained to a Utah Senate committee March 7. "So what this bill does is tax Rocky Mountain Power and then gives them the ability to pass that on as an increase in their energy bills. So we collect an equivalent of what would have been a tax on the federal government."
So the US government will be writing Rocky Mountain Power a check and Rocky Mountain Power will write a check to the Utah Government.
Actually, that's slightly incorrect. After reading through the articles a bit more, Utah specifically said they can't tax the federal government. So what they're doing is taxing the power company the additional 6% so that the power company can pass on the additional costs to the NSA, effectively taxing the NSA an additional 6%.
Couldn't the private company sue? WIth regards to what's going on with the NSA, this bill is being passed specifically to tax the NSA. It doesn't tax any other organization. And they waited to put this on the floor after the NSA had already begun construction. That sounds pretty unconstitutional to me.
I've worked with certain government organizations that have used really outdated systems and I can say that one of the reasons is exactly this...
in the long-term it's someone else's problem
The employees of the organization I worked with were only obligated to work there a year or two and then they'd go move to another location. If they just pushed off the task as much as they could citing lack of manpower, funds, or other resources, it'd eventually become someone else's problem.
Watch the movie In The Line Of Fire and see some ideas on how to get bullets through a metal detector. I don't think it'd be that difficult if someone actually tried.
I'm all for gun rights, but I can't see the point of building a gun that is made to be used only a few times and is made of plastic. It sounds like something that would only be used in an assassination attempt, not for self defense or hunting. It just reminds me of something like this
What gives you the impression that North Korea doesn't want to kill South Koreans? Hell, the North tortures it's own citizens. What makes you think they'll even second guess bombing the shit out of Seoul? The citizens of North Korea probably have no animosity towards the South, but they're not the ones dropping bombs. And I don't know which South Koreans you're talking to, but I know plenty that would love for us to go and destroy the North.
Btw, Living in South Korea doesn't mean anything. I live in South Korea too and I'd beg to differ with your position.
since North and South Korea are culturally very similar, speak the same language, and are the same people basically
I'm sorry, but you seem to be extremely uninformed. Their language isn't completely different, but it differs enough that a North Korean would only understand about 60% of what a South Korean says.
A war like that takes months of planning and logistics if it's going to go well.
You make it seem as if this hasn't already happened. We're still in a state of war with them. I'm stationed here on the Korean peninsula and we go through peninsula wide exercises twice a year to simulate a war here. On top of that, we go through tactical training at a unit level even more frequently than that.
If the company hire a PI to do an investigation, doesn't Facebook already have provisions in their TOS that says they'll give up access to the account?
How would it not be a cure if it stops the virus from replicating? The existing virus in the body would eventually die off, thus leaving no more infection.
And you are jumping to conclusions calling me anti-science. I am very much pro-science. There have been studies already done that show a potential for harm when ingesting GMO crops, such as the Pusztai affair and the recent study by the French scientists. And before you go off discounting the French study, read this rebuttal first. And no, I don't fear hybrid plants. They're not making DNA combinations occur that are completely unnatural. So how is it irrational if there are studies that show a possibility that these plants can cause health complications but no one has attempted duplicating the studies to show otherwise?
I don't know all the studies that need to be done, but I do know that no long term studies have been done for the other GMO crops.. Again, you're arguing a point for vitamin-A enriched rice, which is great, but that doesn't mean all the varieties of GMO are ok. Where are the studies showing those are ok?
I've read about that rice, and that's great. I'd imagine people would go out looking for that type of rice at the supermarket. However, just because this one product is better for us doesn't mean all the others are good for us or even just ok for us. If the GMO companies are worried about how its consumers might perceive their food, why don't they just conduct the studies that we're asking for to quell our fears?
Can it? Sure. Is it being used to do that? I don't believe it is. If that's your argument, then provide me a study that shows how GMO foods are being used to end world hunger. Last I checked, we had more than enough food prior to GMO foods being produced to end world hunger.
Actually, I've seen studies that show gravity exists with a doubt. I've seen studies that show carcinogens cause cancer, without a doubt. But let me redact the without a doubt part because someone is always allergic to some kind of food. Show me any long term study that shows each any of the GMO crops out there are safe enough, because that's actually how science works.
Slashdot Mirror
"We don’t tax the federal government," Mayfield explained to a Utah Senate committee March 7. "So what this bill does is tax Rocky Mountain Power and then gives them the ability to pass that on as an increase in their energy bills. So we collect an equivalent of what would have been a tax on the federal government."
"We don’t tax the federal government," Mayfield explained to a Utah Senate committee March 7. "So what this bill does is tax Rocky Mountain Power and then gives them the ability to pass that on as an increase in their energy bills. So we collect an equivalent of what would have been a tax on the federal government."
So the US government will be writing Rocky Mountain Power a check and Rocky Mountain Power will write a check to the Utah Government.
Actually, that's slightly incorrect. After reading through the articles a bit more, Utah specifically said they can't tax the federal government. So what they're doing is taxing the power company the additional 6% so that the power company can pass on the additional costs to the NSA, effectively taxing the NSA an additional 6%.
Couldn't the private company sue? WIth regards to what's going on with the NSA, this bill is being passed specifically to tax the NSA. It doesn't tax any other organization. And they waited to put this on the floor after the NSA had already begun construction. That sounds pretty unconstitutional to me.
in the long-term it's someone else's problem
The employees of the organization I worked with were only obligated to work there a year or two and then they'd go move to another location. If they just pushed off the task as much as they could citing lack of manpower, funds, or other resources, it'd eventually become someone else's problem.
Watch the movie In The Line Of Fire and see some ideas on how to get bullets through a metal detector. I don't think it'd be that difficult if someone actually tried.
I'm all for gun rights, but I can't see the point of building a gun that is made to be used only a few times and is made of plastic. It sounds like something that would only be used in an assassination attempt, not for self defense or hunting. It just reminds me of something like this
Likewise. For $7.99, I paid just to support their awesome troll on the pirates. I don't even have plans to play the game.
What gives you the impression that North Korea doesn't want to kill South Koreans? Hell, the North tortures it's own citizens. What makes you think they'll even second guess bombing the shit out of Seoul? The citizens of North Korea probably have no animosity towards the South, but they're not the ones dropping bombs. And I don't know which South Koreans you're talking to, but I know plenty that would love for us to go and destroy the North.
Btw, Living in South Korea doesn't mean anything. I live in South Korea too and I'd beg to differ with your position.
since North and South Korea are culturally very similar, speak the same language, and are the same people basically
I'm sorry, but you seem to be extremely uninformed. Their language isn't completely different, but it differs enough that a North Korean would only understand about 60% of what a South Korean says.
A war like that takes months of planning and logistics if it's going to go well.
You make it seem as if this hasn't already happened. We're still in a state of war with them. I'm stationed here on the Korean peninsula and we go through peninsula wide exercises twice a year to simulate a war here. On top of that, we go through tactical training at a unit level even more frequently than that.
If the company hire a PI to do an investigation, doesn't Facebook already have provisions in their TOS that says they'll give up access to the account?
Search worked so much better when they had Google Pigeons doing the search instead of all these servers.
this is the one i'd vote for. i second that
Wow, that is asinine.
If clinical trials are successful, one treatment could be effective enough to replace the multiple therapies they currently need.
it wouldn't actually be a cure
How would it not be a cure if it stops the virus from replicating? The existing virus in the body would eventually die off, thus leaving no more infection.
And you are jumping to conclusions calling me anti-science. I am very much pro-science. There have been studies already done that show a potential for harm when ingesting GMO crops, such as the Pusztai affair and the recent study by the French scientists. And before you go off discounting the French study, read this rebuttal first. And no, I don't fear hybrid plants. They're not making DNA combinations occur that are completely unnatural. So how is it irrational if there are studies that show a possibility that these plants can cause health complications but no one has attempted duplicating the studies to show otherwise?
I don't know all the studies that need to be done, but I do know that no long term studies have been done for the other GMO crops.. Again, you're arguing a point for vitamin-A enriched rice, which is great, but that doesn't mean all the varieties of GMO are ok. Where are the studies showing those are ok?
I've read about that rice, and that's great. I'd imagine people would go out looking for that type of rice at the supermarket. However, just because this one product is better for us doesn't mean all the others are good for us or even just ok for us. If the GMO companies are worried about how its consumers might perceive their food, why don't they just conduct the studies that we're asking for to quell our fears?
Can it? Sure. Is it being used to do that? I don't believe it is. If that's your argument, then provide me a study that shows how GMO foods are being used to end world hunger. Last I checked, we had more than enough food prior to GMO foods being produced to end world hunger.
Actually, I've seen studies that show gravity exists with a doubt. I've seen studies that show carcinogens cause cancer, without a doubt. But let me redact the without a doubt part because someone is always allergic to some kind of food. Show me any long term study that shows each any of the GMO crops out there are safe enough, because that's actually how science works.
Maybe you should read this before you completely discount that French study...
Although the French study might not meet scientific standards, apparently neither do Monsanto's studies that show GM crops are safe http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/28/study-gm-maize-cancer. I think if anything, the French study warrants further investigation.
mod parent up!