I think you're mixing up cause and effect there. Which is more likely: that owning a gun magically causes you to be more at risk or that you already are at risk and thus get a gun?
No, that's exactly not what they're arguing. They are arguing that they should pay less taxes which is fine. Arguing for lower taxes for one self is not equivalent to ask for raised taxes for everyone else.
If it was completely impossible to slash a dollar off the state budget you might have a point. But then you'd also have to argue that state budgets are always balanced and the latter is just ridiculous.
I must admit that I didn't make it past the paragraph I objected to. But it's not clear from the post itself that you were referring to the entire post rather than the preceding sentence.
Certainly there is such a thing as optimal size and that is most likely larger than the normal mom and pop. If there was a way to find out that size one wouldn't really need the free market so the only thing one can attempt is constant expansion. Unless, of course, the owner for some reason wants to remain at a certain size.
Kind of like IBM's continual growth since its inception? No that's not right. Kind of like IBM's bankruptcy after it shrank in size? No that's not right either.
You may have confused must have annual growth in monetary units not corrected with inflation to not eventually dissappear with must have real annual growth. But there is no need for any business to actually grow perpetually or at all. To say that is not supported by logic or empirical evidence.
We theoretically have this in Sweden and I can guarantee you don't want it.
The part about having any evidence admittable in court works fine. The second part never works or at least I have never heard of any cop/prosecutor getting in any trouble for unlawfully collected evidence. No matter what you do you're fucked but at least in the US you get less fucked than in most countries.
I remember that my entire field of vision used to shake due to chewing or fast shaking of the head when I was younger. Nowadays the most I can get is a slight jitter in the periphery of my FOV.
I've always interpreted this as resulting from "practice" of my inbuilt "anti-shake system" rather than some sort of degradation of perception. So my question is how do you know if day to day jitter is a result of (too) good perception or a deficiency of the "anti-shake system" or are the two things the same?
Yes, but they can't get a tap without doing any paper work. They might not get prosecuted but someone outside their group knows about the spying. If they can just load up on GSM gear and set up near their target then no-one will know.
But that assumes that only lawful taps or at least taps with warrants take place. With an insecure GSM standard any government or resourceful organization can spy on anyone anywhere at any time without doing any pesky paper work.
Exactly how much research into the subject have you done to achieve a little bit of a balanced perspective?
I'm guessing none because the only studies I've seen have pointed in the direction that medical patents do not encourage innovation or even a strong industry. Also, you're assuming that competition is a lesser motivator than profits.
Has there been any newly released studies on wikipedia? I've only seen studies which came to the conclusion that wikipedia is as or more accurate than conventional encyklopedias.
Why are you worried? The same sort of things you've just said have probably been said in connection with movie theaters, jazz, comic books, gangsta rap, role playing, or just about any then new phenomenon. But this thing is different you say. They've all used the same exact same answer as a defense. And they've presented just about as much evidence in support of their opinions as you have.
No one complaining about a new social phenomenon (for lack of a better word) has ever been right.
Yeah sure, being exposed to the things on your list is purely binary. Either you are exposed or you're not. There's no such thing as frequency and severity...
Slashdot Mirror
If you look at history you will find that demands of equality has led to a hundred million dead or so in communist dictatorships...
I think you're mixing up cause and effect there. Which is more likely: that owning a gun magically causes you to be more at risk or that you already are at risk and thus get a gun?
No, that's exactly not what they're arguing. They are arguing that they should pay less taxes which is fine. Arguing for lower taxes for one self is not equivalent to ask for raised taxes for everyone else.
If it was completely impossible to slash a dollar off the state budget you might have a point. But then you'd also have to argue that state budgets are always balanced and the latter is just ridiculous.
Since when have corporations, being all corporationy, argued for generally increased taxes for the public?
Show me one instance of such a thing occurring unless you want to be considered completely retarded.
So what you are saying is that all things considered you'd rather be a member then not? Then stop your complaining, you silly person.
If the organization is behaving in manner that is opposite to your wishes, why be a part of it?
Silent hill is a decent movie on its own. I haven't played any of the games so I don't have any problem with them raping the game canon.
I must admit that I didn't make it past the paragraph I objected to. But it's not clear from the post itself that you were referring to the entire post rather than the preceding sentence.
Certainly there is such a thing as optimal size and that is most likely larger than the normal mom and pop. If there was a way to find out that size one wouldn't really need the free market so the only thing one can attempt is constant expansion. Unless, of course, the owner for some reason wants to remain at a certain size.
You _must_ become bigger or perish?
Kind of like IBM's continual growth since its inception? No that's not right. Kind of like IBM's bankruptcy after it shrank in size? No that's not right either.
You may have confused must have annual growth in monetary units not corrected with inflation to not eventually dissappear with must have real annual growth. But there is no need for any business to actually grow perpetually or at all. To say that is not supported by logic or empirical evidence.
We theoretically have this in Sweden and I can guarantee you don't want it.
The part about having any evidence admittable in court works fine. The second part never works or at least I have never heard of any cop/prosecutor getting in any trouble for unlawfully collected evidence. No matter what you do you're fucked but at least in the US you get less fucked than in most countries.
How the fuck is the plenty false because people purposely disregard needed foodstuffs?
I remember that my entire field of vision used to shake due to chewing or fast shaking of the head when I was younger. Nowadays the most I can get is a slight jitter in the periphery of my FOV.
I've always interpreted this as resulting from "practice" of my inbuilt "anti-shake system" rather than some sort of degradation of perception. So my question is how do you know if day to day jitter is a result of (too) good perception or a deficiency of the "anti-shake system" or are the two things the same?
Yes, but they can't get a tap without doing any paper work. They might not get prosecuted but someone outside their group knows about the spying. If they can just load up on GSM gear and set up near their target then no-one will know.
That argument is so superficial it shouldn't even be an argument. And people like you think fox is retarded?
But that assumes that only lawful taps or at least taps with warrants take place. With an insecure GSM standard any government or resourceful organization can spy on anyone anywhere at any time without doing any pesky paper work.
Exactly how much research into the subject have you done to achieve a little bit of a balanced perspective?
I'm guessing none because the only studies I've seen have pointed in the direction that medical patents do not encourage innovation or even a strong industry. Also, you're assuming that competition is a lesser motivator than profits.
Here's one: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstnew.htm
Has there been any newly released studies on wikipedia? I've only seen studies which came to the conclusion that wikipedia is as or more accurate than conventional encyklopedias.
Why are you worried? The same sort of things you've just said have probably been said in connection with movie theaters, jazz, comic books, gangsta rap, role playing, or just about any then new phenomenon. But this thing is different you say. They've all used the same exact same answer as a defense. And they've presented just about as much evidence in support of their opinions as you have.
No one complaining about a new social phenomenon (for lack of a better word) has ever been right.
OK. Your statement wasn't as ignorant as it seemed. Good.
Eugenics was very popular in the social democratic party in Sweden. A flair for eugenics was in no way exclusive to the right. Want to try again?
Let's say I accept that national socialism with all its socialism is right wing, what the hell does the holocaust have to do with science?
Can you come up with a single thing "the right" has done that even approaches what was done in the soviet union with Lysenkoism?
How are the currect practises horrendous from a clean and safe food perspective? If it's so bad why do we love longer and healthier than we used to?
I venture we have less food poisoning, less contaminants and generally better everything than we did earlier.
But that's just weather. It's not climate.
Yeah sure, being exposed to the things on your list is purely binary. Either you are exposed or you're not. There's no such thing as frequency and severity...