I wonder why none of the bailout so far have worked? The only solution can be throw more money at the problem, obviously. In fact, lets be sure to give all that money to the non-competative companies so they can pay huge bonuses while those who are doing well get their taxes raised.
Seriously, read Atlas Shrugged. This is not sustainable, and it WILL cause the United States to COLLAPSE. Unlike Rome, the barbarians aren't at the gates, they're in charge.
Sort of like how people didn't have to pay down payments on their mortgages? Remember that whole "housing bubble" that happened because of that? Maybe we shouldn't do that again.
Environmental legislation imposes on economic freedoms. You can't be free if you can't survive (ie due to not having a job). Jobs disappear when people can't open businesses due to silly environmental regulations (oh noes, a blind worm that lives in one creek might go extinct!).
It is fundamentally impossible to prove that man is causing global warming, simply because we don't have a large enough sample size (n=1), and worse, no control. We haven't even been observing the system we have now for long enough to make any real conclusions. 100 years worth of systematic observations is like having a single data point and trying to extrapolate a trend. Its impossible. When you take into effect the further possibility of bias due to the placement of sensors around areas that shifted from rural to urban over the last century, you invalidate much of your data.
That's not to say that the world isn't getting warmer, but there are natural cycles that have to be accounted for as well. The simple fact is that we don't even have 1% of the data we need to even START drawing conclusions.
Some people want to impose various restrictions on everyone due to this "overwhelming" amount of evidence, when the fact is that it is little more than scaremongering, just like the Republicans and their "terists". The fact is that there isn't a consensus among scientists, it's just that those who don't buy into it are singled out for ridicule. It's nothing but a bunch of handwaving.
Calls for more taxes on gas screw the poor. Economic activity is dropping like a stone already. There is no need to depress it further. Doing so will wind up doing more damage (as people start going to the woods for fuel en masse, for example). If they really wanted to slow carbon emissions, they would lift the restrictions on new nuclear reactors, and lift the ban on reprocessing spent fuel rods. You could probably eliminate 90% of the carbon output of the nation in 40 years.
And yes, IAAS (I am a scientist). Sorry for the rant. I see this nation headed for a cliff, and I get pissed off that there is nothing I can do about it, because both major parties are working equally hard to push us over.
Mod parent up. This country needs to get it's shit straight and stop trampling the rights of the people, or there WILL be riots, more and worse than the ones we have seen so far, and there may well be insurrection. At this point, I would welcome it, so long as it pointed toward a return to the constitution.
Even that isn't any protection anymore, considering the case of the DART cop that shot a guy who was lying face down on the ground in front of a train full of witnesses, apparently in cold blood. I imagine that if he had cooperated with investigators, not resigned from his post, and not tried to flee he probably would have gotten off. Who knows, he still might.
Actually, yes. Even a thin liner will stand up to any amount of vacuum, so long as it has a tough enough backing that it won't be pulled through any holes, causing the material to tear. The pores in these bricks would be nanoscale. No way plastic is getting pulled through holes that small.
Actually, it does. Why don't all corporations move to Somalia, where there is no tax (due to there being no central government)? They don't because the cumulative cost of doing business is too high when you factor in things like security and lack of infrastructure. There is a happy medium, which will be necessarily different for different for different industries.
Having lower taxes is good, because it attracts companies, which pay taxes (at an admittedly lower rate). When more companies come, you will often see an overall increase in your tax revenue, despite the much lower tax rate. This is not the only benefit, however. You have to remember that these corporations are also paying wages, which will often be higher than most other jobs in the area. Indeed, as more corporations move in, the demand for workers becomes higher, and so the wages rise, again creating more tax revenue for the state. Due to that effect, you could easily have a 0% corporate tax rate while still increasing your revenue. If the companies that move in are high tech or require skilled labor of some sort (especially if it is in a field where the workers are highly mobile), then you will often see that the wages paid will go WAY up, to about the same level as they are internationally.
As to the possibility of all companies moving to the one place with the lowest taxes, then the tax rates in ALL the other nations would have to be through the roof, as with fewer companies around, wages in those countries would fall as there are more workers chasing fewer jobs.
Your last statement is just silly. If low taxes didn't attract the people creating wealth, then no-one would ever lower taxes. We'd all be living in a worker's "paradise".
That's wrong on several levels. First, there are many variables other than the tax rate, although the tax rate is VERY important to most companies when choosing a location.
These include the level of education of the populace, the amount of local corruption, the ability to overcome language barriers, etc.
Secondly, there is generally a pretty large cost associated with moving operations between nations (as I believe was mentioned somewhere above). All other things being equal, there must have been
a pretty damn big jump in the tax rate to drive them out of the country.
This is one of the big failings of contemporary liberalism. They think that productive enterprises should be forced to do what the government thinks is right, spending whatever amount of money is
required to meet all of the rules and regulations they impose. When those burdens become too large, companies rightly pack up shop and leave. Classical liberalism calls for less government
involvement, and allows for more wealth creation. Free markets are the most efficient form of regulation. The recent so called failure of the "free market" was actually a failure of planned economics,
by the way. I only say that because modern liberals love to say that the free market has failed when in fact it is the controlled economy under the Federal Reserve regime of money manipulation and
regulatory game-playing by the government that has failed.
As they develop, they will start to pay more attention to such issues. We pay attention to such things in America because we have the time to. China is about where we were 1880-1910 in terms of economic development. Lots of industrial laborers in the cities starting to make a living, lots more poor subsistence farmers in the countryside. They'll get to where we are soon enough, then we can start talking about making things fair.
If we "make 'em pay", they'll never be able to develop, and they will always be a nation dominated by poverty. Industrialization is always good in the long run.
Sure, all that "medicine", "air filtration", "water purification", and "food preservation" technologies are all just a flash in the pan. Guns will allow those who are in a favorable position to retain that position against invaders, and probably hunt for more food. I don't really see why anyone would use nukes under such a situation, as it would only make things worse for everyone, while providing no benefit for those using them.
Seriously though, humans are about as hard to wipe out as insects at this point, at least over any relatively short timescale (a few years or less). Given a few tens thousand dollars and a few weeks, almost anyone could put together a shelter supplied with enough food and water to last for a couple of years without resupply, even if it's covered in a couple of meters of volcanic ash. Ancient man didn't have anything on that.
You could say the same for videos featuring violent death, but you don't charge those who have them with murder.
If they were involved with the production of the video, or knowingly paid the perpetrators for a copy of the video, then they could be charged with accessory after the fact (although the charge probably wouldn't stick). Downloading them for free from ogrish or some such website certainly shouldn't be a crime.
Re:The author is wrong about accupuncture
on
Trick or Treatment
·
· Score: 1
Even if that treatment costs $10000 rather than $50?
Physical therapy is EXPENSIVE.
Thanks for the info, though. I had never hear of such a thing as a "subluxation".
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder why none of the bailout so far have worked? The only solution can be throw more money at the problem, obviously. In fact, lets be sure to give all that money to the non-competative companies so they can pay huge bonuses while those who are doing well get their taxes raised.
Seriously, read Atlas Shrugged. This is not sustainable, and it WILL cause the United States to COLLAPSE. Unlike Rome, the barbarians aren't at the gates, they're in charge.
Call us back in two years when they look like Iceland.
Because they want to increase their own power. Haven't you ever read Machavelli?
They certainly have.
Sort of like how people didn't have to pay down payments on their mortgages? Remember that whole "housing bubble" that happened because of that? Maybe we shouldn't do that again.
True enough. These guys have definitely burned any credibility they might have had long ago.
Are they including songs being played on MySpace pages? Unauthorized used on YouTube, etc?
Sounds pretty stupid to me.
Environmental legislation imposes on economic freedoms. You can't be free if you can't survive (ie due to not having a job). Jobs disappear when people can't open businesses due to silly environmental regulations (oh noes, a blind worm that lives in one creek might go extinct!).
It is fundamentally impossible to prove that man is causing global warming, simply because we don't have a large enough sample size (n=1), and worse, no control. We haven't even been observing the system we have now for long enough to make any real conclusions. 100 years worth of systematic observations is like having a single data point and trying to extrapolate a trend. Its impossible. When you take into effect the further possibility of bias due to the placement of sensors around areas that shifted from rural to urban over the last century, you invalidate much of your data.
That's not to say that the world isn't getting warmer, but there are natural cycles that have to be accounted for as well. The simple fact is that we don't even have 1% of the data we need to even START drawing conclusions.
Some people want to impose various restrictions on everyone due to this "overwhelming" amount of evidence, when the fact is that it is little more than scaremongering, just like the Republicans and their "terists". The fact is that there isn't a consensus among scientists, it's just that those who don't buy into it are singled out for ridicule. It's nothing but a bunch of handwaving.
Calls for more taxes on gas screw the poor. Economic activity is dropping like a stone already. There is no need to depress it further. Doing so will wind up doing more damage (as people start going to the woods for fuel en masse, for example). If they really wanted to slow carbon emissions, they would lift the restrictions on new nuclear reactors, and lift the ban on reprocessing spent fuel rods. You could probably eliminate 90% of the carbon output of the nation in 40 years.
And yes, IAAS (I am a scientist). Sorry for the rant. I see this nation headed for a cliff, and I get pissed off that there is nothing I can do about it, because both major parties are working equally hard to push us over.
Mod parent up. This country needs to get it's shit straight and stop trampling the rights of the people, or there WILL be riots, more and worse than the ones we have seen so far, and there may well be insurrection. At this point, I would welcome it, so long as it pointed toward a return to the constitution.
Even that isn't any protection anymore, considering the case of the DART cop that shot a guy who was lying face down on the ground in front of a train full of witnesses, apparently in cold blood. I imagine that if he had cooperated with investigators, not resigned from his post, and not tried to flee he probably would have gotten off. Who knows, he still might.
They generally talk about burying these habitats, or at least building them in half-dugout style.
He was eaten by the wolf while researching how to make long enough tubes.
Actually, yes. Even a thin liner will stand up to any amount of vacuum, so long as it has a tough enough backing that it won't be pulled through any holes, causing the material to tear. The pores in these bricks would be nanoscale. No way plastic is getting pulled through holes that small.
Actually, it does. Why don't all corporations move to Somalia, where there is no tax (due to there being no central government)? They don't because the cumulative cost of doing business is too high when you factor in things like security and lack of infrastructure. There is a happy medium, which will be necessarily different for different for different industries.
Having lower taxes is good, because it attracts companies, which pay taxes (at an admittedly lower rate). When more companies come, you will often see an overall increase in your tax revenue, despite the much lower tax rate. This is not the only benefit, however. You have to remember that these corporations are also paying wages, which will often be higher than most other jobs in the area. Indeed, as more corporations move in, the demand for workers becomes higher, and so the wages rise, again creating more tax revenue for the state. Due to that effect, you could easily have a 0% corporate tax rate while still increasing your revenue. If the companies that move in are high tech or require skilled labor of some sort (especially if it is in a field where the workers are highly mobile), then you will often see that the wages paid will go WAY up, to about the same level as they are internationally.
As to the possibility of all companies moving to the one place with the lowest taxes, then the tax rates in ALL the other nations would have to be through the roof, as with fewer companies around, wages in those countries would fall as there are more workers chasing fewer jobs.
Your last statement is just silly. If low taxes didn't attract the people creating wealth, then no-one would ever lower taxes. We'd all be living in a worker's "paradise".
That's wrong on several levels. First, there are many variables other than the tax rate, although the tax rate is VERY important to most companies when choosing a location. These include the level of education of the populace, the amount of local corruption, the ability to overcome language barriers, etc.
Secondly, there is generally a pretty large cost associated with moving operations between nations (as I believe was mentioned somewhere above). All other things being equal, there must have been a pretty damn big jump in the tax rate to drive them out of the country.
This is one of the big failings of contemporary liberalism. They think that productive enterprises should be forced to do what the government thinks is right, spending whatever amount of money is required to meet all of the rules and regulations they impose. When those burdens become too large, companies rightly pack up shop and leave. Classical liberalism calls for less government involvement, and allows for more wealth creation. Free markets are the most efficient form of regulation. The recent so called failure of the "free market" was actually a failure of planned economics, by the way. I only say that because modern liberals love to say that the free market has failed when in fact it is the controlled economy under the Federal Reserve regime of money manipulation and regulatory game-playing by the government that has failed.
So lower taxes don't work because they are moving to avoid paying higher taxes?
Great logic there, comrade.
As they develop, they will start to pay more attention to such issues. We pay attention to such things in America because we have the time to. China is about where we were 1880-1910 in terms of economic development. Lots of industrial laborers in the cities starting to make a living, lots more poor subsistence farmers in the countryside. They'll get to where we are soon enough, then we can start talking about making things fair.
If we "make 'em pay", they'll never be able to develop, and they will always be a nation dominated by poverty. Industrialization is always good in the long run.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I could live with that.
Only within the field of astronomy. Chemists have a VERY different definition,.
And lots and lots of people lost ALL of their money.
If any company is going to survive the Depression, GM ain't it.
So if we post signs out in public, we can just search anyone in the streets anytime we like?
Man, I better invest in Kinko's stock.
Sir, I need you to step this way please...
And here, lets put this stylish black bag over your head.
He forgot to mention that he is a TSA employee, and that he was talking about the safety of his JOB.
Sure, all that "medicine", "air filtration", "water purification", and "food preservation" technologies are all just a flash in the pan. Guns will allow those who are in a favorable position to retain that position against invaders, and probably hunt for more food. I don't really see why anyone would use nukes under such a situation, as it would only make things worse for everyone, while providing no benefit for those using them.
Seriously though, humans are about as hard to wipe out as insects at this point, at least over any relatively short timescale (a few years or less). Given a few tens thousand dollars and a few weeks, almost anyone could put together a shelter supplied with enough food and water to last for a couple of years without resupply, even if it's covered in a couple of meters of volcanic ash. Ancient man didn't have anything on that.
You could say the same for videos featuring violent death, but you don't charge those who have them with murder.
If they were involved with the production of the video, or knowingly paid the perpetrators for a copy of the video, then they could be charged with accessory after the fact (although the charge probably wouldn't stick). Downloading them for free from ogrish or some such website certainly shouldn't be a crime.
Even if that treatment costs $10000 rather than $50?
Physical therapy is EXPENSIVE.
Thanks for the info, though. I had never hear of such a thing as a "subluxation".