>I'd be willing to stump up a £4 a year fee
Don't forget the costs of handling all those payments (and the non-payments).
691 posts • joined 17 Jun 2009
>I'd be willing to stump up a £4 a year fee
Don't forget the costs of handling all those payments (and the non-payments).
>Where do you get that stuff?
He probably gets it from Richard Nixon.
>The UK has to do about 30 in a year and a half to be in the same place as it is now currently in the EU.
More like 700. Most 'trade deals' aren't comprehensive, country-to-country deals; they're single-commodity or single-trade-body deals - and there are hundreds of them.
>our sacred right to vote
Nice-to-have, certainly - but 'sacred'? I don't recall Moses taking a ballot before taking the Israelites into the Red Sea.
>Another libtard who doesn't seem to understand tax tax is paid by the buyer
Another Randtard who doesn't understand the role of shareholders.
>That would be the Laffer curve
That would be the Laffer 'curve' where Prof. Laffer could never identify the optimum point on the 'curve' where his diminishing returns ceased to diminish?
> Government, the consumer of all and more will somehow not crave more tax?
Er, no. Governments may be insufficiently responsive to their electorates, but they do respond - and hardly anyone ever gets elected by proposing higher taxes. This alt-right assumption that da gummint is out to get you is childish.
>Share holders giving their spare money to fund business
Bullshit. In most cases (99.99%), share-holders are nothing more than gamblers; they haven't put any money into businesses.
>Is that a good thing? To make a product too expensive for the many?
What's the product? You and me - and Google get us (nearasdammit) for free.
I'd really quite like to be "too expensive" for Google.
>It is really tempting.
It may be - but, leave it until after the case. A juror's job is to assess the evidence adduced - not to seek out more evidence.
That said, there's nothing wrong with a juror asking the judge for more info on a particular point. On one case I was a juror on, we questioned whether a prosecution photo showed what they claimed it showed. Immediately, the judge made it clear that he thought we were right - that the prosecution had cocked up (and they had).
Then if the prosecution hasn't given you enough to go on - acquit.
>Why is it 'in the public interest' that Joe Bloggs of Main Street, Bognor may have committed an offence?
Because there may be witnesses who saw Mr. Bloggs there, at the time - or saw him elsewhere, at the time.
> it's not up to them to think for themselves about the case
That bit isn't true. Jurors are expected to bring their own experience to the case and to judge the believability of witnesses.
Otherwise, you are correct.
"working as intended" would mean that jurors (and others) were deterred from screwing up trials.
In these incidents, the law did not work as intended.
>but Amazon are a bunch of tax-dodging shysters themselves
Hang on. I know it's fun to have a go at big corps, but the reason Amazon haven't (in the past) paid much tax is because they haven't made profits - they've ploughed earnings back into the business, like businesses are supposed to do.
They've recently begun to make real profits and, as far as I know, they're paying tax on it.
Knee, stop jerking.
I don't much like the Apple/Android duopoly, but I don't think things would be much improved if I had to rely on whatever OS Vodafone (or whoever) deigned to put on my phone.
The only upside would be, if Voda tried to use my data nefariously, they'd get my name wrong, my location wrong and the date wrong. (All of these happened, sometimes several times, during one day switching Broadband.)
>Why do Spotify have to pay the songwriter if they've already paid the record label?
Because copyright for the recording is quite different from copyright for the song. Two parallel systems - who don't necessarily get on with each other.
>im not sure about mainstream adoption
This may be a major point.
Back, when Psion (almost) ruled the Earth, there were lots of little shops, selling lots of different devices, with lots of different form factors. Of course, most of them went under.
Today, we have PC World and Amazon. If this device doesn't appear there, it won't appear, period.
>You're missing the point that no matter how it is collected, it is always the "people like us" who pay the tax in the end, because we're the ones with the money.
No it isn't 'always'. If the company in question is in a competitive market (not always true*), it can't easily raise its prices. Instead, it will have to shave a fraction of a penny off the dividends (or reduce C-level pay). I know these options seem very unlikely, but that's because govts have been retreating from their responsibilities towards their citizens for so long, that corps feel that the freedom to exploit is some sort of inalienable right.
*And this is one of the reasons regulators need to be tough on anti-trust.
>All taxes get passed on downstream onto the Customers.
No. At least, they shouldn't.
>The EU is as it is and the countries' tax rates are as they are
And its tax arrangements in the future will be what they are. If corporations take the piss, don't be surprised if countries tax urine.
> SDI won the war
Western profligacy, that the USSR couldn't match, won the 'war'. SO it's just as valid to say The Beatles won the war, or Levi's Jeans won the war.
>The IPCC is tens of thousands of scientists, not politicians.
It's both. That's why the IPCC reports have been so conservative; having to convince a bunch of American & Saudi pols to agree on publication.
>But as a member of the electorate I want information on my candidates
You mean - like their tax returns?
>Why was ANPR rolled out in the UK?
Because it was a damn sight cheaper than paying enough policemen, traffic wardens and parting attendants to continue doing what ANPR could do on the cheap (and what those in various uniforms had done before ANPR existed).
I take it you would be quite happy to pay more taxes for a more personal policing experience?
>They want orderly, regulated behavior at all times forever.
Sez who? Dearie me - this is a ridiculous piece of nonsense.
Most of 'them' just want to do their job properly; get the buses to their destination in good time, fix the broken streetlamps, fill the pot-holes. They don't give a toss about you or your face.
>You don't need to ponder "smart" control of resources, while hundreds of tons of water are wasted in London every year due to mains pipes that leak.
You don't think that, maybe, a bit of tech might help with that problem? That's 'smart city' stuff. You're throwing out baby with the bathwater.
>As for the claimed benefits, pure tosh
Except that Transport for London can demonstrate actual benefits from their 'smart' systems. I know that won't fit your ideology, but, hey...
>It's not about whether it saves lives
But most of London's CCTV has many other purposes - monitoring traffic congestion, deterring (ordinary) crime etc.
>Let's not forget that terrorists do use surveillance data too
Do you have any evidence of that?
>A smart city is, inherently, a surveillance city,
A 'smart' city isn't interested in individuals. It's interested in traffic flows, congestion, breakdowns, in patterns of energy consumption. In short, it's interested in generalisations of activity.
Of course, it's technology _could_ be misused to target individuals (or restive groups). Maybe even _would_ be so used.
But to suggest that this is inherent in the concept is misleading and invalidates the rest of your argument.
There's at least 30% more of me than there should be. Perhaps that's it?
>YOU CANNOT SIGN OFF AN UNALIENABLE RIGHT
There is no such thing as an unalienable right (or even an inalienable right).
Rights are alienated every day.
It's simply a right, or it isn't (and, even then, it's open to interpretation).
>For instance, prisoners coming out and saying that being in prison is a violation of their right to a family life
Which has no relevance to the ECHR. This example is worthy of the Daily Mail.
>Kaspersky works on secret projects with the intelligence services
If they're secret projects, how the fuck do you know about them?
> CO2 is assumed to be a greenhouse gas
Bollocks. It's been known to be a greenhouse gas for 150 years.
>Nuclear energy - not a carbon in its footprint
Good grief! You can't even get that right. There's tonnes of CO2 in nuclear - all that concrete?
> turned out to be a less than accurate description of the climate system.
Only in the minds of those incapable of dealing with reality - that we can't hope to continue with a robber economy forever.
Climate change is real. It's happening now and it shows signs of getting worse, a lot quicker than we feared. Anyone who believes that the 'right' to drive an SUV is more important than our grandchildren's future is a danger to humanity.
>The models have not been particularly accurate with historical or current data.
You found this 'argument' on a denialist website, didn't you?
Problem is, every proposed climate model is first tried out on historical data. If it doesn't pass that, it's ditched immediately.
>So, like a "Hide the decline" thing?
No. Not like that. A remark which has been investigated (along with other denialist 'gotchas') several times, and cleared of any wrong-doing.
Even the Bright Institute, which set out to discredit Hadley, were forced to admit that their own study of the data came up with the same result.
You, sir are an unoriginal fraud.
Big giveaway, that. Science doesn't deal in proof.
We don't need 'proof' that a particular plane is going to fall out of the sky. If we have evidence that it has a 5% chance of crashing - it won't get off the ground.
Science is telling us that there is a 90% (or better) chance that AGW is happening, now, and is likely to get much worse.
But the deniers are determined to fly that plane till it crashed.
>Just close examination of the evidence.
As long as you stick to Alan Watts and similar charlatans.
You haven't examined the evidence; you've scanned friendly blogs for talking points.
It's so predictable. Bombastic Bob loves Trump, hates government - so, of course he's going to be a climate change denier.
He even goes to the trouble of ferreting out pseudo-scientific crap to back up his beliefs (but wouldn't be seen dead reading anything genuine).
>_THIS_ is why we want A SKEPTIC in charge
He isn't a sceptic - and neither are you. You're both deniers - mind made up, against all the evidence.
>One of the reasons people find "scientists" so hard to believe is that they know they've been lied to before.
You are confusing 'what scientists say' with what the Daily Mail says scientists say.
Schulz summarised the strength of science very well - it has mechanisms to weed out charlatans, to correct mistakes, to build up shakey foundations.
I only wish politics (and denialist charlatans) did.
>So, what exactly is wrong with denying
When denying reality risks the future of our children/grandchildren - it's wrong. Unequivocally.
>The open question
It's not an open question anymore (except for filling in some details). We no longer need science to drive decision-making. It's engineering now. We have engineered a catastrophe. We know what drives this engine, why the 'governors' have failed to control it. We even know where the brakes are - but cannot risk using them until we do the basics - like take our foot off the gas pedal.
>Not even sure what they are trying to say; That horizontal flight needs 10% of the power that lifitng requires?
Once you're up there, it's downhill, all the way.
>join the real world.
Luckily, the real world contains some adults.
>I *am* the error bar.
No you aren't. The 'error bar' is composed of people who change their minds after polling or who simply lie to the pollster.
A non-participant is just noise.
>Whatever you believe the bill will come to if it is too expensive for you to consider leaving a good idea, you must absolutely support leave because remaining will cost far more.
The problem with that argument is that we will have to continue to do (and pay for) most of the things we did with the EU - only it'll be less efficient, since it's just for one country.
Just another of the Brexit delusions.
> this is the first vote on our membership of the EU
Except for the one in 1975. (And, no, you can't claim that the EEC was substantially different. The Treaty of Rome anticipated political union, way back in 1950.)
>That choice was never before presented to the British people
Bullshit. All of the same arguments were put forward by the 'No' campaign in 1975 (and I voted 'No').
Please get your facts straight.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017