Comment Re: Screw your laws (Score 1) 193
Which means exactly what? They have fulfilled a bureaucratic check list of meaningless drivel?
Ensuring that drivers have a valid license, fairly clean driving record, and insurance is "meaningless drivel"?
Which means exactly what? They have fulfilled a bureaucratic check list of meaningless drivel?
Ensuring that drivers have a valid license, fairly clean driving record, and insurance is "meaningless drivel"?
As an employee of a large organisation, I want us to have this capability to determine aggressive action against us ahead of it happening.
We lack the ability (legally and technically) to take action against the aggressor; the value comes from being able to strengthen relevant defences, if necessary close off access to vulnerable services and prepare the response teams in case something does get through.
Accurate and responsive systems monitoring lets you there's an issue quickly, so you can resolve it fast. This merely accelerates that resolution.
1c coin exists because there is a zinc lobby though they have agreed to a compromise which is a problem for the vending machine lobby. There is fundamentally no good reason economically and even politically this would be fixable given a less destructive congress.
The zinc lobby is a large part of the reason why the government won't make the change, but not the only one. The last time I discussed it with anyone, I was amazed at the number of seemingly rational people who were convinced that any attempt to get rid of the penny was a conspiracy to drive up prices.
Change of any sort frightens people, even over the stupidest of things.
If 95%+ of scientists agree with each other
but the scientists who disagree with them ARE all (100%) paid by the same corporations
I think you're implying bias on the wrong side.
Given that people on minimum wage get tax credits, benefit from health and education services they can't afford and generally make a net gain from the Government it's pretty clear that they aren't paying an equal share. Someone has to fund all of this and you seem to think it's that tiny pool of people on over £100k.
I'd love to earn that much, but I already make a sizeable net contribution to the government to cover the benefits that lower earners, the disabled, the unfortunate and the feckless get. Taxing the rich more won't reduce that burden and won't intrinsically benefit the economy. I'm already treated as a cash cow by politicians from all parties who use my money to buy votes from parents, pensioners, public sector workers, people on benefits et all.
I'm still confused by your thoughts on pollution. Which pollution is holding back the economy exactly, and what are you proposing to do that will resolve this?
DFTT, please. He's one of those lunatics who thinks all taxation is slavery; you can't win an argument with him, because you're not inhabiting the same reality.
Raise minimum wage (=less benefits and more tax).
You'd have to raise it a fuck of a long way before it offset tax credits.
Tax the rich more.
The current government raises more tax from the top earners than the previous one. Who do you class as 'rich' anyway? Are you calculating this by assets or income, or both? I think dual-income families are rich.
Raising taxes is a shit way to boost the economy.
Close tax loopholes.
People will find and exploit more. The current government has already closed many, and made it harder to legally exploit the ones that remain - you now need to declare them to the Inland Revenue.
Or did you mean things like Premium Bonds and ISAs?
Put an end to the double Irish.
Again, the current government are already working to increase tax revenue from companies that try and siphon earnings overseas. This is an international problem and if you have a way to solve it that actually works, then HMRC would love to hear from you.
Invest in high quality sustainable housing.
Where? What do you class as 'sustainable'? What's 'affordable'? Surely 'affordable', 'high quality' and 'where people can get a job' are mutually exclusive.
Any capital investment in social housing would largely be a waste of money anyway, unless the 'right to buy' legislation changes; you're just giving cash away. That's not necessarily bad for the economy but it's a kick in the teeth for people that pay taxes and don't get government handouts - and we're already subsidising over half the country anyway.
Deal with pollution.
Hmm. More detail needed.
No crazy spending or crazy borrowing necessary, but the rich and stupid wouldn't like those policies.
Only the stupid would put them forward and think they're workable, without providing rather more detail.
The rich would indeed resent being treated as a cash cow by the lazy, the ignorant and the stupid.
The Tories aren't screwing the poor? You are blind.
How? Maybe I am blind, or maybe I'm not poor because I make personal sacrifices to assure my financial security. Forgive me for expecting other people to make similar compromises.
What is this âoeStar Warsâ you speak of? The Six Million Dollar Man perfected this technology in 1973.
ObamaCare has highlighted the "Rule of Unintended Consequences". Who knows what consequences are in this decision. The only time the "people" win is when the Federal Government does not regulate. Regulation is strangulation and, ultimately, death.
How much can I make if I post shit like this? Will they pay me less if my bullshit posts get modded down? And do they make you post "make money on your computer with Google" crap?
You come up with an idea and patent it, I get you might not have the money. A company shouldn't be able to do that.
Why not?
Why can't I set up a company whose job is R&D, and earn income from licensing the inventions I come up with. This is surely a sensible choice for people that can't be arsed with supply chain logistics, sales and all the shit that comes with it.
What's different to that in setting up a company that doesn't do R&D, but does purchase rights to the inventions that other people create. Same business but this time we've also cut out the people and facilities management necessary for R&D.
If a patent is legitimate, is innovative, represents a technology advance that people want to copy, then it has value. That value can be realised through licensing or through manufacture. Why should manufacturers be the only people allowed to profit from patents?
I don't give a flying fuck whether Apple are making a product or not. They're attempting to use patents that should never have been granted to prevent other companies from making products, and that is patent trolling.
Sorry but abusive litigation based on facile patents is abusive litigation. Doesn't matter whether it's done to or by Apple, the patents are still complete bullshit and their use for extortion is abuse and needs to be derided.
the Tories austerity policies which are causing stagnation
So you'd have done what? Continued to spend money profligately that we just don't have? Raised taxes to fuck over middle income earners even more? Done a Greece or a Cyprus?
Get a fucking clue.
they do everything possible to widen the wealth divide / screw the poor for every penny they have
That's just bullshit.
If you want to argue that they favour "big business" too much, I'll agree. If you want to challenge the integrity and honesty of senior ministers and how their policies benefit the public, the UK as a whole and their group of friends, then I'm happy to join you. But they're not screwing the poor and they're not trying to increase the wealth divide.
There are plenty of solid reasons to complain about the current government. Try and pick some of them instead of making shit up.
There's no reason that we can't make our electric companies act as storage for the consumers.
True, but there is a reason why we can't make them do it for free, which is what the complaint is about.
With your bare hands?!?
