The whole problem snowballed because the powers that be in Europe pushed private bank debt onto the taxpayers of the Eurozone. But sure keep bickering with the working stiffs in Greece and elsewhere who are also paying for a debt they didn't make.
The Greeks are also paying for Slovak thievery and corruption. In case you did not know Greece is now a net contributor to the EU structural funds.
If you want to complain to someone, complain to France and Germany for pushing to roll bad Greek private bank debt to French and German banks into the ECB common pool which Slovaks (along with the rest of the Eurozone) are on the hook for.
You need to read some more. A lot of tax havens are actually known as places to evade paying personal income taxes as well. Monaco is one of those places. Monaco basically gets their income from Casino profits. Again they can do this because the place is quite small. The Monte Carlo casino used to be known, and probably still is known, as a money laundering enterprise. You take your money, convert it into chips, gamble a bit, and then you convert those chips back into money again. The Casino and the Monegasque government gets their cut of course.
But I can get something about corporate taxation in Estonia if you want me to:
http://taxmoneyhavens.com/2014...
BS.
"it will also unlock a feature that won’t allow forwarding, meaning only the person you sent your message to will be able to see it"
Then I'll copy and paste the text to another Windows and foward it.
What the article describes is not e-mail. It's an messaging app with a different protocol using e-mail only as a transport mechanism.
More supermen:
http://spectator.sme.sk/c/2000...
Right...
http://tv.sme.sk/v/30393/v-bra...
Slovaks are supermen.
Estonia? It's a tax haven just like Luxembourg. It's a place where Finns (and the rest of Scandinavia) hide their cash so they escape Finnish taxes. Sure you can do something like that in a country with 1 million people inside a system like the Eurozone. Not in a large country.
Solar is still not cost competitive. Not if you include the cost of installation and inverters.
The only way it is competitive is with subsidies.
It makes sense if you are too far away from the power grid but the overall system costs need to go down a lot more.
I remember EEStor a couple of years back. There are a lot of people who make wild claims of cost effectiveness or performance based on laboratory tests that don't scale up to a production system in actual practice. I reserve judgement until I actually see something for sale.
AFAIK the cheapest batteries right now are flow-batteries and they cost like twice per kWhr as much as what EOS claims their battery will cost.
We have been waiting over a century for this. Maybe it will happen but I won't bet on it.
Wind is ok assuming you have a lot of pumped-storage hydro capacity around. Take Denmark. They use Norwegian pumped-storage hydro to store excess generation and smooth shortfalls. If you do not have a lot of pumped-storage hydro around then its a bad idea to have a lot of wind generation. The alternative is nuclear. Barring that the alternative is coal. As usual.
Wind power. Also natural gas from the Magreb (think Algeria and perhaps Libya) to cover wind variability.
It will lead to higher consumer prices. The advantages? Someone will get paid a lot of money to erect windmills and others will get paid to rent space so people can erect windmills on top. Probably farmers. France has a lot of farmers.
The end user of electricity (which is basically everyone) be damned.
Thatcher economic politics at their best. Rather unsurprisingly you need government investment to be a top dog in nuclear.
No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.
