If the cost of renunciation is too big for you to contemplate it, then by definition having a US citizenship is worth more than the rather low cost of renunciation. If $2000 is all that is keeping you from renouncing the citizenship, then you are obviously not that much worse off for having to pay taxes on your earnings abroad.

The USA is one country that does go out of its way to protect its citizens abroad, probably to the point of pissing off a lot of other countries, and that costs money. If you would rather not have that, then renounce.

Besides, I am sure there are arrangements to ensure that you don't pay more tax than you would if you were living and working in America e.g. due to the use of tax credits.

So Government should make all taxes undodgeable!

I would have to add that AMD management has also been asleep at the wheel. They are in the tech business. They ought to have tried to outflank Intel, rather than to take them head on.

For example, they should have jumped onto the Android phone bandwagon and just made a phone. They have a decent brand, and I am sure I would have bought their phone. They needed something that will give them good margins, and CPUs ain't it. Apple showed the world how to beat an 800 pound gorilla. Don't take them head on. Go left field.

Apple made outrageous margins on phone to the extent that they are now way more profitable than Microsoft. Honestly, even though I thought Apple would do well, I never saw that coming.

AMD cannot compete with Intel head on. No one can. You need God money to get anywhere close.

No, no one wants an init system. No one ever built a computer to run an init system. It's incidental to what people need computers to do. The only question worth asking is whether systemD is useful or not.

I can believe that an init system may not need IP forwarding and routing, but I can also believe it would be useful to build those services into the init system to.

It's nowhere as cut and dried as many try to make it out to be.

How exactly do dealers prevent manufacturers from setting prices? How do they force BMW and Mercedes from demanding a specific wholesale price. And if a wholesale price is high enough for BMW to not care who sells their car (as long as they take responsibility for service/maintenance) why should they care.

Tesla doesn't want to be in a showroom where the dealer is trying to sell other cars. It would be too easy for a dealer to push people towards other cars if they believe Teslas are a hard sell. Their success does not depend on selling Teslas. It depends on selling lots of cars, and they don't necessarily care which ones they sell. Unless, of course, Tesla gives them very large inducements to sell their cars.

Basically, they want to run a protection racket - give us large commissions/discounted wholesale prices, or your lovely electric cars won't sell.

Actually, there are safe solutions. Geologically secure sites where we can stored nuclear waste and not worry about it getting into ground water or leaking into the environment exist. It is well within our capability to safely dispose of nuclear waste. The only problem is political, and the irrational fear of anything nuclear.

Sony Pictures is an American company that happens to be owned by a Japanese conglomerate. Sony bought out an American company.

Put it this way, no one considers Chrysler an Italian company. Neither is Sony Pictures.

I can just about agree that there are some distasteful things in the email exchanges, but the bit about Jennifer Lawrence being paid less than Christian Bale or Bradley Cooper is not such a big deal to me. Having watched the movie, it was rather obvious that the main protagonists in the movie were Bradley Cooper and Christian Bale's character. Jennifer Lawrence had a comparably smaller part in the movie. She was still getting paid a damn lot for it though.

Where in my post do I suggest that being criminally liable is the same as being malicious? I didn't even talk about criminal liability in my post.

Then they must be retards. Anyone with more than a few brain cells knows not to go about defacing areas of historic importance.

They intended to deface the site. They did it very deliberately. It was malicious.

I don't know what your definition of malicious is, but I really doubt that BP intended to do harm. Heck, if they knew it would definitely cause harm, then they would be rather stupid, because it is quite obvious they would be forced to pay rather substantial remedies.

Investments are risky. There are no "sure" bets.

Therefore, some people will always horde (or save) rather than invest because they are that risk averse. So inflation might encourage them to either invest or spend, because their money loses value if they put it in the attic.

I'll bite.

Not every feature needs to be added to a piece of software.

I can see scenarios in which a user checks that box, and regrets it later when the browser opens too many tabs without giving them the option to confirm this. And the corresponding feature that would then need to be implemented (to force the browser to ask the user for confirmation) would have serious discoverability issues.

I imagine most people do not open too many browser tabs simultaneously most of the time, and while the feature might seem genuinely useful, there are some downsides that would force the addition of more code to address, which adds to complexity of the codebase.

However, if you came up with some UI that solved this elegantly, implemented it and submitted a patch, I can imagine them giving the issue serious consideration.

The math is clear

7.8 + 5.6 + 1.4 is greater than 10.8.

And before you go all nitpicky on me, I have combined all non-renewables (nuclear, coal, gas), in the same way as the original submission combined hydro, solar and wind, all of which have less in common than the non-renewables, which are all thermal power plants, and thus have a lot more in common.

Now that you put it that way, I would add that it makes sense why US police seem to opt for lethal force. When you have a gun, you can be reckless. In the same way that George Zimmerman felt able to stalk a kid who was much bigger than him. He had a gun, so he could take more risks with himself. Except that when cops (or Zimmerman) take risks with themselves, they are also taking risks with the lives of the people they are confronting. And that is the really unacceptable bit.

In the UK (and many other countries), the police do not have guns, therefore they have to take rather more care in dealing with potentially dangerous situations. People dying in police confrontations is incredibly rare in the UK, in part because the police do not believe they are outmatching their targets. Therefore, they will avoid escalating any situation until they know they can absolutely control it.

Whenever a policeman (or woman) resorts to firing his gun, especially against an unarmed person, then they have lost control, and many times, it is their fault that they have lost that control.