which perhaps others would do if grants were fairly distributed
Translation: everybody who wants grant money should get it. There should be an infinite supply of other people's money so that everyone engaged in their own pet field of research should be able to do whatever they want, indefinitely, without worrying about demonstrating to anyone else that what they're working on is more interesting, more useful, or even sane, compared to the next guy's project. That would be truly fair. The guy looking to synthesize unicorn DNA from horses and narwhals should definitely get some funds diverted his way from that jerk across the hall in the other lab who's working on that stupid HIV vaccine. Because otherwise it's NOT FAIR.
Nota Bene: I don't play the lottery; well, I did play it ONCE, recognizing that my odds of winning were the highest possible with that one play, and only decrease from there.
Errr...did they change the rules that day? Or are you treating sunk costs oddly?
A 0.000001% chance that you and everyone dies *should* be regarded far more seriously than a similar chance you win a big pile of cash because one of those situations you survive either way.
There are lots of studies that use equivalent consequences that show this to be the case. You can see citations just reading the summary paragraph of the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
They are referencing this well-known result, not using their work as evidence for it.
VERY high on the list of global tax cheats yet no government seems to have the guts to go after them
What you mean is that you don't like the laws in place, not that the they're breaking a law that's in place. Try to get it straight.
And it is LONG past time for America to tax delivered items.
You mean, increase the taxes on delivered items, right? Because most states already have sales and use taxes, some of them quite high. We'll ignore for the moment those states that have decided they'd rather cover their overhead through things like property taxes or other income taxes, forgoing sales taxes.
If you order a new computer display from an out-of-state vendor, your state's taxes are still owed. Think that just because a business located in some other tax jurisdiction isn't working on behalf of your state to collect and remit your state's taxes on your purchase that somehow you're off the hook? Just wait until you're audited by your state, and you'll find yourself paying those taxes and substantial penalties.
It's not "long past time" for a change, because the situation you want is already in place. If you have a complaint, it should be about your fellow local state citizens who are cheating on their sales and use tax obligations. That's between them and their state government, not between your state government and a business that's located and chartered (and paying taxes) in another state entirely.
This is simply because an increase in profits will certainly not result in an increase in wealth for individuals that make up the "labour" part of society
Which is exactly why your average worker with a retirement plan investing in mutual funds and other investments might want to wake up and realize that they, too, own parts of large profit-making companies - and they, too, will have the return on those investments impacted by the taxes the invested-in companies bear.
If a business could deal with a 10% increase in tax by raising prices to make higher profits than why are those prices not already being charged and those higher profits already being made?
Because they have competition, which puts pressure on them to keep prices low enough to attract, rather than repel customers. How is this not obvious to you? Everyone should run a retail business for a year or two so they can learn some basic facts, thus making them a far more constructive person for the rest of their lives.
A change in the tax law impacts every business that operates under that law. The way a business structures its pricing has to take into account cost pressures that impact the entire market of retailers (their competition) so they can make judgments about what will leave them in a competitive position on prices. Business owners wrestle with that topic every single day, and are acutely aware of what factors put pressure on them (and only them) and on their entire market segment. Overhead they take onto themselves, for their own convenience (say, operating in a slightly more expensive part of town) is something they may decide not to reflect in their pricing, knowing that the better location will increase volume. Overhead costs (like a bump in taxes) that impacts everyone in their market will result in higher prices across the board. This isn't just a theoretical, you can watch it happen every day.
SAVINGS, on the other hand, are seldom passed on to the consumer.
What are you talking about? We've never been in a more competitive environment. You have at your fingertips more information about price and availability and the quality of various retailers' services than ever before in human history. Retailers who don't react to that bright light of consumer comparison shopping lose sales to those that do. It's exactly because Amazon (and Costco, and everyone else) use their well-oiled operations and buying power to keep prices down that brings in long-term, repeat customers. Modern retail shoppers are notoriously well-informed and fickle - retailers who aren't competitive are serving a quickly vanishing audience.
so they are going to stop cheating the UK out of taxes owed
Cheating? Are you saying they were actually operating outside of the tax law?
You know they weren't. The law has now changed, and they're changing their operations and accounting to reflect that change. Their competition has to do the same thing.
bribes changed hands before the immoral laws were passed
Please provide specific examples of this illegal activity. Don't you think that prosecutors would like to have your evidence?
Or are you referring to documented campaign donations, just like millions of people and organizations make to support those with whom they align themselves? If you like a candidate or cause that says they're going to do [X] to Teh Eeeeevil Businesses, do you consider providing that candidate with your support as they try to get elected to office
I was working on systems before Math Co-processors existed.
You also apparently can't read - "On Windows Vista and Windows 7, this can be fixed by configuring the msahci device driver to start at boot time (rather than on-demand)"
Yes. I had head-mounted dual-screen (640x480) displays for gaming back in the days of the GeForce 5 and 6.
Horrible contrast ratio (shit TFT LCDs) but great for watching porno DVDs without anyone else watching.
If there were sources to back all of this up, I'd be more inclined to believe it.
Sensors, simple damned commands, and a TCP/IP stack should not need anywhere NEAR 32MB of RAM to run.
Google needs to step back and re-learn some goddamned Assembler.
I wish the best to Britain, and to the rest of the people of Europe in their efforts to break the power of the unelected apparatchiki who have attempted to usurp their sovereignty.