The fact that you and others here seem unable to fathom a future where a human's basic nutritional needs are easily met (at negligible or no economic cost) thanks to technological/biological innovation frustrates me immensely.
Are you paying for the oxygen you breath every second of your existence? What makes food any different?
It already exists: https://openhatch.org/
I registered a while back but haven't really bother to use it.
Just wanted to point out that the heading for that article ("Amsterdam wants to get rid of Airbnb website") seems misleading. Nothing in the (short) article indicates that the municipality has a problem with Airbnb itself. But then again, misleading headlines are business as usual for such a shoddy paper as the Volkskrant.
If you read the article you would have come across the paragraph that said "McDonald's began rolling out Wi-Fi in its U.S. restaurants years ago. In 2010, McDonald's made it free even for those not buying food.". The article does mention that folks will generally feel obligated buy something.
If it's not obvious, don't sign up.
Awesome. Great find!
I decided to buy this Windows/Steam bundle for $13.37 (about € 10,-) with the default split (THQ 8.69, charity 2.67, Humble tip 2.01) and was quite happy to see that on the download page you can still select your contribution to count as, for statistical purposes, for Linux. I'd be quite curious to see how many other folks did this.
Just wanted to add: the Dutch production VPRO produced a documentary a while back that deals with this subject matter. From what I recall they actually "tour" the area where all these facilities are located nowadays.
Money & Speed: Inside the Black Box is a true thriller that takes us to the heart of our automated financial world. On the basis of interviews with people directly involved and data visualizations to the millisecond, a reconstruction of the fastest and deepest drop in U.S. stock markets ever.
I'm only superficially aware of the rules and procedures in Congress so perhaps I've been mistaken. It might be that 2005/2006 bill H.R. 22 was different from the later bill H.R. 6407 which passed under suspension of the rules and voice vote (under a voice vote the names or numbers of representatives voting on each side are not recorded).
Helpful article on the subject: http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/congresss_war_on_the_post_office/singleton/
The "crisis" is entirely manufactured by Congress. Yes, Congress. They ( and by "they," I mean mostly Republicans who seem to want to drive the post office into bankruptcy )
Can you elaborate on your position? In the article you link to Ralph Nader refers to Congress as a whole and doesn't place blame squarely (or mostly as you say) with one of the two parties. If I look at just the numbers then in 2006 the Democrats held 44 seats in the Senate compared to the Republican's 55 and the bill passed the Senate unanimously. In the House the Democrats held 202 seats (and essentially also another independent seat) compared to the Republican's 230 and with the exception of one abstain all Democrats voted in favor of the bill. Of the Republicans 20, including Ron Paul, voted against the bill.
And just because I feel like it, here's some George Carlin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk
So how exactly do you interpret the latter part ("Congress may by general Laws prescribe...")?
As for Ron Paul, he claims he's pro-constitution, but stated he would have voted for a law that repealed Full Faith and Credit as defined in the Constitution
I believe you are incorrectly referring to Ron Paul's position on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA):
In 1996 Congress exercised its authority under the full faith and credit clause of Article IV of the Constitution by passing the Defense of Marriage Act. This ensured each state could set its own policy regarding marriage and not be forced to adopt the marriage policies of another state. Since the full faith and credit clause grants Congress the clear authority to “prescribe the effects” that state documents such as marriage licenses have on other states, the Defense of Marriage Act is unquestionably constitutional . (Before the House of Representatives, July 22, 2004)
Here's the text of Article IV, Section 1:
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof
Feel free to elaborate your position if you think I misread what you were saying.
In that video Harry Reid isn't talking about riders, he's talking about the practice of earmarking or congressional directive spending.
Riders are awful and should be banned through a constitutional amendment, earmarks however are an entirely different matter as the person you replied to pointed out.