Actually you can't just turn your passport in. You have to pay hundreds of dollars to formally renounce. And you can only do so if you're already a foreign citizen.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
They'll know where the call originated from if they'd have to pay a fine for the privilege of "not knowing".
My first year in Iceland, my US return was so complex that most tax attorneys refused to touch it. One offered to do it for over $1000. I ended up doing it myself. Three years later I'm still dealing with the IRS on it. It was as thick as a book.
My subsequent returns have been simpler but are still really annoying.
Seriously, don't do this to your kids. Just don't.
It's not even just taxes. The US is so weird about all sorts of things that can bite you. When I got engaged in Iceland, Iceland wanted a certificate from the US proving that I'm not already married - it's a standard requirement here, and most countries have such a certificate. But not the US! In the US you can get a certificate proving that you are married from the state you got married in, but not a certificate proving that you're not married. The only way around it is to find the one sherrif's office in the country who considers a signed affadavit to be sufficient to wed (all of the others disagree).
I would never dream of cursing my kids with US citizenship. How mean could you be to them? I can't bloody wait to get my Icelandic citizenship so that I can formally renounce my US citizenship.
I'm sure there's nothing wrong with screwing your security staff to save a dollar.
If you have until they're 18, wait until they're old enough to decide for themselves, and to make their plans. Then you can find out which pros and cons apply to them (eg working/studying in the US vs just paying taxes).
Cheaper to heavily subsidize nuclear, than face the massive cleanup costs when nothing goes wrong at a coal power plant. Do you know a safe way to deal with the massive amounts of radioactive waste that come from those coal plants? How about cleaning up the mercury, the particulates, the CO2? In coal power, the gains have always been privatized while the costs and risks socialized.
To clarify, by "insane environmentalists" I mean people who's actions result in a higher proportion of our electricity coming from coal power plants, which in their standard operation kill fish, birds, emit radiation, cause cancer, have a global environmental impact -- and all this on a scale that dwarfs other alternatives. While the insane environmentalists don't think they support coal, what they do is oppose other power generation systems because they're not perfect leaving current coal plants as a necessity to produce the power they opposed alternatives to. Similarly, some insane environmentalists support cost-prohibitive sources of energy and leach funding from other alternatives, which would have reduced our reliance on coal and oil much more effectively.
And i will say it again : nuclear power is prohibitively expensive.
Insane environmentalists are prohibitively expensive. (No insult intended to environmentalists who have done their research before supporting/opposing something.)
If you appear fit and nothing can be found wrong yet minimal exercise causes pounding heart and shortness of breath -- get your thyroid checked. Hypothyroidism can cause low blood sugar that's only evident during exercise.
We really need a clear International consensu that governments do NOT have extra-territorial jurisdiction. Actions taken in one country should abide by the laws of that country, not any other country - even if it affects the other country.
I don't see how that would be possible, nor how it would be a good idea. Suppose a country legalizes espionage on foreign nations or corporations -- the other nations would never put up with this, and if they can't arrest the people responsible they would declare war instead. There's a bunch of laws against things that would be sufficiently repulsive that people would not want to accept it among their citizens even if it had occurred in a foreign nation. On the other hand, if petty obscure laws were enforced like that no one would be able to travel anywhere -- but that, I think, is up to the nations in question to decide.
How about a compromise? You apply this rule to your own jurisdiction, and don't try to enforce it on other countries.
1. Alibaba.com. You can get anything there.
2. Semipermanent subplate attached to the table with pin slots, surgical grade titanium plate pinned into position, pancreas stock welded into place with TIG set to the settings for pancreas stock of appropriate thickness (what can't you weld with TIG?)
3. We find the mechanical properties of billet pancreas to be sufficient, and the higher precision and better finish reduce the odds of customer rejection.
"3d printing" is the latest fad for Slashdotters to obsess over; meanwhile, in the real world, people are just going to use more established solutions. For example, where I work we're making great progress towards CNC-milling a pancreas.
All of Areva's renewables investments combined are less than 10% of their business. And they're performing far better than their core nuclear business. I find it amazing that you argue that they shouldn't have invested in the few projects they're involved in that are actually paying off.
It's not just neutron bombardment either. Your fuel is producing almost every element in the periodic table, anisotropically and varying across time. It's pretty much the worst situation one could come up with from a containment standpoint inside the fuel even before you factor in neutron bombardment.
Then there's the nature of nuclear disasters: they're disasters in slow motion. The upside is that few people usually die from them because there's usually plenty of time to get away. The downside is that they take bloody forever and a king's ransom to clean up, where it's even possible. Picture, for example, an accident at Indian Point that would increase NYC residents' rate of cancer over the next 10 years by two to three orders of magnitude. You could evacuate over days to weeks and it'd have little impact on public health. But you'd be having to pay for the loss and cleanup of New York City. That is, of course, an extreme case, but it's an illustration of the financial challenge faced by an industry that deals with large amounts of chemicals that are incredibly toxic even in the minutest quantities. Screwups can turn out to be REALLY BIG screwups.