The cause as much grief as possible argument fails since he was not arrested or charged with anything.
What is your reasoning for that argument? What would be the point of arresting the researcher, if you didn't have anything to charge him with at the time?
Its way premature to cry censorship, its crying wolf as things stand at the moment.
Again, what is the basis for your argument especially given that you admit this is a tremendous imposition requiring such things as "buying new computers".
My proposal: have the Fed fund a basic income at zero cost to taxpayers. The Fed could structure it under Section 13 (13) of the Federal Reserve Act, as loans to individuals with negative interest. Thus, people would be paid to borrow.
Inflation is how taxpayers would pay for this "zero cost" proposal and it wouldn't be zero cost in reality.
Indexation of all incomes to price rises eliminates any potential inflation tax.
My take is that it would just create elevated inflation, perhaps even hyperinflation - where the money in question has no use as a store of value.
Now the Fed should apply that power of creating unlimited liquidity
The Fed doesn't have that power.
That's my point, with the caveat that its not really censorship since the goal is not to silence anyone but to investigate a crime.
Unless, of course, the intent of the effort was to silence the researcher in question. Then it is.
Again, all I'm saying is that its premature to claim censorship. As I said in the beginning all we can say for sure at this point is that it was rude to seize the equipment without asking for cooperation. Facts and opinions may change as more info unfolds.
But a kind of rudeness that routinely shows up when authorities want to make an example of someone.
Might be standard procedure to seize evidence without warning to prevent tampering.
It also might be standard procedure to cause as much grief as possible when someone gets inconvenient to the powers-that-be. What more could they be doing to this guy given their current powers?
Why not give Greece the same courtesy?
Because Greece doesn't have anything to offer. Why shouldn't I be given the same "courtesy"?
Why not give Greece the same courtesy?
Because Greece doesn't have anything to offer.
Then my favorite example: fool's gold.
Ah, yes, the definitive scientific term for pyrite/iron sulfide.
It's interesting how unscientific the arguments are for claiming a dwarf planet is not a planet.
One size doesn't fit all, so it should come as no surprise that a currency made for industrial nations doesn't work so well for a tourist economy.
You're right, but not in the way you think. A common currency like the Euro works even better for a tourist economy than for an industrial one. The tourist can use the same money they use every day without losing money to parasites like money changers and some small time con artists. In other words, there are a vast number of small currency exchanges that are completely eliminated by the use of a common currency.
Meanwhile the industrial transactions don't depend on a common currency as much because the exchanges are less frequent, higher volume, and can be managed by a specialist in the business.
So in lets say 10-15 years, it will be "criminal", "not eco friendly" and so to collect free water.
Or we could just not say that. I don't see any reason to "expect" water quotas.
If there is a "right" to have access to water, how far does that right go? Does my mobile home on the Moon have a right to the same access to water as you? Should society ship me water at 10k euro per kg? I see that there's apparently about 150 liters of water consumed per person in Europe. That's a 1.5 million euro per day per person right I have there. And oh look, I'm the one providing the extremely profitable shipping to my locale. How convenient.
Entitlement rights are nonsensical. It's too easy to contrive a situation where one can milk such a system for tremendous gain. Then it becomes the duty of some mealy-mouthed bureaucrat to explain why the right really isn't a right. Cue the water quotas. It's better not to waste our time with the exercise in the first place.
There was no censorship.
That's wrong to say since this researcher doesn't have infinite time and resources to both deal with the alleged investigation and impounding of equipment as well as doing whatever they do for a living and discussing the security issue they have allegedly found. At best, it might be that the censorship is an unintentional consequence of a police investigation of a genuine criminal activity with genuine probable cause. But the above actions indicate the police did not think the researcher would be cooperative in the investigation. Why?
The existence of an exploit is not evidence that anyone, government or not, is actually rigging an election. Its evidence of risk. There are most likely exploits in every electronic balloting device and in every web voting system ever made.
Depends on the exploit. The original report claimed the potential for introducing false voting data as well as a denial of service attack. The latter would not be useful to throw an election, but the former would. Further, if such accusations routinely result in an abusive police probe, harming the livelihood of anyone involved, then that would be indication of a serious risk to a democracy. After all, voting is one of the most important aspects of the democracy.
Rainwater harvesting is not illegal. It was heavily restricted in Colorado, Washington and Utah until 2009, but all three states have since relaxed their bans. In six or seven other states, rainwater harvesting is regulated -- you have to obtain a permit, which is in most cases is about making certain that your harvesting equipment doesn't contaminate groundwater -- but not illegal. (You have to obtain permits to construct houses or drive automobiles, but that doesn't make people claim such activities are "illegal.")
I note your link says pretty much the same thing.
It remains to be seen if there is censorship. Impounding material evidence is not necessarily suppression.
But heavy-handed behavior is a good indication that such suppression is going on. After all, why wouldn't this researcher cooperate with the police?
As for the "definition". In a region where a generation or two ago "kill the messenger" was literal not figurative, the figurative definition doesn't work.
Bullshit. When the figurative definition is ignored the literal one comes back. Throwing elections (and thuggish suppression of evidence of that) is a phase I'd expect in a return to such tyranny.
The truth is the automobile industry is heavily subsidized through tax incentives and the oil industry even more so.
Let's see this truth. One of the huge problems with discourse in this area is rampant dishonesty of comparing renewable energy subsidies to fossil fuel subsidies. For example, a subsidy that discourages oil production, such as selling oil at below cost to a certain country's inhabitants in order to stabilize a particular country's kleptocracy is considered a subsidy for oil. Similarly,there are a number of supposed fossil fuel subsidies that renewable energy businesses can share in.
Also, depending on the survey, there are plenty of nonsensical subsidies that are pulled out of someone's ass such as deciding without a shred of justification that fossil fuel use has a high externality or that oil companies not paying huge penalties to a government is a form of subsidy that somehow doesn't apply to the renewable energy sector.