If you feel so strongly about people being responsible for the circumstances of their own birth, why do you grant people a right to survival?
Anything spent outside of what you need to live, should be subject to tax.
Everyone should have some skin in the game when it comes to taxation and supporting the basic services the govt needs to provide.
"what you need to live" is a surprisingly subjective term. After all, do people really *need* to live? What quality of life justifies such a need? Basic sustenance may not provide such a quality of life.
Regardless, it's a stupid thing to say. A company like Google threatening to leave is a good way to shape tax policy in its favor. But coming right out and saying that they won't leave makes it a lot easier for the UK government to raise their taxes.
That's a very simplistic take on things. The fact is that government is very used to people threatening to take their business away if they don't get their own way, and it's pretty obvious that it doesn't happen in practice. It's not a good way to shape tax policy, it's a transparent and dishonest way. Perhaps as a government you'd actually rather work with companies that don't just routinely lie and throw temper tantrums?
This is a good case for, as suggested by many in the discussion, a "show password" button, as is widely used. I don't see an argument for making it the default.
Huh, did not know that.*Increases size*
And who boils live frogs anyway? Wouldn't crab or lobster make for a much better analogy?
Only if you're a terrible chef
Depends what continent they die on...
Uh, yes, it absolutely makes things worse. See Limits To Growth and read up on the concept of overshoot. By doing permanent (or quasi-permanent) environmental damage now we jeopardise the possibility of every reaching a stable condition with a decent quality of life, and extending this aggrevates the problem hugely.
Hi. I use supercomputers to model materials for next-generation solar cells. If you're working on semiconductors, you need to probe the electronic structure of crystals with junctions and defects; basic atomistic calculations aren't going to be enough (although they have their own uses and are definitely part of the picture). These calculations help us to work out why some promising materials don't perform well in experiments, and figure out which reactions will be suitable for cheap large-scale production and processing. Even simple atomistic models require a lot of power if your system is large enough and/or you want to look at complex processes like melting.
Genuine question- why would you use the steam key when you have direct access to a drm-free version? Was this just curious testing, or am I missing something?
Agreed that Chemfig is painful, but I've yet to find a decent workflow with ChemDraw. Currently using Inkscape, which at least has a comprehensive set of shortcuts and doesn't prevent annotation. What do you recommend?
For me LyX was "LaTeX with training wheels"; after about a year of LyX I've moved to pure LaTeX for more complex functionality. However, I found LaTeX far less intimidating that it might have been as I was already familiar with the concepts and with the names of most functions.
Where it really excels though is in the well-thought-out system of keyboard shortcuts. I used it in the final year of my degree to take down lecture notes, including equations and derivations, and found I was generally able to keep up with a blackboard. Try that with Equation Editor!
I'd settle for having somebody constantly watching over them... "Sure you want to do that? Looks like an asshole move to me!"
They could have a quota for identifying a minimum number of asshole prosecutors, and their career progression could depend on declaring powerful people to be assholes.
This is a pretty disingenuous argument, and one that is used by disappointingly frequently by squirming Lib Dems. This is the wording of the pledge:
“I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative.”
Nothing about being in government, and it's pretty clear that the wording allows for them being in a coalition. This was a personal promise made by individuals, not just a manifesto point.
It is enormously frustrating for scientists in a wide range of areas that they are required to hold a higher standard of integrity than the politicians, journalists and religious groups that oppose them, and yet this does not appear to carry adequate weight in public and political decision-making.