He was obviously referring to an ocean of lava.
This was meant for one post down. Sorry.
Or, you know, you could tax profits. Like we already do for the rest of society. That's why individuals have "write-offs" that reduce their tax burden. Spending money on acts that want to be encouraged (restocking the dairy, donating to charity, etc) reduces the taxable income by the amount spent. In this argument, only $.05 would be taxable per gallon of milk sold. That means that given a 20% tax bracket (most of the U.S.), the price would need to be raised to $2.06 to break even. Not exactly a major hardship.
Well of course an electric car fails in the cold compared to an ICE powered car. In my experience, ICE is most prevalent in the cold!
Or he knows American Sign Language. I think I remember how to count to 100,000 on one hand.
"[Google Glass] cannot be used by people who wear prescription glasses, but Google has confirmed that Glass will eventually work with frames and lenses that match the wearer's prescription..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... Probably wasn't wearing them to see the screen better.
Just to support your point: http://xkcd.com/605/
Mostly because people have decided that food should be cheap, and generally disregard "local" or "organic" as value-adding propositions. The amount you would need to charge to be competitive with the industrial agriculture business would not provide an income that meets the cost of living requirements generally. People, even those on unemployment, do not often prefer to give out work for free.
I'm fairly certain the point of the passage in the NA handbook is to point out that previous methods of trying to quit were ineffective, so new methods should be found that are more effective. Continuing to do drugs is not helping, and previous methods of quitting didn't work, so both of those should be tossed as plans for the future as they are "insane."
"[T]hese amendments guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
The U.S. Constitution only limits what the U.S. government is able to (legally) do. It does not place restrictions on citizens or companies. Laws are commonly used to address those issues, such as the laws against murder or theft or assault. The Constitution does not protect you from an individual wearing Google Glass, nor from Google providing such a service.
It doesn't add zero functionality, it adds continued support. When a company decides not to spend additional resources supporting an aging product line, you have two choices: Choose an option that is supported, or continue using the old, now unsupported version. It's not as though MS is introducing a kill-switch for currently running machines. They simply will no longer spend employee hours or company resources to maintain their software. And they are under no obligation to do so, for free, forever, which is what people seem to more-or-less want.
I just assumed that it only repels frozen insects, and not other forms of frozen water or animals in a non-frozen state.
There have been several arguments recently that power in the U.S. has traditionally been divided three ways, with government regulating business power over citizens, and citizens enforcing some form of control over government. Theoretically, this provides the checks and balances necessary in any power struggle, with three major players each exerting control over the others. Since government and corporations have effectively teamed up, citizens have been on the losing end. If the NSA manages to piss off enough corporations, will it be possible to shift the power balance away from a corporate run government and provide a little more balance in the mix? A man can dream..
This is a great point. The economic benefit of killing humans should definitely outweigh the right to life. Oh, except that it costs quite a bit more for us to kill people than to simply incarcerate them with no chance of parole. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty " Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year. The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year. The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year. The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year."