The assholes who put them there and the assholes who made them.
It is rather doubtful that any of the people participating in this discussion did either. So if that's the answer to the question, then the original comment was directed towards the wrong people.
You want to bring up cost effective? Well fuck you, economics should have ZERO argument in this issue. Clean the fucking things up.
It's called Doing the Right goddamn thing.
Whose responsibility is it to clean them up? Everybody's? If so, then why is it the "Right" thing to expend my resources on this problem rather than in one of any number of other ways that will have a greater impact?
It is estimated that there are 110 million landmines in the ground right now; one for every 52 inhabitants on the planet.
52 (people/mine) * 110 million (mines) = 5.72 billion people. Unless there's been a recent disaster that killed off more than a billion people that I didn't hear about, I think their math's a little off.
The Wikipedia article on dark matter discusses this in depth. Although I'm no astrophysicist and can't vouch for the article's accuracy, it does outline some of the reasons why those studying it believe that objects like this cannot account for the amount of dark matter required to explain how galaxies behave.
I think they can gleam that same information from a smart meter.
Give 'em a break, in a rush for first post that is all he could come up with.
Hey Soulskill -- JImbob0i0 may be a new submitter, but you're not a new editor. How about editing the content of the submission so that it actually makes sense?
What exactly is it they pay you to do? I'm sure I could write a shell script that would randomly select a few stories every day to copy to the front page.
How long does it take before you're no longer allowed to justify what "your guy" does by pointing out the the "other guy" did bad stuff too? Does that end after Obama's current term, or are we still going to be hearing the "Bush did it too" excuse in 2020?
Cool story bro.
My understanding is that capital gains tax is lower because the business you're investing in has already paid its half in corporate income tax.
Not really; after all, the government has no trouble "double-taxing" money any time you give them half a chance; and if that was really the concern then the amount of time that the investment was held wouldn't matter. The fundamental reason for the lower tax rate is to encourage long-term investment -- and the theory is that by so doing, corporations have a better opportunity to be profitable (which of course translates into more incoming tax dollars.)
Even if just 56% of them become rich that's good enough a chance for me.
The thing is that being a millionaire really isn't the same as being rich.
Think about it -- if you were of retirement age today, how much would you want in assets to feel comfortable retiring? A quarter million? A half million?
Now consider the amount of time that you actually have left until then. Depending on how long it will be, a half million dollars today will very likely be equivalent to over a million when you will need it.
I would venture to say that most people who are relatively early in their careers, and expect to be able to put away the money they'll need for retirement, should expect to be worth at least a million dollars at some point in their lives -- and that won't be being rich; that's just going to be "comfortable."
Wait -- you originally said that "I see no reason that people should be trapped in a country they don't want to be a part of." Indicating that you think that having the people move to a country that they want to be a part of is not acceptable. But for some reason, you don't believe that the "losers" of this referendum are "trapped" in the same way. That seems rather contradictory.
So why don't the people in the Crimean area who want to be Russians just move into Russia? Why should a majority of of people in an area be able to vote and force an ethnic minority to leave their homes?
Although that sounds reasonable at first, it leads to a lot of problematic situations. One obvious example in this case there is a minority of people in Crimea that are strongly against it, but because of the tyranny of the majority they have been forced to join Russia. Why should those people be "trapped in a country they don't want to be a part of"?
All the provision does is lift the statute of limitations on collecting an unpaid debt. I really don't see the problem with that. The actual problem seems to be that they're going after the wrong people to get their money -- and that seems to be based on a policy that allows the government to go after children who may have benefited from overpayments. Seems to me that the person you really should be going after is the one who implemented that policy -- or passed the laws that allow that policy.
So... did you ever wonder, do garbagemen take showers before they go to work?
