Re: Plastic
Plastic means flexible and soft. We tend to associate it with hardness because petrochemical "plastics" appear hard in comparison, but they're generally quite malleable.
2678 publicly visible posts • joined 5 Mar 2007
Ah but the thing is. IT Vet, a corporation has to have some status as a "person" in order to be taxed on its income (what we call corporation tax). Anything else gets complicated extremely quickly. Considering how complicated current tax law is, do you really want to make things even more convoluted?
And of course, if a corporation is a "person", then that "person", under US law, has to have the same constitutional rights as any other citizen, otherwise you re-establish the precedent that certain citizens can be deprived of their rights simply because they fall outside an arbitrary definition of "deserving".
It's a very difficult and complicated situation, something of a conundrum in fact. Expecting politicians to fix it is madness. Expecting the courts to fix it is wishful thinking because they tend to be extremely conservative when it comes to taking away "rights" once granted. There is no simple and easy solution, and certainly depriving corporations of "personhood" will not fix things and will only, in fact, make them worse.
You'll lose corporation tax, for starters. You'll lose the ability to enforce law and judgements against corporate entities because those entities will no longer have any legally recognised "body" against which to bring judgement - and at the same time you'll not gain the ability to enforce judgements against the owners or managers, as they can simply hide behind collective responsibility, because individuals can't be legally held liable for the actions of others. Corporations, however, won't lose the ability to fund lobbying or contribute political donations. They'll just organise a few employees to do it on their behalf.
All fluorescent lights give me a headache. Every single one I've tried, no matter how cheap or expensive, no matter the build quality, they all give me a headache without fail. I can always tell when there's a CFL in a room - even the high quality ones that emit an otherwise pleasing glow. Fortunately there are "energy efficient" halogens to keep me sane and headache free.
Something being "old" doesn't mean it's inferior and being "new" doesn't make something better.
Nah, nah, you're all wrong. The existence, or lack thereof, of any god is a non-testable hypothesis. There is no means of falsification, hence no theoretical basis by which the existence of a deity can be tested. There can never be "scientific proof" of the existence of god, or the lack, or even the possibility of a quantum superposition of states of God, because the very concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being is not falsifiable.
So to say that science can't prove God doesn't exist is correct. The scientific method can't be applied the idea, therefore it lies outside the realm of science, and any opinion on the subject is a matter of faith. Any opinion. Not just the ones that you don't like.
Same with m-theory and whole bunch of other stuff that gets waved around as "science" when it's just so much handwaving and fancy hypothetical models. Can't be tested, not falsifiable, ergo not science. Might as well claim the universe looks pink on the outside.
Just popped open the app drawer on my phone and, lo and behold, an essentially identical icon is used for the Voice Search app. It even has rounded corners!
These design patents are silly. At least they haven't managed to snag a real patent on the thing. Things aren't that far gone yet.
Apollo could carry 5 astronauts with the addition of two more seats in the equipment bays from the very start. Improvements meant it could probably have carried 6 or even 7 by the time it was used on Spacelab, though things would have been rather cosy.
Dragon has significantly more internal space due to the miniaturisation of much of the tech involved and it's not inconceivable that it could also carry 6 without any difficulty, or more if you want to get really friendly with your fellow passengers.
But lets just assume that they haven't made any advances at all on the Apollo-era tech and that they're never going to make any cost-saving improvements at all. Ever. That makes it so much easier to argue against the idea.
hplasm nutshells it. There seems to be this strange idea that everything should just be handed to "us" (us being teachers, students, workers or whoever) on a silver platter without any effort. Life is not like that. Life is hard and painful and requires that we do something to get something.
Oh fine, if you want to get picky about it, they're tin-plated steel, the point is that it would have been unthinkable to use tin for that in the not so distant past. Once it was used as jewellery, now it's used to prevent corrosion in disposable cans.
Think outside the box then. Gold and copper reach price and supply parity. Now, you'll find that gold would be used in place of copper for a lot of jobs, because it doesn't corrode or oxidise and is somewhat more ductile, thus less likely to break in stressful installations.
Tin used to be a precious metal. Now it's used to make cans. The point is that an increase in supply allows the market to experiment with new uses for a material. And yes, there may be something that people don't want to use, but I'd be surprised if any raw materials - particularly metals - would fall under that category.
A lot of these arguments are also applicable to earlier "novel" infrastructure projects. Uranium mining in Australia, for instance. Or oil in saudi arabia. The market for oil was growing but constrained when the saudi fields were exploited and there was a certain worry that it would cause a price crash that would make the whole endeavour pointless.
After a short lag the demand rose to consume the supply. If we're able to source large quantities of what are currently relatively rare materials from space, they will be used. The price might bounce around a bit before it settles down but the market will expand once the supply is there and new uses for the materials are found.
I always figured the mid-life crisis kicked in around the end of a pre-agricultural human's typical lifespan. In the grand scheme, the ability for the majority of humans to live into old age is a very recent phenomenon; our bodies are adapted to a lifespan of about 40 to 50 years and start to fail in increasingly obvious ways after that age. The depression only seems natural in that case. We'd be subconsciously, but intimately aware that our body is reaching a lifespan limit that our species has experienced for millennia and as a result we'd get all existential and depressed, but not really understand why. Those humans that live longer would cheer up, because they might just live forever.
Oops.
Libel is a civil offence, not a criminal one. There's no jail time involved unless you refuse to pay the fines (or undertake whatever reparation the court hands out), in which case you're attempting to commit fraud amongst other things. Even then it's kind of hard to get you in jail for it.
And since it's a civil matter there's no criminal record.
The quickest way to tax profit is to tax where that profit comes from: sales.
I'm no randian. I simply start from the position that government is a necessary evil that we should have as little of as possible and work from there. Rand argued that government was unnecessary. Very different position.
Pay what they owe? Who says they "owe" anything? Governments are not gods, they have no more right to another entity's money than any other random collection of bureaucrats. Taxes are an imposition extracted through the state's monopoly on the use of force, they are not a moral imperative, and avoiding them is not an immoral act.
But putting that aside for the moment, if you want to stop corporations avoiding taxes, then the solution is not to lambast them for "immorality", but instead to move the taxes to where they can't be avoided. Get rid of corporation taxes and all those other things and tax sales instead. It's virtually impossible to evade or avoid sales tax, and it's much easier to resolve if they try.