aniro

I simply responded to what you wrote, without assumption or prejudice.

This is a far more interesting statement: “The restaurant industry is brittle and consolidating, and the the American middle class might not be strong enough to support it anymore. Recent events just magnify the weaknesses of the existing system.“

If that is what you intended to communicate, then maybe that is what you should have written.

I would conjecture that it describes much of the US economy, not just the food service industry.

Remarkable how quickly you were able to dehumanize the economic impact on millions of lives and yet simultaneously anthropomorphize the “economy”. A single sentence.

>>This is a net positive for Americans (increasing real estate prices mean increasing total wealth).

Uh, not so much. Being priced out of home ownership means a smaller and smaller portion of Americans would (do) benefit from this increased "total wealth".

>Question I would like to transit the Old Bahama Channel on our return northbound leg to Jacksonville, Florida. This route adds an additional 160 nm to the route for a total of 1,261 nm. We will need to make around 21 knots for our scheduled 10/05 10:45 arrival time at Jacksonville pilot station.

Funny, because i see the current US corporate+political sphere as being a far better repesentation of her anti-heroes. There are far more Tooheys in the upper echelon of American society than there are Galts.

Venezula looks a lot more like Animal Farm.

Ah, yes.. profit incentive as the silver bullet for all that ails.

This myopic view is foolish and needs to die.

"After all, science is just a process mainly for avoiding lying to yourself about reality."

perfect. thank you!

I agree, the underlying assumption is faulty (and common).

This is a BS example. I am going to assume that you don't realize this because I otherwise have to assume you are being crass and disingenuous.

People are not fictional entities that can be created and destroyed at will; corporations are.

Shell corporations are being created within tax haven countries for the sole and explicit purpose of parking revenue within the boundaries of tax friendly regimes. The companies are not actually moving anything to these countries in terms of physical assets or corporate function.. only revenue. This is nothing like a person moving overseas and working and getting payed within that country.

They may have found a legal framework that makes them within the bounds of US & International law in order to do so. The problem with doing this is the inability to repartiate those funds without paying tax in the country you wish to move the money to.

There is nothing broken about taxing profits. You may not agree with the rate of taxation for corporations, but you would be at odds with the vast majority of the electorate. Companies choose to park revenue overseas in protest of the US tax rate.

Trump? I don't think he will fix anything. His stated intent is to cut taxes and increase spending. Maybe lower corporate taxation is in there, but that doesn't "fix" anything. There will always be some country, somewhere willing to go lower. This shell game will continue.

I wouldn't exactly call Apple's cash war chest "money circulating within the US economy" but I will take your point as given.. by definition money that returns to the US will technically be (once again) "in the US economy".

A significant portion of those profits were shifted overseas to avoid taxation within the US. Providing a "tax holiday" in order to repatriate those monies essentialy validates the tactic of shifting profits overseas to avoid taxation until a critical mass of dollars has accumulated so that it is politically attractive to institute another "holiday" just to bring the money home sans the tax.

This tactic is starving the US Treasury of funds needed for the People's Government to perform its functions.

This isn't the first go around with this, it is in fact becoming cyclical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_tax_holiday

In the meantime, these entities are parking dollars out of reach (actively removing them from circulation) instead of investing or spending them within the US.. where they would have been circulated anyway if not for the tax avoidance. They are being rewarded for removing the money and then politicians are being hailed as heroes for "convincing" them to return it by helping them avoid paying taxes to put it back in the economy it was removed from.

I fail to see how you think any of this is beneficial to the US economy.

How can you assume that this money would circulate back into the US economy? You imply that it will be used to buy goods and services within the US and thereby serve the "greater good" of increased economic activity of the sort that produces jobs and greater financial well-being for the bulk of the citizenry.

Assuming that it did "circulate back into the economy", it seems most likely this money would be funneled into the already bloated financial sector where it can most readily participate in the variety of internal US tax avoidance schemes.

You might want to consider that human behavior can be difficult to calculate on an abacus.

Beginning to realize success toward a goal with a single behavior change (changes due to an increase in exercise) will having reinforcing effects on other behaviors (such as dietary choices).

By gamifying a key factor that likely led to a cascade of behavior changes, the watch played a critical role in improving his chance of success toward a goal.

Whether accurate or not, your point does not negate nor diminish the value of the watch as the critical factor.

The root word at play is CRIM

See also crime, criminal

Philadelphian here.. understood it perfectly.

Used to be.

I would think a quarter century qualifies as "long ago" in the timescale of a single human life.

The name of the country is not nearly as important as its proximity to the US.

It is very effective writing.

>>a non-voting share that has no dividends attached

And there are limits to the assistance the court may request.

Creation of new works is just such a limit.

If there is not a limit, then what the courts may compel as "assistance" becomes absurd.

This is the argument Apple is making and it is the foundation of the opinion of at least one Judge that has ruled against use of the AWA to compel the unlocking of a phone.

Application of the All Writs Act in this manner is unprecedented. The conditions under which it may be applied are well defined and are not met for this application.

The Supreme Court isn't a factor at this stage.

"Typically" you are correct. The formal method for checking the power of the Judiciary is for Congress to remove Judges from the bench.

Apple is arguing that All Writs doesn't grant the authority that is being used. If that authority is to be sought then it will have to come from Congress. At least one Judge agrees.

And Apple is arguing that the "All Writs Act" to which you refer is not authority to demand whatever you damn well please, from anyone, at any time. They are arguing that there are well established limits to that authority and that the judiciary is overstepping its bounds here and need defer judgement to elected representatives (the legislature).

If I remember, Lavabit attempted just such a "Big Sky" tactic with the logs (or a similar set of files) in their case and it was deemed a transparent attempt to obfuscate.

The power of the courts is kept in check by the Legislature. They are not above elements of mistrust.

The court is compelling a third party to perform an act that really isn't part of a search and seizure of items.

Search and Seizure as defined by 4A is over and done with. The Prosecution has searched the "places to be searched" and is in possession of the "persons or things to be seized."

Now can it compel Apple to make them useful? (Potentially useful, as even the State has argued there likely isn't really any useful evidence there anyway.. sorta makes this whole thing look like a dog and pony show.)

It is my understanding that the central issue is not the judges authority to compel evidence be turned over to the state. The State is already in possession of the evidence, it is simply in a format that is unintelligible. Apple is not in possession of any evidence.

The issue is whether a third party can be compelled to provide access to that evidence in order to make it intelligible and therefore meaningful. The combination to the lock (which apple claims they would be forced to construct, as it does not yet exist. The government seems to have accepted the veracity of this claim when they agreed to perform the labor if handed the tooling).

What is the purpose of explicitly stating 4A if we can simply trust the government to be a good actor?

It is inherent in the statement of explicit restraint that there is not trust.

Preamble to the Bill of Rights -

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

I like that they use confidence.. it implies a matter of shades or degrees. Trust seems to imply something much more B&W.

(http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_tra...)

I didn't intend to be inflammatory (at least any more so than the parent), merely point out that a logical leap had been taken that was not entirely faithful (imho) on the part of the writer.

It is certainly not "mistrust government" ergo "disband government", especially when the government in question was formed near entirely upon the notion that a government should exist in a perpetual state of mistrust.

>The power to collect evidence to resolve criminal cases is one of the most fundamental powers of the state.

I agree. But it is no where stated or implied that this should be an unlimited power. In fact, clear limits are placed upon that authority.

If I invent a cypher and store all of my physical written works using that cypher, can the government compel me to decrypt those works upon discovery that they lack the ability to do so? What if I taught that cypher to my family? Can they be compelled? If so, under what authority?

>You might just as productively suggest that we can't trust the USG to be a responsible state

This suggestion is inherent within the Constitution. It is framed upon a mistrust of any Government to not become tyrannical.

>therefore it should disband

uh, what? nice leap.. did you use rocket shoes to get over the gap?

Not sure what you mean by "road use tax". Most funding for roads in the US is from the general fund and not provided by any use tax.

The potential property damage and/or physical injury (not to mention general wear and tear upon roadways) that a bicycle can produce is minuscule in comparison to the potential destructive power of the automobile. Much of the legal justification for registration/licensing and taxation of vehicles is born from these factors.

A joke should always be EXACTLY correct.. otherwise it creates opportunity for ill-humored pedantry.

I am guessing you missed the snark, either intentionally or not.

Chief of Police encourages businesses to remove all locks from their doors in case police forces need to enter the building in the instance of an emergency such as a break-in.

Furthermore, all business owners are encouraged to stop locking their cash and recipes in a safe, as this prevents police from ensuring none of it has been stolen.

>>The enemy is ambiguity. To avoid ambiguity, you need to be explicit. Being explicit is expensive.

Beautifully succinct and widely applicable. It is a gem, thank you.