Elerond

You can have both. The former through your mobility/wireless service. The latter with a little bit of ingenuity. Yeah I have off grid cabin where I have solar panels for electricity and 300mb/s internet (thanks to excellent 4G coverage), although I don't have flushing toilet (even though that would have been somewhat easy to do as I have waterfront property and I already have pump that gets non-drinking water from the lake) because I decided to go with drying one as it is safer during winters (no risk for pipes frozing) and it gives me fertilizer for my garden and still much more confortable than outhouse.

Nah. Finland's famous for their terribly expensive booze. Ferry to Tallinn (Estonia) cost only 20€ and where you can still buy cheap booze even though they rised their alcohol taxes.

We have 24% of VAT

Interesting that Finnish people still get unemployment insurance payout even when working part time. Its not like that here. As soon as you get any job of any pay of any amount of hours, your unemployment insurance payout stops. I assume this a call back to your earlier statement about UBI already existing in other forms. So, what is the annual UBI amount that Finn's receive? Do you get a check from the government even if you work full time (40+h / week)? about 600 euros in month and 70% of rent/housing costs to certain point (which changes somewhat depending where person lives in Finland). You get check even regardless how much you work if your income is less than said 600 euros. For example quite lot of telemarketer get unemployment benefits even though they work full time, because their contracts say they get certain percentage of sales they do, which some times can mean that they earn less than 600 euros in month.

Wait a second; the program supposedly worked AND saves the government money and they shut it down out of "spite"? C'mon. To be fair results come in after experiment was ended and replaced with current "activation" model which is program that forces people visit unemployment office several times in year for interview which caused that unemployment offices had to hire thousands new workers in order to do said interviews system has failed actually find work for people except those thousands bureaucrats that were needed in order to run it. The unemployment offices put people to work though... if your unemployed population on has skills for certain non-physical clerical work and there is no market for them elsewhere putting them to work to help the rest of the unemployed get matched up with work may very well make sense. If you want it to cost less you slowly put those people out of work with automation, and then backfill other low-priority services jobs as you need to re-employ people. "Saving money" can often times be double-speak for paying less people. True UBI supporters usually though want to return the costs savings to people with the argument that "the alternative to not wasting away people's time is to pay them to afford recreational free-time." But then what about he hyper productive people who want more leisure? Typically they earn their leisure and the less productive people get their business by working recreation and amusement. Just recently Disney World raised it's minimum pay for employees, if we got better vacation for people like what Europe has and increase the demand for recreational services and in general that seems like a net gain on levity for society, rather than just setting people free to their own devices for part of the 40 hour work week. Of course this all favors people who have gotten productive enough by sacrificing the early part of their lives to professional development. In the modern age I think people confuse when people take "all their leisure at once" for somehow being far ahead of everyone else. Which isn't true for even the average white-collar working class family. Certainly some recreation can be destructive and overly indulgent, like cruise ships, but I think improving the impact of recreation is a different argument. We could likewise be talking about funding sabbaticals or anything similar. Unemployment offices don't actually put people to work, they only check that people have sought jobs as they should and give advice for how seeking jobs better. Compolsory interviews for half million people five times in year from which half already work part time or participate in schooling and other programs meant to help people find jobs haven't effected anyway on people finding jobs (according to unemployment offices own statistics). UBI would give unemployed people incentive to take even low paying part time jobs because their income then would increase compared to current situation where their unemployment/social benefit is cut down for amount they earn, meaning that taking part time jobs that don't pay more than what their benefit is don't really increase their income compared to them just sitting in home or where ever they prefer to spent their time.

Wait a second; the program supposedly worked AND saves the government money and they shut it down out of "spite"? C'mon. To be fair results come in after experiment was ended and replaced with current "activation" model which is program that forces people visit unemployment office several times in year for interview which caused that unemployment offices had to hire thousands new workers in order to do said interviews system has failed actually find work for people except those thousands bureaucrats that were needed in order to run it.

We ready have universal basic income but it is divide in multitude of different social programs. Finland's constitution guarantees basic income to everybody. Finland's UBI experiment was trial to unify existing programs as one and increase income of low income and part time workers.

Ontario just elected new governance that is very much against social programs. Results of Finland's UBI experiment were that it was working and it was cheaper than our current social program but our government cancelled it in midway before they got any actual results and replaced it with even more expensive system which they like more because it is designed to punish poorest of the poor.

Considering that Singapore, Switzerland, South Korea, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Austria, Israel, Finland, Japan, Luxembourg, Norway and Belgium all have universal health care and use about same amount per capita to medical research than USA I would say that it is just what people believe. Your talking about proportional spending per capita? As in compared to the dollar or the local currency? Then even if they are likes, there is the question of what is being bought with that money. Bureaucracy and defensive institutional spending is a huge waste of money, especially in a stagnated market. Create markets for new medical research, but the delivery and applied institutions would get by much better if redundancy was removed and the cost of running intermediaries was cut out. Yeah propotional spending in medical r&d per capita valued in US dollars. Which is easiest comprasion to do because you can just compare amount money put in, but of course results are the thing that actually interest more, but that is much more difficult to compare, but in above mentioned countries medical r&d is done mostly by private companies with private money just like in USA, but of course every country has their own safety standards and bureaucracy how new medicines and such are approved, what kind research practices are allowed, when human trials are allowed, and so on. Sometimes intermediaries on acquisition side of things actually speed up appliance of new research because they force medical r&d companies develop relativelly affordable version of their inventions or risk lose their change on markets completely for their competitors. But of course sometime intermediaries do mistakes that end up to make things worse for everybody (like spending 200 million euros to medical database system that does not work).

Considering that Singapore, Switzerland, South Korea, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Austria, Israel, Finland, Japan, Luxembourg, Norway and Belgium all have universal health care and use about same amount per capita to medical research than USA I would say that it is just what people believe.

At least there is now "Religious Liberty Task Force" to ensure that everybody is FREE to worship one and only GOD, his most holyness, divine PRINCE of light, saviour of america whose every breath makes things greater and utelly destroyes his enemies, the supreme god empreror of Greatest States of America, the BESTEST most liked who has biggest crowds, The TRUMP.

Cohen alleges or sources alleges that Cohen alleges? Allegedly sources allege that Cohen alleges Sources which can allegly be Cohen himself off the record

Best part is that reason for the trade war is that people in USA have so much money to buy stuff from China because of that debt. China loans money to USA -> USA divides it to its population through various methods -> said population buys stuff made in China -> China loans money back to USA -> and so on

So people who claim that political correctness destroys our world got person fired because of his years old politically incorrect tweets. http://www.vulture.com/2018/07/james-gunn-fired-from-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3.html?utm_medium=s1&utm_campaign=vulture&utm_source=tw James Gunn Fired From Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 James Gunn will no longer direct Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, according to a statement from a Disney spokesperson. The director’s dismissal comes after his old tweets joking about pedophilia and rape were recirculated by Trump supporters online. “The offensive attitudes and statements discovered on James’ Twitter feed are indefensible and inconsistent with our studio’s values, and we have severed our business relationship with him,” Walt Disney Studios chairman Alan Horn said in a statement. Gunn had been at work on the third Guardians of the Galaxy installment, set for release in fall 2020.

Interestingly it was freedom of speech that gives everybody right to print their own guns not gun rights https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/10/court-victory-legalizes-3d-printable-gun-blueprints/ Court victory legalizes 3D-printable gun blueprints A multi-year legal battle over the ability to distribute computer models of gun parts and replicate them in 3D printers has ended in defeat for government authorities who sought to prevent the practice. Cody Wilson, the gunmaker and free speech advocate behind the lawsuit, now intends to expand his operations, providing printable gun blueprints to all who desire them. The longer story of the lawsuit is well told by Andy Greenberg over at Wired, but the decision is eloquent on its own. The fundamental question is whether making 3D models of gun components available online is covered by the free speech rights granted by the First Amendment.

I admit that I'm not a lawyer or expert on lawyerism, but I'd bet that if Obsidian wants to do buisiness in the EU they will have tocomply. To answer your question there, it's not the person that will get charged, it's the person/corp hosting the server that it is posted on that is going to be charged. That person/corp has to either stop people from uploading images and such or they have to get themselves content recognition software that will sift through all © material that can match it so he can block it. It's ****ing retarded. They are ****ing retarded aswell. /Edit; Also, bit drunk. Spelling and such might be off. I'm at the point that I hope the entire world ip-blocks the entirety of the EU for stupidity... You can look effects on GDPR on US based sites (lots of sites either have disclaimer prompt for EU users that tells how they use user data which they have collected and how user can remove it or they block EU users) to see how EU laws effect on US sites.

I find it funny that both members of ENF, in the comitee, supported it and both members of ECR, in the comitee, voted null. As it was aproved with 14-9 vote, if anti-EU pro nationalist people would have actually voted according to what they preach it would have been rejected with 13-12 vote. I don't think there are any memes that are copyrighted, though I guess some people could try to copyright them. Only problem is that some memes are so old that nobody remembers who first created it and even now, once a meme appears, it mutates and spreads faster than lightning. Sounds like something that would be impossible to actually manage properly. Photos that memes use are usually copyrighted, so with this very nice directive creators of memes should ask permision to use those photos before they do and web services need to ensure that people who upload meme pictures have done so. And I repeat it is responsibility of web services to ensure that copyrights are followed before they let users to publish their things.

I find it funny that both members of ENF, in the comitee, supported it and both members of ECR, in the comitee, voted null. As it was aproved with 14-9 vote, if anti-EU pro nationalist people would have actually voted according to what they preach it would have been rejected with 13-12 vote.

https://www.axios.com/trump-trade-war-leaked-bill-world-trade-organization-united-states-d51278d2-0516-4def-a4d3-ed676f4e0f83.html Possibly leaked draft of bill about increasing president's right to make unilateral decision about trade can be found end of the article

Most of the world currencies today are so called "floating currencies" which value changes according to markets demands. Like for example if people, corporations, countries want to buy stuff from USA or that are otherwise valued in USD, like having dollars as their reserve currency, they need to buy dollars, which will increase value of USD on markets. And more expensive USD becomes on market more expensive it becomes to buy stuff valued in USD when using other currencies and things valued in other currencies become cheaper to buy when using dollars. About Floating excahnge rates https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/floatingexchangerate.asp About China's currency policy's effect on dollar. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/09/chinas-peg-to-the-dollar.asp

Yes, although in goods only those surplusses aren't very big, but when you count in services and investments US currently has quite even trade globally, which is why dollar has quite stable course. And if you compare USD's course for example to euro, you will see that last time markets valued euro over USD was 14 years ago, which means that markets need more dollars than they need euros, which means that markets want to buy more things (goods, services, stocks, investments, etc.) from USA than they want from EU, meaning that general money flow towards USA is bigger than it is towards EU. Although countries like China which don't have floating currency but instead tie their currency to USD causing artificial inflation on value of USD somewhat, but it is difficult to estimate how much.

Oh noes, that would be a real loss for the US? I don't know about that, as country of 5.5 million people our trade impact on 60 times larger country will be always minor, but because of USA's sanctions which freeze lots of Russian's foreign assets and put restrictions on what can be traded with Russia, Finland is losing billions of dollars worth of trade and if USA starts to put heavy tarrifs for European products like for example cars it will cut our trade towards USA also with millions if not billions, so I would appreciate if Trump means to actually follow through his world wide trade war that he would lift those sanctions against Russia so that our economy would not take that big of a hit.

Hopefully Trump will drop sanctions against Russia, so that we can return to normal trade with Russia during trade war with USA.

By that definition it is safe to say that Trump will nominate another liberal justice (meaning yes man who consistently votes according to what State(Trump) wants) He didn't get that with Gorsuch. He sided against the government as both plaintiff & defendant three times this term. Any President wants a justice that will do what they are told. But that is not what their job is. "Is it legal?" If their answer is "no" they are going to rule against you no matter if you appointed them or not. Gorsuch is mostly supported state's view (trump's view which in some cases are against state view) in the travel/muslim ban (Trump v. Hawaii), in bakery denying (Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n), service, unions rights to collect fees from non-union members for their services (Janus v. AFSCME), he gave his support so that states may charge tax on purchases made from out-of-state sellers, even if the seller does not have a physical presence in the taxing state. (South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.) and in case of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra Gorsuch supported majority view that crisis pregnancy centers have right to lie and withhold information from their clients. He did go against state, in case in which the Court held drivers of rental cars have rights protecting them from unconstitutional searches by police, even if they are not listed on the rental agreement (Byrd v. United States), in that case court was unanimous in their decision. and in case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment prevented Border Patrol officers from conducting warrantless, suspicionless searches of private vehicles removed from the border or its functional equivalent. (United States v. Ortiz) again court was unanimous in their decision.

By that definition it is safe to say that Trump will nominate another liberal justice (meaning yes man who consistently votes according to what State(Trump) wants)