It's complicated. Let's take Apple. It's Irish subsidiary will make profits in Ireland, on which it will pay corporation tax to the Irish government. It will also pay remittance - for marketing support, or for LCD panels etc., - some of which will go back to the parent in the US on which it will not pay tax. However, if it pays a dividend back to Apple Inc. in California then that will be taxed by the US tax man. As that dividend will be paid out of post-tax earnings at Apple Ireland then yes, Apple will have paid tax twice. (Just as a dividend paid to you by Shell is after the company has paid corporation tax, and you will be liable to pay income tax on a portion of the dividend.)
That said, it's important to note that US companies file accounts that show the tax owed on repatriation to the US government as a liability. So, they will not have to declare additional costs on sending money back home.
Essentially, US companies like to show big cash balances in their accounts, because the cash number they show is before the liability they would incur on remitting the money back to the parent.
But where it begins to distort the market is because certain companies (which I shall not name) think about their cost of capital incorrectly. The fact is that if they spend the money without remitting it they reduce their future tax liability as well as their cash number. Hence they can make investments in ex-US businesses (either organic or M&A) out of gross cash. They believe that this reduces the cost of capital to their shareholders and hence they can pay more than fundamental value for assets (while ignoring the fact that the future cashflows will also be off-shore and therefore subject to tax if they are ever remitted back to the US for distribution).
All taxes distort the market, Charles.
It's part of the price we pay for all those hospitals, schools, roads and other stuff people seem to want from their governments.
Yawn. This is a badly designed tax that causes irrational economic behaviour driven by tax planning. It is therefore a bad tax and needs fixing.
Cameron is too Social Demo/Guardian reading for even me as a New Labourite....
That in itself might not be a problem if all Cameron's closest allies were low born tribunes of the people.
The fact is they aren;t. They come from the very top echelons of society. And so by being a bit of a lefty who only thinks a certain type of chap is worth bothering with, Cameron achieves the worst of both worlds.
I'll never forget watching Maggie going into a council house someone had bought in the 80s, and noticing the improvements the owner had made. Ooohh look, Mr ordinary has installed new cupboards, double glazing and put up some nice shelves himself.
Imagine Dave trying to keep a straight face if he did something like that. Imagine the knowing glances and smirks amongst the Etonians. Who the f8ck are these plebs...
The CBS team who filmed that must be rather bewildered: by their own astonishing luck. Two minutes of interview footage that will live forever.
It's like a news report by Jim Carrie in Bruce Almighty.
I still find it remarkable that people will thank their Omnipotent Middle Eastern Sky Fairy for some small deliverance in the midst of a great disaster whilst refusing to blame him for the disaster in the first place.
It's cause most of us have a "God module" in our heads. And also, of course, because God clearly exists, though as you are mentally deficient in the former department, you won't comprehend the latter.
If we're defining God in terms of an intelligent creator, it's interesting that it now looks very possible the "fine-tuned universe" argument took a knock the other day, with the first possible evidence of a multiverse.
Actually, a multiverse, if proved, has endless philosophical consequences which are bewildering and uncomfortable for just about everyone, including atheists.
To wit: the multiverse theory posits that there is an infinite number of alternate universes. Iinfinity means, in this context, that every conceivable (and inconceivable) kind of universe MUST, by definition, exist.
That means that somewhere out there, is a universe created by God. Indeed, somewhere out there is a universe created by a white bearded Jehovah in 4004 BC, with angels, demons, Jesus, purgatory, and dog-rescuing miracles.
Ergo, God exists, we just don't know where.
And with that thunderclap of a comment, I must go do some thrillerwriting. Tra.
I'm not a physicist, but I believe the theory posits that laws of physics hold in all universes, even if they're slightly different to our laws.
The CBS team who filmed that must be rather bewildered: by their own astonishing luck. Two minutes of interview footage that will live forever.
It's like a news report by Jim Carrie in Bruce Almighty.
I still find it remarkable that people will thank their Omnipotent Middle Eastern Sky Fairy for some small deliverance in the midst of a great disaster whilst refusing to blame him for the disaster in the first place.
It's cause most of us have a "God module" in our heads. And also, of course, because God clearly exists, though as you are mentally deficient in the former department, you won't comprehend the latter.
If we're defining God in terms of an intelligent creator, it's interesting that it now looks very possible the "fine-tuned universe" argument took a knock the other day, with the first possible evidence of a multiverse.
Actually, a multiverse, if proved, has endless philosophical consequences which are bewildering and uncomfortable for just about everyone, including atheists.
To wit: the multiverse theory posits that there is an infinite number of alternate universes. Iinfinity means, in this context, that every conceivable (and inconceivable) kind of universe MUST, by definition, exist.
That means that somewhere out there, is a universe created by God. Indeed, somewhere out there is a universe created by a white bearded Jehovah in 4004 BC, with angels, demons, Jesus, purgatory, and dog-rescuing miracles.
Ergo, God exists, we just don't know where.
And with that thunderclap of a comment, I must go do some thrillerwriting. Tra.
It is more than that, in an infinite number of universes, not only does God Exist, but there is a universe where his is name is Tim.
Mr. T, that means God exists in (at least) one universe out of infinite number on offer.
That's not discouraging. It means the Flying Spaghetti Monster also exists, and so does the Frisky Nymph Queen who proves her divinity by giving true believers a damned good seeing to.
You can't use parallel universes to prove God exists, anymore than you can use it them to prove he doesn't. It does prove, however, that the God of classical theism cannot exist because by definition God can't exist in all universes and therefore can't be the Creator of Everything.
I'm sure some people thought that "there's a sad bastard posting pet and prayer rescue stories during the carnage" I thought "there's a bet welcher posting pet and prayer rescue stories during the carnage."
Politics didn't enter into it
He didnt post anything about the pet story you idiot!!
'Actually, a multiverse, if proved, has endless philosophical consequences which are bewildering and uncomfortable for just about everyone, including atheists.'
The difficult thing about physics is that the more we find out, the more we appear not to know.
The answer to life, the universe and everything isn't getting closer, its receding into the distance as we uncover more.
Mr. Taffys, wasn't it Socrates who said that he was wiser than all other men because, whilst they were all ignorant, he alone was aware of how much he didn't know?
The CBS team who filmed that must be rather bewildered: by their own astonishing luck. Two minutes of interview footage that will live forever.
It's like a news report by Jim Carrie in Bruce Almighty.
I still find it remarkable that people will thank their Omnipotent Middle Eastern Sky Fairy for some small deliverance in the midst of a great disaster whilst refusing to blame him for the disaster in the first place.
It's cause most of us have a "God module" in our heads. And also, of course, because God clearly exists, though as you are mentally deficient in the former department, you won't comprehend the latter.
If we're defining God in terms of an intelligent creator, it's interesting that it now looks very possible the "fine-tuned universe" argument took a knock the other day, with the first possible evidence of a multiverse.
Actually, a multiverse, if proved, has endless philosophical consequences which are bewildering and uncomfortable for just about everyone, including atheists.
To wit: the multiverse theory posits that there is an infinite number of alternate universes. Iinfinity means, in this context, that every conceivable (and inconceivable) kind of universe MUST, by definition, exist.
That means that somewhere out there, is a universe created by God. Indeed, somewhere out there is a universe created by a white bearded Jehovah in 4004 BC, with angels, demons, Jesus, purgatory, and dog-rescuing miracles.
Ergo, God exists, we just don't know where.
And with that thunderclap of a comment, I must go do some thrillerwriting. Tra.
It is more than that, in an infinite number of universes, not only does God Exist, but there is a universe where his is name is Tim.
tim thinks that's the one he's posting in now.
No one else does though, and that's why he's so frustrated.
" It means the Flying Spaghetti Monster also exists, and so does the Frisky Nymph Queen who proves her divinity by giving true believers a damned good seeing to."
I'm hoping for the Soup Dragon. Knitted FX are just so wonderfully counter-intuitive :^ )
It's complicated. Let's take Apple. It's Irish subsidiary will make profits in Ireland, on which it will pay corporation tax to the Irish government. It will also pay remittance - for marketing support, or for LCD panels etc., - some of which will go back to the parent in the US on which it will not pay tax. However, if it pays a dividend back to Apple Inc. in California then that will be taxed by the US tax man. As that dividend will be paid out of post-tax earnings at Apple Ireland then yes, Apple will have paid tax twice. (Just as a dividend paid to you by Shell is after the company has paid corporation tax, and you will be liable to pay income tax on a portion of the dividend.)
That said, it's important to note that US companies file accounts that show the tax owed on repatriation to the US government as a liability. So, they will not have to declare additional costs on sending money back home.
Essentially, US companies like to show big cash balances in their accounts, because the cash number they show is before the liability they would incur on remitting the money back to the parent.
But where it begins to distort the market is because certain companies (which I shall not name) think about their cost of capital incorrectly. The fact is that if they spend the money without remitting it they reduce their future tax liability as well as their cash number. Hence they can make investments in ex-US businesses (either organic or M&A) out of gross cash. They believe that this reduces the cost of capital to their shareholders and hence they can pay more than fundamental value for assets (while ignoring the fact that the future cashflows will also be off-shore and therefore subject to tax if they are ever remitted back to the US for distribution).
All taxes distort the market, Charles.
It's part of the price we pay for all those hospitals, schools, roads and other stuff people seem to want from their governments.
Yawn. This is a badly designed tax that causes irrational economic behaviour driven by tax planning. It is therefore a bad tax and needs fixing.
Sorry if I bored you, Chas.
I thought I might be helping by explaining some basics of international taxation.
"If we're defining God in terms of an intelligent creator, it's interesting that it now looks very possible the "fine-tuned universe" argument took a knock the other day, with the first possible evidence of a multiverse."
I'm not sure of your logic here.
The multiverse is an answer to the fine-tuning and would solve of few mathematical problems. But it brings in a multitude of other philosophical conundrums. Cantor did a of of mathematical work on infinities (you may be familiar), but it remains unimaginable by man or describable by mathematics. And if true, an infinite number of Socrates are making the same point now (tim, eat your heart out) . And it only casts doubt on this original creator if you define this being in your terms as a convenient straw man. Of course, you may be familiar with Him (or Her or etc).
And the "knock" as you describe it is hardly direct evidence for anything. Perturbations in the CMBR have been spotted before and the new "evidence" will be taken up by those who like the multiverse (or should I say those who like certain varieties of multiverse) hypothesis, and ignored by those who don't.
Mr. T, that means God exists in (at least) one universe out of infinite number on offer.
That's not discouraging. It means the Flying Spaghetti Monster also exists, and so does the Frisky Nymph Queen who proves her divinity by giving true believers a damned good seeing to.
You can't use parallel universes to prove God exists, anymore than you can use it them to prove he doesn't. It does prove, however, that the God of classical theism cannot exist because by definition God can't exist in all universes and therefore can't be the Creator of Everything.
No. There must, by definition, be A universe where God is the creator of ALL other universes. And who is to say God didn't create the multiverse itself?
*disappears into mandala of internality*
Sean, I think you've finally nailed the whole god/ origin of the universe issue. Well done. Has been bothering a few folk over the years that has.
Perhaps you could move on to weightier matters, like what would you do if you were Nick Clegg
I think my phrasing was suitable, stating that it's merely "possible" a knock happened, and that the knock would be to the "fine-tuned universe" argument, rather than any broader concepts. For me, it's one of the stronger arguments for a Creator, but, of course, not the only one.
That said, I think people make a mistake when they equate the concept of God with merely that of creator. When people say "God" they often mean a bunch of things: creator, universal moral law, transcendent miracle-worker, judger for an afterlife, etc. One could posit any one of them existing without the rest.
Shouldnt there be some kind of punishment for posters who incorrectly quote another, misread posts and abuse others on the back of their mistake, or give out incorrect data and REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR MISTAKE/APOLOGISE?
It is only basic courtesy after all.
Maybe a policy of no posts to bepublishedfor a day or until an apology has been made would be a useful deterrent to stop the lies and smearing.
You know its a slow politics day when we end up discussing God and if the entity exists - I think its reassuring nonsense and always have done.
Ditto blaming God or AGW for a tornado in Oklahoma because it makes it less random eventish.
I have a lot of respect for the religious sorts as they do a lot of good because of what they believe - but its not exclusive to them. I have more faith in little green men than an omnipotent being that created the Earth in 7 days et al.
The CBS team who filmed that must be rather bewildered: by their own astonishing luck. Two minutes of interview footage that will live forever.
It's like a news report by Jim Carrie in Bruce Almighty.
I still find it remarkable that people will thank their Omnipotent Middle Eastern Sky Fairy for some small deliverance in the midst of a great disaster whilst refusing to blame him for the disaster in the first place.
It's cause most of us have a "God module" in our heads. And also, of course, because God clearly exists, though as you are mentally deficient in the former department, you won't comprehend the latter.
If we're defining God in terms of an intelligent creator, it's interesting that it now looks very possible the "fine-tuned universe" argument took a knock the other day, with the first possible evidence of a multiverse.
Actually, a multiverse, if proved, has endless philosophical consequences which are bewildering and uncomfortable for just about everyone, including atheists.
To wit: the multiverse theory posits that there is an infinite number of alternate universes. Iinfinity means, in this context, that every conceivable (and inconceivable) kind of universe MUST, by definition, exist.
That means that somewhere out there, is a universe created by God. Indeed, somewhere out there is a universe created by a white bearded Jehovah in 4004 BC, with angels, demons, Jesus, purgatory, and dog-rescuing miracles.
Ergo, God exists, we just don't know where.
And with that thunderclap of a comment, I must go do some thrillerwriting. Tra.
I'm too lazy to try and figure out if that makes sense or not but i'm going to use it anyway.
You know its a slow politics day when we end up discussing God and if the entity exists - I think its reassuring nonsense and always have done.
Ditto blaming God or AGW for a tornado in Oklahoma because it makes it less random eventish.
I have a lot of respect for the religious sorts as they do a lot of good because of what they believe - but its not exclusive to them. I have more faith in little green men than an omnipotent being that created the Earth in 7 days et al.
And the same believers mock Scientology...
If religious people replaced the word "faith" with "hope" I think more people would be interested in the idea of religion and it would also disarm the hardline atheist fundamentalist attacks on the certaitnty of a creator etc
It is more than that, in an infinite number of universes, not only does God Exist, but there is a universe where his is name is Tim.
:logical-failure:
How can you be sure that - within an 'infinite' number of universes - anything exists? Please supply you proof Dr Plank (with workings)....
Edited-to-add:
Your last sentence should use the punctuated 'His' to extol your worship of Wee-Timmy
:remedial-education-at-OGHs-gaff:
Yes, some people are becoming confused by the word infinity. They are an infinite number of real numbers between 1 and 2, and so we can say that there is an infinite set of numbers that does not include the number 3.
Thus you could have an infinite number of universes with a tightly constrained set of possibilities within those universes - eg no God.
If the cosmos or multiverses are infinite, there must be an infinite amount of information/knowledge. So our partial knowledge will always be zero. Yes, I know you can't divide by infinity but you know what I mean. So I know as much now as I did when I was eight.
Mr. Me, that's a shocking graph. Greece is diving like a plane missing its wings.
Mr. T, if God clearly existed faith would be unnecessary and religion would be science.
I was thinking that Greece is diving like an alternate universe King Canute whose courtiers had claimed he could defy gravity, rather than the tides, and had sought to prove them wrong by jumping off a cliff.
If the cosmos or multiverses are infinite, there must be an infinite amount of information/knowledge. So our partial knowledge will always be zero. Yes, I know you can't divide by infinity but you know what I mean. So I know as much now as I did when I was eight.
So feel free to ignore me.
You can divide infinity - infinity divided by infinity equals 1
The CBS team who filmed that must be rather bewildered: by their own astonishing luck. Two minutes of interview footage that will live forever.
It's like a news report by Jim Carrie in Bruce Almighty.
I still find it remarkable that people will thank their Omnipotent Middle Eastern Sky Fairy for some small deliverance in the midst of a great disaster whilst refusing to blame him for the disaster in the first place.
It's cause most of us have a "God module" in our heads. And also, of course, because God clearly exists, though as you are mentally deficient in the former department, you won't comprehend the latter.
Hey, I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (All Hail his Noodley appendage)
It has as much validity as Middle Eastern Sky Fairies with the added bonus that I get to dress like a pirate once a year.
If the cosmos or multiverses are infinite, there must be an infinite amount of information/knowledge. So our partial knowledge will always be zero. Yes, I know you can't divide by infinity but you know what I mean. So I know as much now as I did when I was eight.
So feel free to ignore me.
You can divide infinity - infinity divided by infinity equals 1
No it doesn't...its still a undefined number, so not all infinities are equal.
If the cosmos or multiverses are infinite, there must be an infinite amount of information/knowledge. So our partial knowledge will always be zero. Yes, I know you can't divide by infinity but you know what I mean. So I know as much now as I did when I was eight.
So feel free to ignore me.
You can divide infinity - infinity divided by infinity equals 1
With a fast moving party thats on the up such as UKIP I'm not quite sure how party weightings apply to be perfectly frank. I'd be interested to see the weighted sample with no party ID - interestingly both CON and Lib Dem are below the party identifier in the unweighted sample and UKIP a country mile above. (And the final weighted for that matter).
Anyway heres some food for thought (On the nature of infinity), there are more numbers between 1 and 2 then there are atoms in the universe.
With a fast moving party thats on the up such as UKIP I'm not quite sure how party weightings apply to be perfectly frank.
But you're sure it's wrong?
I think its not appropriate with sucha fast changing and moving party as UKIP. ICM have UKIP on 18%, the Yougov data would be more correct here with no party weighting here methinks.
On the subject to hand, whilst this UKIP surge is all very fun, and clearly is putting a lot of pressure on Cameron, I'm not sure that the polling is capturing the picture at the next election.
When presented with a real decision at the ballot, will people really be coting UKIP in these numbers, given the consquences... As we saw with the cleggasm, it just didn't translate into real world votes.
With a fast moving party thats on the up such as UKIP I'm not quite sure how party weightings apply to be perfectly frank.
It's precisely because it's on the up that they need to apply the weightings, which (I'm pretty sure) are based on already-recorded party IDs, NOT what people would give today as their party ID, so as to get the sample back to a representative sample.
If you don't do this, on a panel-based poll you'll get a voodoo-poll effect, in this case distorted by the fact that the Kippers are all fired up with enthusiasm and therefore more likely to respond to the invitation to complete the poll.
I'd also add that, as a general rule, it's usually best to assume that the reputable political polling firms know what they're doing with their weightings.
It's complicated. Let's take Apple. It's Irish subsidiary will make profits in Ireland, on which it will pay corporation tax to the Irish government. It will also pay remittance - for marketing support, or for LCD panels etc., - some of which will go back to the parent in the US on which it will not pay tax. However, if it pays a dividend back to Apple Inc. in California then that will be taxed by the US tax man. As that dividend will be paid out of post-tax earnings at Apple Ireland then yes, Apple will have paid tax twice. (Just as a dividend paid to you by Shell is after the company has paid corporation tax, and you will be liable to pay income tax on a portion of the dividend.)
That said, it's important to note that US companies file accounts that show the tax owed on repatriation to the US government as a liability. So, they will not have to declare additional costs on sending money back home.
Essentially, US companies like to show big cash balances in their accounts, because the cash number they show is before the liability they would incur on remitting the money back to the parent.
But where it begins to distort the market is because certain companies (which I shall not name) think about their cost of capital incorrectly. The fact is that if they spend the money without remitting it they reduce their future tax liability as well as their cash number. Hence they can make investments in ex-US businesses (either organic or M&A) out of gross cash. They believe that this reduces the cost of capital to their shareholders and hence they can pay more than fundamental value for assets (while ignoring the fact that the future cashflows will also be off-shore and therefore subject to tax if they are ever remitted back to the US for distribution).
All taxes distort the market, Charles.
It's part of the price we pay for all those hospitals, schools, roads and other stuff people seem to want from their governments.
Yawn. This is a badly designed tax that causes irrational economic behaviour driven by tax planning. It is therefore a bad tax and needs fixing.
Sorry if I bored you, Chas.
I thought I might be helping by explaining some basics of international taxation.
I'll be off.
Nope, you being patronising. Of course all taxes distort the market - the idea is to make them as least distorting as purpose (unless it is the objective to distort, as with tobacco taxes, etc). This specifically is a badly designed tax.
And that's just the Hugh Everitt (circa 1957) multiverse. Energy isn't a problem if the vacuum is seething with both negative and positive virtual particles. And, no, I don't understand the maths either
It is also highly possible that there is a limit to human comprehension and brain power - i.e. that reality, when you go deep enough, is so complex and profound it is beyond our ken.
This would not be surprising, seeing as we are bipedal apes cleverly evolved to fight for meat on the African plains, not super-species with megabrains specifically equipped for peering into Eternity.
Moreover, I would submit that a multiverse, if it exists, might well provide that barrier of comprehension beyond which we cannot go, a world which is literally too strange and big for us to understand. This intellectual singularity will clearly be a bit of a bummer for scientists and atheists, but amusing for us religious types, as we've known about the Unknowable all along.
Of course, it might be the case that we have ALREADY reached the limits of what is humanly knowable. Only we don't know it.
Theres a reasonable point there. Most of the 'cutting edge' science is not so much based on real world issues, but high-level mathematics. A lot of science up to the early 20th century is based on a tangible Newtonial world one which people can grasp, but as soon as you bring in quantum mechanics, then you, at least at the moment, leave the vast majority of people behind.
You know its a slow politics day when we end up discussing God and if the entity exists - I think its reassuring nonsense and always have done.
Ditto blaming God or AGW for a tornado in Oklahoma because it makes it less random eventish.
I have a lot of respect for the religious sorts as they do a lot of good because of what they believe - but its not exclusive to them. I have more faith in little green men than an omnipotent being that created the Earth in 7 days et al.
And the same believers mock Scientology...
Most Christians don't believe that God created the Earth in 7 days...
It is also highly possible that there is a limit to human comprehension and brain power - i.e. that reality, when you go deep enough, is so complex and profound it is beyond our ken.
This would not be surprising, seeing as we are bipedal apes cleverly evolved to fight for meat on the African plains, not super-species with megabrains specifically equipped for peering into Eternity.
Moreover, I would submit that a multiverse, if it exists, might well provide that barrier of comprehension beyond which we cannot go, a world which is literally too strange and big for us to understand. This intellectual singularity will clearly be a bit of a bummer for scientists and atheists, but amusing for us religious types, as we've known about the Unknowable all along.
Of course, it might be the case that we have ALREADY reached the limits of what is humanly knowable. Only we don't know it.
As a literary man, SeanT, you will no doubt recollect Douglas Adams' formulation:
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
"There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
It is also highly possible that there is a limit to human comprehension and brain power - i.e. that reality, when you go deep enough, is so complex and profound it is beyond our ken.
This would not be surprising, seeing as we are bipedal apes cleverly evolved to fight for meat on the African plains, not super-species with megabrains specifically equipped for peering into Eternity.
Moreover, I would submit that a multiverse, if it exists, might well provide that barrier of comprehension beyond which we cannot go, a world which is literally too strange and big for us to understand. This intellectual singularity will clearly be a bit of a bummer for scientists and atheists, but amusing for us religious types, as we've known about the Unknowable all along.
Of course, it might be the case that we have ALREADY reached the limits of what is humanly knowable. Only we don't know it.
At the moment the physics is so far ahead of the engineering it isn't even funny. Higgs Boson discovered but no Stanford Torus in orbit ? A big part of the problem is the enormous military spending due to the fact that humans are generally 'orrible towards each other, if we could all work together that would be better.
A bit like a global EU except without the beurocracy, gravy trainers, non jobs and legal bits.
Theres a reasonable point there. Most of the 'cutting edge' science is not so much based on real world issues, but high-level mathematics. A lot of science up to the early 20th century is based on a tangible Newtonial world one which people can grasp, but as soon as you bring in quantum mechanics, then you, at least at the moment, leave the vast majority of people behind.
It has always been like this and always will be. Do you really think most people understood how steam engines worked when they were new?
It is silly to assume this is as good as it gets. There is nothing special about this moment as far as I can see.
It is also highly possible that there is a limit to human comprehension and brain power - i.e. that reality, when you go deep enough, is so complex and profound it is beyond our ken.
This would not be surprising, seeing as we are bipedal apes cleverly evolved to fight for meat on the African plains, not super-species with megabrains specifically equipped for peering into Eternity.
Moreover, I would submit that a multiverse, if it exists, might well provide that barrier of comprehension beyond which we cannot go, a world which is literally too strange and big for us to understand. This intellectual singularity will clearly be a bit of a bummer for scientists and atheists, but amusing for us religious types, as we've known about the Unknowable all along.
Of course, it might be the case that we have ALREADY reached the limits of what is humanly knowable. Only we don't know it.
At the moment the physics is so far ahead of the engineering it isn't even funny. Higgs Boson discovered but no Stanford Torus in orbit ? A big part of the problem is the enormous military spending due to the fact that humans are generally 'orrible towards each other, if we could all work together that would be better.
A bit like a global EU except without the beurocracy, gravy trainers, non jobs and legal bits.
Science only tells us what is possible, not what is practical.
On a similar subject of global warming, it annoys me no end when people say 'the science says we have to do X,Y or Z'.
The science doesn't tell us to do anything, or 'if' we should do anything. That's in the human realm, not the science realm.
"Ah, but then Brilliant Dave Cameron decided to adopt a policy, out of nowhere, not in his manifesto, on this very same subject, so all his party's crankiness was exposed to the world. Not only that, such was his political smarts, Dave simultaneously drove millions of voters to UKIP and got not a single vote in return. Fab.
And he did all this, to make a tiny change to the law, which changes virtually nothing, and about which only a few Guardian-writing gay activists really care, and even they aren't that fussed.
Genius. Pure genius"
This has puzzled me from the moment it popped up - where on Earth did it come from? As you note - no one really cared at all.
It simply exercised the socially conservative/religious bit of the Tories for no gain.
I was chatting to a Tory activist the other day and had to say that Cameron is too Social Demo/Guardian reading for even me as a New Labourite. I think that says it all and I'm in favour of gay marriage now [but don't give a toss about it voting intention-wise].
I'm finding it very hard to support Mr Cameron at all - he's not appearing even right of centre anymore and needs a good crisis to get his party back on board.
The reason the same sex marriage proposals came "out of the blue" and have been pushed through so rapidly (and I am happy to be contradicted if anyone knows better) is as a result of a European Council recommendation (CM/Rec (2010) 5 which the government through the Foreign & Commonwealth Office accepted unconditionally in November 2011 with a further undertaking to implement the proposals by June 2013.
The issue was subsequently clouded by Osborne's well publicised enthusiasm for it citing the need to avoid the mistakes the Republicans were making on social policy in the U.S.
On the subject to hand, whilst this UKIP surge is all very fun, and clearly is putting a lot of pressure on Cameron, I'm not sure that the polling is capturing the picture at the next election.
When presented with a real decision at the ballot, will people really be coting UKIP in these numbers, given the consquences... As we saw with the cleggasm, it just didn't translate into real world votes.
We've seen loads of time that parties never match their best polling at the subsequent general election.
What we don't know yet is whether we'll be looking at the 2015 GE and sagely opining that we knew UKIP would fall back at a GE and only score 10%, compared to the 22% yesterday, or whether they will end up falling back to 20% at the GE from >30% in an opinion poll yet to come (perhaps after the Euro elections?).
Six months ago the best UKIP score in an opinion poll was 12%, and I am sure that I knowingly observed what a stonking outlier of a poll that was, and UKIP would do well to double their 2010GE vote to 6% in 2015.
On the subject to hand, whilst this UKIP surge is all very fun, and clearly is putting a lot of pressure on Cameron, I'm not sure that the polling is capturing the picture at the next election.
When presented with a real decision at the ballot, will people really be coting UKIP in these numbers, given the consquences... As we saw with the cleggasm, it just didn't translate into real world votes.
Isnt the received wisdom that the conequences will be a reduced share of the vote for the big three and not many seats for UKIP?
In that case theres no reason to be scared of what a vote for UKIP is going to achieve. Just a kick up the backside for the complacent numpties we have currently
On the subject to hand, whilst this UKIP surge is all very fun, and clearly is putting a lot of pressure on Cameron, I'm not sure that the polling is capturing the picture at the next election.
When presented with a real decision at the ballot, will people really be coting UKIP in these numbers, given the consquences... As we saw with the cleggasm, it just didn't translate into real world votes.
Isnt the received wisdom that the conequences will be a reduced share of the vote for the big three and not many seats for UKIP?
In that case theres no reason to be scared of what a vote for UKIP is going to achieve. Just a kick up the backside for the complacent numpties we have currently
Well no, it could still make the difference between what the government is. UKIP is much more likely to be costing tory seats.
It is also highly possible that there is a limit to human comprehension and brain power - i.e. that reality, when you go deep enough, is so complex and profound it is beyond our ken.
This would not be surprising, seeing as we are bipedal apes cleverly evolved to fight for meat on the African plains, not super-species with megabrains specifically equipped for peering into Eternity.
Moreover, I would submit that a multiverse, if it exists, might well provide that barrier of comprehension beyond which we cannot go, a world which is literally too strange and big for us to understand. This intellectual singularity will clearly be a bit of a bummer for scientists and atheists, but amusing for us religious types, as we've known about the Unknowable all along.
Of course, it might be the case that we have ALREADY reached the limits of what is humanly knowable. Only we don't know it.
Agreed
Could be an argument for celebrating and conserving the good that we have and against contant "progressive" policies
It's complicated. Let's take Apple. It's Irish subsidiary will make profits in Ireland, on which it will pay corporation tax to the Irish government. It will also pay remittance - for marketing support, or for LCD panels etc., - some of which will go back to the parent in the US on which it will not pay tax. However, if it pays a dividend back to Apple Inc. in California then that will be taxed by the US tax man. As that dividend will be paid out of post-tax earnings at Apple Ireland then yes, Apple will have paid tax twice. (Just as a dividend paid to you by Shell is after the company has paid corporation tax, and you will be liable to pay income tax on a portion of the dividend.)
That said, it's important to note that US companies file accounts that show the tax owed on repatriation to the US government as a liability. So, they will not have to declare additional costs on sending money back home.
Essentially, US companies like to show big cash balances in their accounts, because the cash number they show is before the liability they would incur on remitting the money back to the parent.
But where it begins to distort the market is because certain companies (which I shall not name) think about their cost of capital incorrectly. The fact is that if they spend the money without remitting it they reduce their future tax liability as well as their cash number. Hence they can make investments in ex-US businesses (either organic or M&A) out of gross cash. They believe that this reduces the cost of capital to their shareholders and hence they can pay more than fundamental value for assets (while ignoring the fact that the future cashflows will also be off-shore and therefore subject to tax if they are ever remitted back to the US for distribution).
All taxes distort the market, Charles.
It's part of the price we pay for all those hospitals, schools, roads and other stuff people seem to want from their governments.
Yawn. This is a badly designed tax that causes irrational economic behaviour driven by tax planning. It is therefore a bad tax and needs fixing.
Sorry if I bored you, Chas.
I thought I might be helping by explaining some basics of international taxation.
I'll be off.
Nope, you being patronising. Of course all taxes distort the market - the idea is to make them as least distorting as purpose (unless it is the objective to distort, as with tobacco taxes, etc). This specifically is a badly designed tax.
Well, if I was being patronising it was because I was getting a bit fed up with you pontificating about something of which you plainly understood little. (OK I started by trying to be genuinely informative but lost patience with your arrogant assertions in a complex field where you weren't even on page one of the Primer.)
I used to consider myself an expert in international tax planning. Now I consider myself a rusty expert, but still knowledgeable enough to correct some of the more basic errors I see paraded here and elsewhere.
Bad taxes? They're not in short supply. You could start in far better places than the rules covering corporation tax on overseas profits.
With a fast moving party thats on the up such as UKIP I'm not quite sure how party weightings apply to be perfectly frank.
It's precisely because it's on the up that they need to apply the weightings, which (I'm pretty sure) are based on already-recorded party IDs, NOT what people would give today as their party ID, so as to get the sample back to a representative sample.
If you don't do this, on a panel-based poll you'll get a voodoo-poll effect, in this case distorted by the fact that the Kippers are all fired up with enthusiasm and therefore more likely to respond to the invitation to complete the poll.
I'd also add that, as a general rule, it's usually best to assume that the reputable political polling firms know what they're doing with their weightings.
In every single Yougov poll UKIP are over sampled by past voter ID , in fact the current poll is a less extreme example , it is not uncommon for them to have 120 respondents with a Other Party Past ID rather than the 92 in this poll . Conversely those with Lib Dem past voter ID are always under sampled frequently even more so than in this poll . The problem with their weighting adjustments to correct for this is that they do not fully adjust as this weighting adjustment is just one of several weighting adjustments and this particular one's effect is diluted by others . For example 168 LD Party IDers in this poll resulted in 130 LD voter responders to the poll . They should have polled 212 voters with a LD Party ID 20% more and yet the overall weighting adjustment was from 130 to 138 an increase of 6% only .
On the subject to hand, whilst this UKIP surge is all very fun, and clearly is putting a lot of pressure on Cameron, I'm not sure that the polling is capturing the picture at the next election.
When presented with a real decision at the ballot, will people really be coting UKIP in these numbers, given the consquences... As we saw with the cleggasm, it just didn't translate into real world votes.
We've seen loads of time that parties never match their best polling at the subsequent general election.
What we don't know yet is whether we'll be looking at the 2015 GE and sagely opining that we knew UKIP would fall back at a GE and only score 10%, compared to the 22% yesterday, or whether they will end up falling back to 20% at the GE from >30% in an opinion poll yet to come (perhaps after the Euro elections?).
Six months ago the best UKIP score in an opinion poll was 12%, and I am sure that I knowingly observed what a stonking outlier of a poll that was, and UKIP would do well to double their 2010GE vote to 6% in 2015.
I'm not making that mistake again.
The parties in order of their highest opinion poll score to date in this Parliament are: Labour at 46% Conservative at 44% Liberal Democrat at 25% UKIP at 22%
Knock 11% off all of those and you could end up fairly close to the result. He says. Guessing. (Lab Majority of 14 according to Electoral Calculus).
It is also highly possible that there is a limit to human comprehension and brain power - i.e. that reality, when you go deep enough, is so complex and profound it is beyond our ken.
This would not be surprising, seeing as we are bipedal apes cleverly evolved to fight for meat on the African plains, not super-species with megabrains specifically equipped for peering into Eternity.
Moreover, I would submit that a multiverse, if it exists, might well provide that barrier of comprehension beyond which we cannot go, a world which is literally too strange and big for us to understand. This intellectual singularity will clearly be a bit of a bummer for scientists and atheists, but amusing for us religious types, as we've known about the Unknowable all along.
Of course, it might be the case that we have ALREADY reached the limits of what is humanly knowable. Only we don't know it.
Chinese researchers think they'll have figured out the genetic structure of intelligence in ten years so the capacity of genetically engineered Mekon-skulled future Chinese might be different to today.
It is also highly possible that there is a limit to human comprehension and brain power - i.e. that reality, when you go deep enough, is so complex and profound it is beyond our ken.
This would not be surprising, seeing as we are bipedal apes cleverly evolved to fight for meat on the African plains, not super-species with megabrains specifically equipped for peering into Eternity.
Moreover, I would submit that a multiverse, if it exists, might well provide that barrier of comprehension beyond which we cannot go, a world which is literally too strange and big for us to understand. This intellectual singularity will clearly be a bit of a bummer for scientists and atheists, but amusing for us religious types, as we've known about the Unknowable all along.
Of course, it might be the case that we have ALREADY reached the limits of what is humanly knowable. Only we don't know it.
Agreed
Could be an argument for celebrating and conserving the good that we have and against contant "progressive" policies
There is a line of thought (see Monbiot for example), that the struggle for never ending economic growth is destroying the world.
On a very basis level it's difficult to argue with, given finite resources, but the consquences are so huge no one really wants to think about it...certainly not any politicans.
On the subject to hand, whilst this UKIP surge is all very fun, and clearly is putting a lot of pressure on Cameron, I'm not sure that the polling is capturing the picture at the next election.
When presented with a real decision at the ballot, will people really be coting UKIP in these numbers, given the consquences... As we saw with the cleggasm, it just didn't translate into real world votes.
Isnt the received wisdom that the conequences will be a reduced share of the vote for the big three and not many seats for UKIP?
In that case theres no reason to be scared of what a vote for UKIP is going to achieve. Just a kick up the backside for the complacent numpties we have currently
Well no, it could still make the difference between what the government is. UKIP is much more likely to be costing tory seats.
Yes, but the argument from a UKIPper is that there is no difference between them anyway.
Pro Europe Pro gay marriage Anti Grammar schools Pro Multiculturalism Pro Green energy
So although whoever wins will have less of a mandate to push through these kinds of policies if 15% of the electorate vote UKIP even if they only get one seat, the consequences arent going to be catastrophic
The point many people miss is that UKIPpers dont see Miliband as the enemy or Camerons adversery but they see two very similar politicians.. and at least Miliband genuinely believes in the above policies
It's complicated. Let's take Apple. It's Irish subsidiary will make profits in Ireland, on which it will pay corporation tax to the Irish government. It will also pay remittance - for marketing support, or for LCD panels etc., - some of which will go back to the parent in the US on which it will not pay tax. However, if it pays a dividend back to Apple Inc. in California then that will be taxed by the US tax man. As that dividend will be paid out of post-tax earnings at Apple Ireland then yes, Apple will have paid tax twice. (Just as a dividend paid to you by Shell is after the company has paid corporation tax, and you will be liable to pay income tax on a portion of the dividend.)
That said, it's important to note that US companies file accounts that show the tax owed on repatriation to the US government as a liability. So, they will not have to declare additional costs on sending money back home.
Essentially, US companies like to show big cash balances in their accounts, because the cash number they show is before the liability they would incur on remitting the money back to the parent.
But where it begins to distort the market is because certain companies (which I shall not name) think about their cost of capital incorrectly. The fact is that if they spend the money without remitting it they reduce their future tax liability as well as their cash number. Hence they can make investments in ex-US businesses (either organic or M&A) out of gross cash. They believe that this reduces the cost of capital to their shareholders and hence they can pay more than fundamental value for assets (while ignoring the fact that the future cashflows will also be off-shore and therefore subject to tax if they are ever remitted back to the US for distribution).
All taxes distort the market, Charles.
It's part of the price we pay for all those hospitals, schools, roads and other stuff people seem to want from their governments.
Yawn. This is a badly designed tax that causes irrational economic behaviour driven by tax planning. It is therefore a bad tax and needs fixing.
Sorry if I bored you, Chas.
I thought I might be helping by explaining some basics of international taxation.
I'll be off.
Nope, you being patronising. Of course all taxes distort the market - the idea is to make them as least distorting as purpose (unless it is the objective to distort, as with tobacco taxes, etc). This specifically is a badly designed tax.
Well, if I was being patronising it was because I was getting a bit fed up with you pontificating about something of which you plainly understood little. (OK I started by trying to be genuinely informative but lost patience with your arrogant assertions in a complex field where you weren't even on page one of the Primer.)
I used to consider myself an expert in international tax planning. Now I consider myself a rusty expert, but still knowledgeable enough to correct some of the more basic errors I see paraded here and elsewhere.
Bad taxes? They're not in short supply. You could start in far better places than the rules covering corporation tax on overseas profits.
Grumpy today, aren't you. I wasn't pontificating - and know that I'm not an expert in something that isn't a simple area. So I guess that rules out arrogance.
The only area of US tax I have any real grasp on is section 338(h)10. All I was observing is that the cash gets grossed up - although as rcs says the liability is also recorded - until it is repatriated or spent. The ability to spend the cash without paying the tax causes distortions in the M&A market, with US companies able to regularly outbid international players.
There is a line of thought (see Monbiot for example), that the struggle for never ending economic growth is destroying the world.
On a very basis level it's difficult to argue with, given finite resources, but the consquences are so huge no one really wants to think about it...certainly not any politicans.
It's an utterly idiotic opinion. I guess he would have us regress to a pre-industrial utopia right up to the moment he needed anti-biotics or pain relief, at which point he would be all for economic growth.
On the subject to hand, whilst this UKIP surge is all very fun, and clearly is putting a lot of pressure on Cameron, I'm not sure that the polling is capturing the picture at the next election.
When presented with a real decision at the ballot, will people really be coting UKIP in these numbers, given the consquences... As we saw with the cleggasm, it just didn't translate into real world votes.
We've seen loads of time that parties never match their best polling at the subsequent general election.
What we don't know yet is whether we'll be looking at the 2015 GE and sagely opining that we knew UKIP would fall back at a GE and only score 10%, compared to the 22% yesterday, or whether they will end up falling back to 20% at the GE from >30% in an opinion poll yet to come (perhaps after the Euro elections?).
Six months ago the best UKIP score in an opinion poll was 12%, and I am sure that I knowingly observed what a stonking outlier of a poll that was, and UKIP would do well to double their 2010GE vote to 6% in 2015.
I'm not making that mistake again.
The parties in order of their highest opinion poll score to date in this Parliament are: Labour at 46% Conservative at 44% Liberal Democrat at 25% UKIP at 22%
Knock 11% off all of those and you could end up fairly close to the result. He says. Guessing. (Lab Majority of 14 according to Electoral Calculus).
Rather than knocking 11% of each I think you should add 6% (orwhatever you think "others" will poll in 2015) and divide the best % by the total
ie
Lab =46/143=32.1% Con 30.7% LD =16.7% UKIP = 15.3%
There is a line of thought (see Monbiot for example), that the struggle for never ending economic growth is destroying the world.
On a very basis level it's difficult to argue with, given finite resources, but the consquences are so huge no one really wants to think about it...certainly not any politicans.
It's an utterly idiotic opinion. I guess he would have us regress to a pre-industrial utopia right up to the moment he needed anti-biotics or pain relief, at which point he would be all for economic growth.
Well, yes. It ignores human nature, which is, and always will be pushing forward for improvement.
Those billions in china, india and elsewhere aren't ever going to want to stand still, they will want to improve their lives to the level of us in the West are now, and us in the West are going to want to have more.
That's human nature...even if it means that eventually something somewhere will have to give.
Of course, it might be the case that we have ALREADY reached the limits of what is humanly knowable. Only we don't know it.
We're not even remotely close to that point. Science (especially aided by fast computers) has a long, long way to go.
Phew. That's a relief. The long-feared Cognitive Singularity is not a problem after all, cause "Jonathan off of pb" says so, in fact he says it yonks away, like, you know, ages and ages.
Well your opinion is worth as little as mine. FWIW after 8 years of physics it was a genuinely wonderful feeling to realise how much there is still to learn about the most simple things in life. But hey, that like er my opinion man.
Of course, it might be the case that we have ALREADY reached the limits of what is humanly knowable. Only we don't know it.
We're not even remotely close to that point. Science (especially aided by fast computers) has a long, long way to go.
Phew. That's a relief. The long-feared Cognitive Singularity is not a problem after all, cause "Jonathan off of pb" says so, in fact he says it yonks away, like, you know, ages and ages.
Is that what the Cognitive Singularity is supposed to be? I thought the singularity stuff was supposed to be more like the opposite, where you get some kind of intelligence-enhancing technology which enhances your intelligence enough to make more intelligence-enhancing technology, in an ever-faster feedback loop.
Hence it's popular with people who believe in Accelerating Change, which is the result of the historical equivalent of not being able to understand this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh5kZ4uIUC0
It's complicated. Let's take Apple. It's Irish subsidiary will make profits in Ireland, on which it will pay corporation tax to the Irish government. It will also pay remittance - for marketing support, or for LCD panels etc., - some of which will go back to the parent in the US on which it will not pay tax. However, if it pays a dividend back to Apple Inc. in California then that will be taxed by the US tax man. As that dividend will be paid out of post-tax earnings at Apple Ireland then yes, Apple will have paid tax twice. (Just as a dividend paid to you by Shell is after the company has paid corporation tax, and you will be liable to pay income tax on a portion of the dividend.)
That said, it's important to note that US companies file accounts that show the tax owed on repatriation to the US government as a liability. So, they will not have to declare additional costs on sending money back home.
Essentially, US companies like to show big cash balances in their accounts, because the cash number they show is before the liability they would incur on remitting the money back to the parent.
But where it begins to distort the market is because certain companies (which I shall not name) think about their cost of capital incorrectly. The fact is that if they spend the money without remitting it they reduce their future tax liability as well as their cash number. Hence they can make investments in ex-US businesses (either organic or M&A) out of gross cash. They believe that this reduces the cost of capital to their shareholders and hence they can pay more than fundamental value for assets (while ignoring the fact that the future cashflows will also be off-shore and therefore subject to tax if they are ever remitted back to the US for distribution).
All taxes distort the market, Charles.
It's part of the price we pay for all those hospitals, schools, roads and other stuff people seem to want from their governments.
Yawn. This is a badly designed tax that causes irrational economic behaviour driven by tax planning. It is therefore a bad tax and needs fixing.
Sorry if I bored you, Chas.
I thought I might be helping by explaining some basics of international taxation.
I'll be off.
Nope, you being patronising. Of course all taxes distort the market - the idea is to make them as least distorting as purpose (unless it is the objective to distort, as with tobacco taxes, etc). This specifically is a badly designed tax.
Well, if I was being patronising it was because I was getting a bit fed up with you pontificating about something of which you plainly understood little. (OK I started by trying to be genuinely informative but lost patience with your arrogant assertions in a complex field where you weren't even on page one of the Primer.)
I used to consider myself an expert in international tax planning. Now I consider myself a rusty expert, but still knowledgeable enough to correct some of the more basic errors I see paraded here and elsewhere.
Bad taxes? They're not in short supply. You could start in far better places than the rules covering corporation tax on overseas profits.
Grumpy today, aren't you. I wasn't pontificating - and know that I'm not an expert in something that isn't a simple area. So I guess that rules out arrogance.
The only area of US tax I have any real grasp on is section 338(h)10. All I was observing is that the cash gets grossed up - although as rcs says the liability is also recorded - until it is repatriated or spent. The ability to spend the cash without paying the tax causes distortions in the M&A market, with US companies able to regularly outbid international players.
Any grumpiness has been dissipated by the entertaining exchanges on the cosmos.
Why not air your views on that, rather than international tax? You are far less likely to be demonstrably.wrong.
Comments
Yawn. This is a badly designed tax that causes irrational economic behaviour driven by tax planning. It is therefore a bad tax and needs fixing.
That in itself might not be a problem if all Cameron's closest allies were low born tribunes of the people.
The fact is they aren;t. They come from the very top echelons of society. And so by being a bit of a lefty who only thinks a certain type of chap is worth bothering with, Cameron achieves the worst of both worlds.
I'll never forget watching Maggie going into a council house someone had bought in the 80s, and noticing the improvements the owner had made. Ooohh look, Mr ordinary has installed new cupboards, double glazing and put up some nice shelves himself.
Imagine Dave trying to keep a straight face if he did something like that. Imagine the knowing glances and smirks amongst the Etonians. Who the f8ck are these plebs...
That's not discouraging. It means the Flying Spaghetti Monster also exists, and so does the Frisky Nymph Queen who proves her divinity by giving true believers a damned good seeing to.
You can't use parallel universes to prove God exists, anymore than you can use it them to prove he doesn't. It does prove, however, that the God of classical theism cannot exist because by definition God can't exist in all universes and therefore can't be the Creator of Everything.
Here is the link he posted
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22604251
The difficult thing about physics is that the more we find out, the more we appear not to know.
The answer to life, the universe and everything isn't getting closer, its receding into the distance as we uncover more.
No one else does though, and that's why he's so frustrated.
" It means the Flying Spaghetti Monster also exists, and so does the Frisky Nymph Queen who proves her divinity by giving true believers a damned good seeing to."
I'm hoping for the Soup Dragon. Knitted FX are just so wonderfully counter-intuitive :^ )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsDU-GlZDA
I thought I might be helping by explaining some basics of international taxation.
I'll be off.
"If we're defining God in terms of an intelligent creator, it's interesting that it now looks very possible the "fine-tuned universe" argument took a knock the other day, with the first possible evidence of a multiverse."
I'm not sure of your logic here.
The multiverse is an answer to the fine-tuning and would solve of few mathematical problems. But it brings in a multitude of other philosophical conundrums. Cantor did a of of mathematical work on infinities (you may be familiar), but it remains unimaginable by man or describable by mathematics. And if true, an infinite number of Socrates are making the same point now (tim, eat your heart out) . And it only casts doubt on this original creator if you define this being in your terms as a convenient straw man. Of course, you may be familiar with Him (or Her or etc).
And the "knock" as you describe it is hardly direct evidence for anything. Perturbations in the CMBR have been spotted before and the new "evidence" will be taken up by those who like the multiverse (or should I say those who like certain varieties of multiverse) hypothesis, and ignored by those who don't.
Perhaps you could move on to weightier matters, like what would you do if you were Nick Clegg
I think my phrasing was suitable, stating that it's merely "possible" a knock happened, and that the knock would be to the "fine-tuned universe" argument, rather than any broader concepts. For me, it's one of the stronger arguments for a Creator, but, of course, not the only one.
That said, I think people make a mistake when they equate the concept of God with merely that of creator. When people say "God" they often mean a bunch of things: creator, universal moral law, transcendent miracle-worker, judger for an afterlife, etc. One could posit any one of them existing without the rest.
How can you be sure that - within an 'infinite' number of universes - anything exists? Please supply you proof Dr Plank (with workings)....
Edited-to-add:
Your last sentence should use the punctuated 'His' to extol your worship of Wee-Timmy
:remedial-education-at-OGHs-gaff:
Shouldnt there be some kind of punishment for posters who incorrectly quote another, misread posts and abuse others on the back of their mistake, or give out incorrect data and REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR MISTAKE/APOLOGISE?
It is only basic courtesy after all.
Maybe a policy of no posts to bepublishedfor a day or until an apology has been made would be a useful deterrent to stop the lies and smearing.
570 -> 575;
503 -> 504.
OK. 168 -> 212 ? Bit dodgy but still.
92 -> 23 No way. Absolutely wrong.
Ditto blaming God or AGW for a tornado in Oklahoma because it makes it less random eventish.
I have a lot of respect for the religious sorts as they do a lot of good because of what they believe - but its not exclusive to them. I have more faith in little green men than an omnipotent being that created the Earth in 7 days et al.
And the same believers mock Scientology...
Socrates,
If you're interested in cosmology, there is a scientific blog which is readable for non-physicists ...
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47832.0
Well worth a read.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=74mhQyuyELQ
Thus you could have an infinite number of universes with a tightly constrained set of possibilities within those universes - eg no God.
Fluffy,
If the cosmos or multiverses are infinite, there must be an infinite amount of information/knowledge. So our partial knowledge will always be zero. Yes, I know you can't divide by infinity but you know what I mean. So I know as much now as I did when I was eight.
So feel free to ignore me.
If a new universe is created every plank unit of time for every particle that 'makes a decision' where does the energy come from for the creation?
It has as much validity as Middle Eastern Sky Fairies with the added bonus that I get to dress like a pirate once a year.
Anyway heres some food for thought (On the nature of infinity), there are more numbers between 1 and 2 then there are atoms in the universe.
When presented with a real decision at the ballot, will people really be coting UKIP in these numbers, given the consquences... As we saw with the cleggasm, it just didn't translate into real world votes.
If you don't do this, on a panel-based poll you'll get a voodoo-poll effect, in this case distorted by the fact that the Kippers are all fired up with enthusiasm and therefore more likely to respond to the invitation to complete the poll.
I'd also add that, as a general rule, it's usually best to assume that the reputable political polling firms know what they're doing with their weightings.
Blue-rog,
And that's just the Hugh Everitt (circa 1957) multiverse. Energy isn't a problem if the vacuum is seething with both negative and positive virtual particles. And, no, I don't understand the maths either
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
"There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
There's Stuart Francis joke in there somewhere..
'I went to a really boring lecture on the properties of infinity. I thought it would never end...
A bit like a global EU except without the beurocracy, gravy trainers, non jobs and legal bits.
It is silly to assume this is as good as it gets. There is nothing special about this moment as far as I can see.
On a similar subject of global warming, it annoys me no end when people say 'the science says we have to do X,Y or Z'.
The science doesn't tell us to do anything, or 'if' we should do anything. That's in the human realm, not the science realm.
The issue was subsequently clouded by Osborne's well publicised enthusiasm for it citing the need to avoid the mistakes the Republicans were making on social policy in the U.S.
What we don't know yet is whether we'll be looking at the 2015 GE and sagely opining that we knew UKIP would fall back at a GE and only score 10%, compared to the 22% yesterday, or whether they will end up falling back to 20% at the GE from >30% in an opinion poll yet to come (perhaps after the Euro elections?).
Six months ago the best UKIP score in an opinion poll was 12%, and I am sure that I knowingly observed what a stonking outlier of a poll that was, and UKIP would do well to double their 2010GE vote to 6% in 2015.
I'm not making that mistake again.
Isnt the received wisdom that the conequences will be a reduced share of the vote for the big three and not many seats for UKIP?
In that case theres no reason to be scared of what a vote for UKIP is going to achieve. Just a kick up the backside for the complacent numpties we have currently
Could be an argument for celebrating and conserving the good that we have and against contant "progressive" policies
I used to consider myself an expert in international tax planning. Now I consider myself a rusty expert, but still knowledgeable enough to correct some of the more basic errors I see paraded here and elsewhere.
Bad taxes? They're not in short supply. You could start in far better places than the rules covering corporation tax on overseas profits.
The problem with their weighting adjustments to correct for this is that they do not fully adjust as this weighting adjustment is just one of several weighting adjustments and this particular one's effect is diluted by others . For example 168 LD Party IDers in this poll resulted in 130 LD voter responders to the poll . They should have polled 212 voters with a LD Party ID 20% more and yet the overall weighting adjustment was from 130 to 138 an increase of 6% only .
Labour at 46%
Conservative at 44%
Liberal Democrat at 25%
UKIP at 22%
Knock 11% off all of those and you could end up fairly close to the result. He says. Guessing. (Lab Majority of 14 according to Electoral Calculus).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgCSkGeBUNg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22604798
On a very basis level it's difficult to argue with, given finite resources, but the consquences are so huge no one really wants to think about it...certainly not any politicans.
Pro Europe
Pro gay marriage
Anti Grammar schools
Pro Multiculturalism
Pro Green energy
So although whoever wins will have less of a mandate to push through these kinds of policies if 15% of the electorate vote UKIP even if they only get one seat, the consequences arent going to be catastrophic
The point many people miss is that UKIPpers dont see Miliband as the enemy or Camerons adversery but they see two very similar politicians.. and at least Miliband genuinely believes in the above policies
The only area of US tax I have any real grasp on is section 338(h)10. All I was observing is that the cash gets grossed up - although as rcs says the liability is also recorded - until it is repatriated or spent. The ability to spend the cash without paying the tax causes distortions in the M&A market, with US companies able to regularly outbid international players.
Rather than knocking 11% of each I think you should add 6% (orwhatever you think "others" will poll in 2015) and divide the best % by the total
ie
Lab =46/143=32.1%
Con 30.7%
LD =16.7%
UKIP = 15.3%
Those billions in china, india and elsewhere aren't ever going to want to stand still, they will want to improve their lives to the level of us in the West are now, and us in the West are going to want to have more.
That's human nature...even if it means that eventually something somewhere will have to give.
Hence it's popular with people who believe in Accelerating Change, which is the result of the historical equivalent of not being able to understand this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh5kZ4uIUC0
Why not air your views on that, rather than international tax? You are far less likely to be demonstrably.wrong.
Obviously not....