Slashdot Mirror

On topic: The path of least regret would have been single payer system, but we somehow ended up with a Republican profit-utopia called "Obamacare".

Infinity Imaginary mod points to you sir.

Infinity irony points to you, fellow poster.

It is often claimed that Obamacare is a Republican creation by way of the Heritage Foundation. In fact the Heritage plan was substantially different, and they figured out quite some time ago that plan was not a good idea, and they disowned it.

In fact, Obamacare was written by Democrats in Congress with help from a progressive think tank.

Center For American Progress President Shares Part In Obamacare: "I Helped Write The Bill"

Obamacare was passed in Congress on a straight party line vote.

House passes health-care reform bill without Republican votes

Obamacare was signed into law by President Obama.

So how is a law written by Democrats assisted by progressive think tanks, passed solely by Democrats, and signed into law by a Democrat President a "Republican" plan?

PRUDEN: Obamacare called ‘The fiasco for the ages’
Democrats' New Argument: It's A Good Thing That Obamacare Doubles Individual Health Insurance Premiums
Analysis: Obamacare to cost $2.6 trillion over first full decade

President Barack Obama promised his health-care law would cost approximately $900 billion over ten years when he first proposed it. Since then, the price tag has continued to climb. Total spending under the Affordable Care Act will reach $2.6 trillion over its first full decade, according to a Senate Budget Committee analysis, which was based on Congressional Budget Office estimates and growth rates.

It is said that success has many fathers but failure is an orphan. Trying to leave the Obamacare baby in a basket on the Republican's doorstep won't work. The bastard stepchild of Obamacare belongs to the Democrats.

I'm done being invested in anything climate change / global warming related. We had the global cooling in the 70's / global warming / now in the last few months there have been several reports of global cooling now: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n12/full/nclimate1589.html http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/ http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130503/alaskans-alarmed-russian-specter-global-cooling Backed up by the NASA chart: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php So now we are at Climate Change/Global Warming/Global Cooling. Anyway you look at it man is far too myopic to be objective on this. We have what 50 years of really good temperature data? 150 years of historical data (of varying quality)? For a planet that is 4.5 billion years old? Besides shouldn't we be in global warming anyway if we are still in an ice age? Flame away...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/

Yep, looked it up, higher taxes killed the economy just before the lower taxes spurred it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/

The Li-Ion batteries that have caused the Dreamliner so much trouble are in the lower front part of the plane, below the front doors.

Apparently there is a Li-Ion battery in the back of the plane too, albeit located more towards the bottom of the fuselage.

Which part is not true? That the wealthy pay lower tax rates than the poor? Warren Buffet disagrees. Of course, there's some argument that Buffett is misleading us since his secretary might make more than the average secretary. However, it's safe to assume that she makes less than Warren himself. The fact that Buffett's tax burden is proportionally lower than his secretary's (which nobody is arguing is a false statement) is clear, inarguable proof that our tax code is (or at least has the potential to be) regressive. That capital gains tax used to be lower in the past has no bearing on this fact. That children and cripples don't pay income tax has no bearing on this fact. That Social Security withholding is also regressive has no bearing on this fact.

But speaking of falsehoods... Sure, half of people don't pay any income tax. This includes children, the disabled, the elderly, those on unemployment. Does it also include the working poor? The last time I worked a full time minimum wage job, less than a decade ago, I paid income tax. I paid federal and state income tax. I was making the minimum wage allowed by law. And yet I paid income tax. Explain to me how that is possible. Are you suggesting that about half of people are being paid less than minimum wage? Are you suggesting that about half of people make more than I was but were saddled with a lower tax rate? Are you suggesting that my accountant, TurboTax, somehow failed me, but somehow gets these great deals on taxes for everyone else?

I can't help but feel that you've been a bit out of touch with the market, since you've got facts wrong on both sides.

First off, a correction in favor of Android and Samsung:

There's a great deal of hardware competition in Android phones, which means no one manufacturer does the kind of volume Apple does

Contrary to your statement, Samsung's volume is FAR greater than Apple's, though it's also split up over a greater number of models. As of April, they ship almost 2x as much, in fact. I do seem to recall seeing that the latest iPhone remains the most popular smartphone with the major carriers in the U.S., but if we're considering all smartphones sold, rather than just what's the single most popular model, and look at it on a global scale, Samsung is well ahead of Apple in terms of volume sold.

And then, an answer to your rhetorical question that seems to be contrary to what you expected:

Are they [Apple] making the vast majority of money?

Last quarter (i.e. launch quarter for Samsung's flagship Galaxy S4) Apple only managed to bring in a paltry 57% of the profits in the global smartphone industry, with Samsung taking 43% (well, technically, LG came in at a hair under 1% if you look into the numbers carefully, but they got rounded out in most of the articles on the subject). Every other smartphone player is either break-even or losing money. The reason I call it "paltry" is because it's actually down from their high the previous year when they managed to capture 74% of the profits, leaving Samsung with 23%, HTC with 1%, and the rest at break-even or a loss. So, yes, to say the least, they are making the vast majority of money, though it's certainly not as vast as it was last year, since the gap has shrunk from 51% to 14%, mostly because Samsung has been doing very well and Apple has cut their profit margins by putting out devices with higher production costs (the iPhone 5 is notorious for being difficult to manufacture due to issues such as its micron-level tolerances during manufacturing and assembly).

Anyway, there's definitely an argument to be made that the cheaper Android phones are winning massive amounts of market share, but it's like the old joke about the shop owners who are losing money on every sale but plan to make up for it on volume. The only winners in this are the ones selling the "high-spec" phones. The rest are trying to buy their way into third place and are paying for it out the nose.

Companies shouldn't have to worry about providing insurance to workers, regardless. They should be able to focus on the cost of running their business with static expenses. Countries like Denmark has some of the highest individual entrepreneurship rates in the world. Why? Because the government takes care of providing health care to everyone, as well as all schooling through college. Obviously these are all funded through higher tax rates, but it leaves a lot of unknown headaches from businesses and manages to provide everyone an opportunity to succeed.

Not to mention that Denmark is one of the happiest countries in the world:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/01/09/the-worlds-happiest-and-saddest-countries-2/

Domestic Eco-Terrorism Has Deep Pockets. And Many Enablers.

Times change. Technology changes. We all love the Sopwith Camel and the P-51, but you wouldn't use either one in a modern war.

Depends on what you call a modern war.

Here's two articles written almost a year apart:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2012/04/16/simple-purchase-of-light-plane-becomes-big-problem-for-air-force/
http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/02/27/us_air_force_buys_20_propellor_driven_attack_planes

Small, propeller-driven planes are often better-suited to counter-insurgency operations than the fighter jets on which U.S. forces tend to rely, because they can fly lower and slower to get a more precise idea of what enemy ground forces are doing. Since the Taliban has no air force of its own and few surface-to-air missiles, the danger to pilots from enemy fire is modest. The U.S. Air Force seriously considered buying such planes for use by its own pilots in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The U.S. efforts to purchase a prop-driven plane go back about five years. Some in the Air Force wanted to buy a fleet of such planes to provide close air support to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They would have been better suited to such work than the service's aging fleet of fast jets, which were designed to kill Soviet MiGs not strafe insurgents and which cost a fortune for every hour they fly.

Our modern military shouldn't be limited to "modern" wars.

Seems consistent with this story. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. The only thing that you are wrong is assuming accounting for what government "invest" in cyberwar.

I have no doubt that such a group exists, and that their collection of exploits is extensive.

Oh yeah, and they make big money too.

Medicare, which begin in 1965, is roughly the same in complexity,

I see what you did there.

The Medicare system of 1965 was not as complex as the Medicare system of today. We've had almost 50 years to get it right.

And Medicare still has many flaws. Medicare fraud and abuse is very difficult to track, for example.

This hasn't changed with the new health care law and the government has admitted that they're not even going to try to verify eligibility. They're actually going to use the "honor system" to determine who gets health care subsidies.

why do most of the other countries in the developed world, that do have universal health care, deliver better overall health care outcomes for 60% less

Because they pay their doctors less. When government is the primary employer or leading negotiator with physicians, they can't bargain much.

The bottom line is: U.S. doctors charge 2x-3x the fees received by their peers in France and Germany

But of course doctors in those other countries do sometimes go on strike.

ObamaCare requires companies to cover insurance for full-time employees or pay a fine.

Result? Companies hire part-time workers and temps, avoid the onerous mandate.

Why else do you think Obama is desperate to push out the mandate deadline beyond the 2014 election, even though there's no basis for the executive branch to perform such a pushout in the text of the law itself?

Yes, we get that Bitcoin is potentially useful for tax evasion. Can you spell out why that is socially desirable?

There are massive arguments in favour of tax havens. Most effect and help people who don't use them more then you would ever think.
The biggest one in my opinion is that it creates competition for governments. You might think this is a bad thing if you are a big and unwieldy government, who isn't providing visible value for the taxation. But if you are a normal person, then it means that there is downward pressure on the government to provide value for the money it is stealing from its citizenry.
Forbes: Why Tax Havens Are A Force For Good
CATO Institute: Why Tax Havens Are a Blessing
Foundation for Economic Education: In Praise of Tax Havens

It certainly looks that way.

The article contains a quote offering a nice reminder of who Microsoft is really working for:

The goal, [Microsoft general manager David] Pann says, is to give advertisers access to consumers across a broader variety of their daily activities, not just when they’re overtly conducting a search.

I suppose that broader variety also includes gaming or watching movies.

You think it would be possible to impeach our almighty benevolent leader at this point?

At no point in his first or current term has it been possible to impeach Obama, because the Democrats have enough power to spike the proceedings. And no matter how bad his crimes might be, they will do it. We could find out that Obama is an actual spy for the Chinese and that he murders kittens for fun, and the Democrats still would say he is misunderstood or something; the news media would say it's all a lie from a vast right-wing conspiracy and anyone voting for impeachment is a racist; and really nobody wants to be the guy who impeached the first black President.

do you think our almighty benevolent leader will make use of social networking "metadata" to make sure key "disagreers" are not heard from long before they organize into a coherent group?

Why do you need to spin a fanciful scenario, when it is proven fact that the IRS smashed Tea Party political groups before they could get formed? Democrat-aligned political groups got instant approval of full tax-free status, while no Tea Party groups got any approval for over two years. Once the story started to get out, some approvals started to happen, but the election was over by then.

Obama was re-elected by a small enough margin that the IRS sabotage of Tea Party groups may have saved the day for him. He really is President Asterisk.

But there is an old joke, that goes like this: "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to really change things at the ballot box, but still too early for armed rebellion." Despite my firm conviction that Obama is not competent to hold his office, is not honest, and is actively bad for the country... despite all that, I do not support extra-legal ways of getting him out of the office. If we can't impeach him, which we can't, we will just have to suffer another three years.

And I dearly hope that the IRS scandal, and the Benghazi scandal, and the NSA metadata scandal, and all the other scandals we know about or don't know about yet but will surely come out... all the scandals will actually start sticking to Obama and sandbag his further efforts as President. May he finish his term as the lamest of lame ducks, watching helplessly as Obamacare is repealed or gutted, and unable to advance his agenda in any way.

Mentions Doug: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/16/110516fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all

Some criticism of that: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/05/23/gladwell-on-innovation-truths-confusions-part-1/

Just ask all those union workers in Germany how it's worked out for them.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice-as-much/
Frederick E. Allen
12/21/2011 @ 5:42PM |60,178 views
How Germany Builds Twice as Many Cars as the U.S. While Paying Its Workers Twice as Much
In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million. At the same time, the average auto worker in Germany made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average one in the U.S. made $33.77 per hour. Yet Germany’s big three car companies—BMW, Daimler (Mercedes-Benz), and Volkswagen—are very profitable.
How can that be? The question is explored in a new article from Remapping Debate, a public policy e-journal. Its author, Kevin C. Brown, writes that “the salient difference is that, in Germany, the automakers operate within an environment that precludes a race to the bottom; in the U.S., they operate within an environment that encourages such a race.”
There are “two overlapping sets of institutions” in Germany that guarantee high wages and good working conditions for autoworkers. The first is IG Metall, the country’s equivalent of the United Automobile Workers. Virtually all Germany’s car workers are members, and though they have the right to strike, they “hardly use it, because there is an elaborate system of conflict resolution that regularly is used to come to some sort of compromise that is acceptable to all parties,” according to Horst Mund, an IG Metall executive. The second institution is the German constitution, which allows for “works councils” in every factory, where management and employees work together on matters like shop floor conditions and work life. Mund says this guarantees cooperation, “where you don’t always wear your management pin or your union pin.”
Mund points out that this goes against all mainstream wisdom of the neo-liberals. We have strong unions, we have strong social security systems, we have high wages. So, if I believed what the neo-liberals are arguing, we would have to be bankrupt, but apparently this is not the case. Despite high wages . . . despite our possibility to influence companies, the economy is working well in Germany.
At Volkswagen’s Chattanooga plant, the nonunionized new employees get $14.50 an hour, which rises to $19.50 after three years.

http://www.remappingdebate.org/article/tale-two-systems
A tale of two systems
By Kevin C. Brown
Remapping Debate
Dec. 21, 2011
American autoworkers are constantly told that high-wage work is an unsustainable relic in the face of a hyper-competitive, globalized marketplace. Apostles of neo-liberal economic theory — both in the public and private sectors — have stressed the message that worker adaptation is necessary to survive....
But the case of German automakers — BMW, Daimler, and Volkswagen — tells a different story. Each company produces vehicles not only in Germany, but also in “transplant” factories in the U.S. The former are characterized by high wages and high union membership; the U.S. plants pay lower wages and are located in so-called “right-to-work” (anti-union) states. ... the UAW has made significant concessions on wages, especially through the creation of a permanent “Tier 2” level for all new employees. Whereas incumbent “Tier 1” workers earn about $28 an hour, all new UAW hires at the GM, Ford, and Chrysler earn around $15 per hour.

Covered Califiornia is going to be running the health exchanged. All you dumb-ass, young liberals, tech workers are about to get royally fucked so you can pay for the AARP baby boomers who forgot to save for retirement. BOHICA!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/06/07/obamacares-california-insurance-premiums-are-soaring-this-is-fact/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/15/ca-seiu-ultcw-grant-idUSnPNLA14681+1e0+PRN20130515

For all off you that voted for "hope and change", you are directly responsible for this cluster fuck. FIX IT!. Me, I voted libertarian and I've got my drink and my popcorn and I'm looking forward to "Thunderdome".

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice-as-much/
Frederick E. Allen
12/21/2011 @ 5:42PM |60,178 views

How Germany Builds Twice as Many Cars as the U.S. While Paying Its Workers Twice as Much

In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million. At the same time, the average auto worker in Germany made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average one in the U.S. made $33.77 per hour. Yet Germany’s big three car companies—BMW, Daimler (Mercedes-Benz), and Volkswagen—are very profitable.
How can that be? The question is explored in a new article from Remapping Debate, a public policy e-journal. Its author, Kevin C. Brown, writes that “the salient difference is that, in Germany, the automakers operate within an environment that precludes a race to the bottom; in the U.S., they operate within an environment that encourages such a race.”
There are “two overlapping sets of institutions” in Germany that guarantee high wages and good working conditions for autoworkers. The first is IG Metall, the country’s equivalent of the United Automobile Workers. Virtually all Germany’s car workers are members, and though they have the right to strike, they “hardly use it, because there is an elaborate system of conflict resolution that regularly is used to come to some sort of compromise that is acceptable to all parties,” according to Horst Mund, an IG Metall executive. The second institution is the German constitution, which allows for “works councils” in every factory, where management and employees work together on matters like shop floor conditions and work life. Mund says this guarantees cooperation, “where you don’t always wear your management pin or your union pin.”
Mund points out that this goes against all mainstream wisdom of the neo-liberals. We have strong unions, we have strong social security systems, we have high wages. So, if I believed what the neo-liberals are arguing, we would have to be bankrupt, but apparently this is not the case. Despite high wages . . . despite our possibility to influence companies, the economy is working well in Germany.
At Volkswagen’s Chattanooga plant, the nonunionized new employees get $14.50 an hour, which rises to $19.50 after three years.

http://www.remappingdebate.org/article/tale-two-systems
A tale of two systems
By Kevin C. Brown
Remapping Debate
Dec. 21, 2011
American autoworkers are constantly told that high-wage work is an unsustainable relic in the face of a hyper-competitive, globalized marketplace. Apostles of neo-liberal economic theory — both in the public and private sectors — have stressed the message that worker adaptation is necessary to survive....
But the case of German automakers — BMW, Daimler, and Volkswagen — tells a different story. Each company produces vehicles not only in Germany, but also in “transplant” factories in the U.S. The former are characterized by high wages and high union membership; the U.S. plants pay lower wages and are located in so-called “right-to-work” (anti-union) states. ... the UAW has made significant concessions on wages, especially through the creation of a permanent “Tier 2” level for all new employees. Whereas incumbent “Tier 1” workers earn about $28 an hour, all new UAW hires at the GM, Ford, and Chrysler earn around $15 per hour.

Maybe Cisco should stop embedding backdoors into their products, then?
I'm surprised they haven't done this ages ago. The major question here is: where can countries that neither want backdoors from the U.S. nor the Chinese get their networking equipment?

Quite.
I think that the foundation could send back a nicely worded letter to the effect that they write software/sponsor the writing of software (delete as applicable). They do not sell cars, sell drugs, or engage in money transfer. They should not be held any more responsible for the use their software is put to, than Microsoft is responsible for MS Word being used to write threatening letters to people.

Also, dear the editors, specifically samzenpus, please link to the original source, in this case Forbes, rather than to some random other website. You might also link to the cease and desist letter itself.

There's a good analysis of it here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/23/links-23-june-the-unpredictability-of-the-law-ftc-to-probe-googles-waze-acquisition/

Actually, its a poor analysis. It totally misses the point that Wayz is NOT a mapping company. Its a traffic reporting one trick pony company.

That space (traffic reporting) is vastly smaller than the mapping segment. Google does this mostly by cell phones stacking up on roads.
Microsoft does this by tying into existing into Traffic.com, and also some State and Local traffic reporting systems, which is why their coverage are is so miserable.

Traffic.com is the major player in this sphere, and their service is really slow and difficult to expand.

Traffic.com is owned by Navteq which is owned by Nokia. I'm sure neither of those companies would object to Google getting a toe-hold in the traffic market. *Cough*.

There's a good analysis of it here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/23/links-23-june-the-unpredictability-of-the-law-ftc-to-probe-googles-waze-acquisition/

"Ellison’s kids have already gotten much, much more, from their holdings in both Oracle and NetSuite, which Ellison financed from its inception in 1998 .. How the trusts acquired those shares or even what type of trusts these are isn’t clear .. The easiest way to transfer big bucks without paying taxes is to give away stock in a start-up, when it’s worth almost nothing. Closer to the IPO, when the shares were worth more" .. link

Give it a rest. The Soviet Union asked the US if they (the Soviet Union) could attack China with nuclear weapons in the 1960s to take away China's nuclear weapons and prevent them from getting more. Guess what the US said?

If you think the Japanese were ready to simply surrender, you have been getting bad history.

Let me know when China stops trying to take territory from Japan, the Philippines, India, Vietnam, and other neighbors, and then it will be easier to discuss security arrangements.

What do you call it when "tourists" travel to another nation explicitly to steal technology and import said technology when its against the law?

Let me think....

Chinese Espionage: The Risks Within U.S. Companies
Chinese Espionage Campaign Targets U.S. Space Technology
China’s Spies Are Catching Up

Hey, you didn't expect billionaire Planetary Ventures investors like Larry Page (net worth $23 B), Eric Schmidt ($8.2 B), Ross Perot Jr. ($1.4 B), K. Ram Shriram ($1.65 B), and Charles Simonyi ($1 B) to foot the bill, did you?

Hey, you didn't expect billionaire Planetary Ventures investors like Larry Page (net worth $23 B), Eric Schmidt ($8.2 B), Ross Perot Jr. ($1.4 B), K. Ram Shriram ($1.65 B), and Charles Simonyi ($1 B) to foot the bill, did you?

Hey, you didn't expect billionaire Planetary Ventures investors like Larry Page (net worth $23 B), Eric Schmidt ($8.2 B), Ross Perot Jr. ($1.4 B), K. Ram Shriram ($1.65 B), and Charles Simonyi ($1 B) to foot the bill, did you?

Hey, you didn't expect billionaire Planetary Ventures investors like Larry Page (net worth $23 B), Eric Schmidt ($8.2 B), Ross Perot Jr. ($1.4 B), K. Ram Shriram ($1.65 B), and Charles Simonyi ($1 B) to foot the bill, did you?

We have to get beyond the Left vs Right myth. Nearly every country has two parties like this and both now answer to corporate lobbyists. Let's drop the left vs right moniker in debates and listen to the issues instead: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/jesse_ventura.html http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/06/13/jesse-ventura-explains-why-governments-are-like-gangs/

I thought the reason for the EPA was to fund environmental groups that donate to the DNC. Do they actually accomplish anything else?

Hostess is a terrible example. In the face of increasing competition in a declining market, Hostess decided the solution was to cut costs like wages. I'm currently looking for a job because my current company is taking the same course. Where I work it's not even a matter of cutting costs to survive, it's only to make margin. There's no focus on increasing revenue. It's going to eat itself when it has the potential to grow.

Successful companies come from good management. Bankrupt companies come from bad management.

If you hold Bitcoins, they have no cash value, and thus are not taxable.

Not remotely true. Bitcoins have a market value and can be exchanged for cash. The rules are no different than those for barter. If you mine bitcoins you are realizing taxable income in the form of an asset with value and I promise you that the IRS will consider it taxable. You can be taxed on income in the form of assets other than cash. If you give someone (not family) a car they have to pay tax on the value they received. Happens all the time to winners of prizes.

.. one flight? After the crash, EA's prospects might turn around.

Obamacare's Medical-Device Tax Kills Patients, Not Just Jobs

The 2.3 percent Obamacare excise tax on medical devices is a tax is on sales, not profits.

I think you are out of touch with what everyone is saying, not just Slashdot commenters. For example, from Forbes Magazine, about Steve Ballmer: "The reach of his bad leadership has extended far beyond Microsoft when it comes to destroying shareholder value -- and jobs."

It's NOT just us. EVERYONE dislikes Monkey Boy. (Scroll down in that article.)

Best Buy's former CEO, Brian Dunn, was named Worst CEO of 2012.

Microsoft's CEO, Steve Ballmer, "Should Have Already Been Fired." Quote from the article: "Without a doubt, Mr. Ballmer is the worst CEO of a large publicly traded American company today."

More about Steve Ballmer from that article: "The reach of his bad leadership has extended far beyond Microsoft when it comes to destroying shareholder value -- and jobs."

Scroll down in this article to see Businessweek's January 16 cover that called Steve Ballmer "Monkey Boy". The cover says "No More", but that doesn't take away from the fact that the magazine called him Monkey Boy -- on its cover.

You essentially must buy your freedom.

You have freedom as an American citizen. The fee is to legally remove your citizenship. The price went from $0 to $450 in 2010, during President Obama's term. There are also these fees if you have some assets:

... leaving America has a special tax cost. You generally must prove 5 years of tax compliance in the U.S. Plus, if you have a net worth greater than $2 million or have average annual net income tax for the 5 previous years of $155,000 or more (that’s tax, not income), you pay an exit tax. You generally pay 15% on any gain, as if you sold your property when you left. There’s an exemption of approximately $668,000. -- Giving Up U.S. Citizenship

Then there is this courtesy of Barbar Boxer (D-Los Angeles):

Owe The IRS? Bill Would Suspend Passport Rights For Delinquent Taxpayers

Have you heard of a little thing called "The Affordable Care Act"?

I sure have. It is making health insurance less affordable, to an astonishing degree:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/

its like the idiots who think the supermarkets are tracking them personally with the loyalty cards. stores want aggregate data and purchase bundles to do loss leader promotions. they really couldn't care what you buy personally

Bullshit. Careful who you call idiot, lest you look even more the fool.

Nope, completely wrong. Have a look here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/04/12/the-death-of-macroeconomics-there-is-no-invisible-hand/

In five years there were be no 2.5 " hard drives manufactured any more. In 10 years no harddrives period.

The hard drive industry is in decline
The flash industry is eclipsing it.

Looks more like it was high home prices in California moving people out.

In contrast, just slightly more people with household incomes in the $100,000-$200,000 range left than came to California (103 out per 100 in), and California actually gained a hair more people in the $200,000+ range than it lost (99 out per 100 in). The rich aren’t leaving California, but the poor and the middle class are.

As for the rest of your little screed, most of those supposed "rights you so easily give up for convenience" that you go on about, if you're going to argue what I think you're about to argue (you left it delightfully, koolaid-drinker level vague there), aren't worth half as much to me as the REAL rights of liberty: the right to vote, the right to participate in society as an equal, the right not to have some asshole decide they think I'm gay even if I'm not and fire me with that justification or fire me "just because I can, fuck you it's an at-will employment state."

The dirty secret of libertarianism has always been that it's about protecting the rights of the rich over the rights of the poor.

So the result of the experiment is NOT that professional tasters are quacks (at least most of them) but rather that the visual sense and the power of suggestion trumps the rather weak senses of taste and smell.

I don't think that professional tasters are "quacks" necessarily, but I do think that numerous experiments seem to indicate that their palettes are nowhere near as discriminating as they claim.

I completely agree that various other things can trump your sense of taste -- change the coloring, put a cheap wine in an expensive bottle, tell people a wine is made from grape X when it's actually grape Y, etc. Experiments have shown that these things seem to make it difficult for tasters to come up with rational or consistent results.

Do that test again and TELL them that the wines are manipulated to an identical color. That'll give you an example of how humans are able to ignore a specific sense.

Yeah, one of the studies actually took two IDENTICAL glasses of wine and just tinted one. The red one was given remarkably different taste descriptors (like red wines)... even though it was identical to the white one. Not one taster identified it as a white wine.

Now, you're right, maybe if we did some sort of other experiment where we told people about manipulation, maybe the results would be slightly different. Given all I've read about this issue, I still doubt that wine experts would be able to do as well as they think they can.

But even if under some ideal conditions tasters might be able to make consistent judgments, the study I cited before shows that tasters still only tend to narrow down quality to within an 8-point range out of the 20-point rating system on average.

That might be better than chance, but it's not very detailed. And given that a lot of this can be influenced significantly by saying the wine is "expensive" or changing the color or circumstances of drinking, etc., it's not a lot of information at all.

I'm not saying that tasters can't taste something. The question is: can they taste well enough to justify a difference in wine price between $2 for a bottle vs. $200 for a bottle? Given the evidence, I don't think their opinions are worth anywhere near that much.

For the opinion of experts with such inexact skills, I'll usually pay $1 or $2 more. If I see a bottle that has been highly rated by someone or some organization I like, I may pay a dollar or two more over just taking a chance on another wine without that endorsement. In certain circumstances, I've paid maybe $5 more. I've rarely ended up with something terrible when I've taken such advice, and that's about the only reason I do it... to avoid horribly bad wine, not to actually find "good" wine.

The only times I've paid more than that for an expert opinion on wine is when I was seeking to get a bottle to give as a gift or to take to dinner, and I was asking an opinion from an expert so that my gift would appear to be something accepted "by the experts." At no point have I actually thought that I was guaranteed to get significantly better quality by doing so.

So -- I agree with most things you've said. And I agree that experts taste something. I just don't think their opinions are anywhere near exact enough to justify the kind of price increases that accompany high ratings.

The true cost of Nuclear power is more than any other method.

Talk about easy mode! "Any other method" logically includes coal. And coal sucks. To put it in perspective, about twice as much electricity is produced each year from coal(44.9%) as from nuclear power(20.3%) in the USA.

What, you want healthcare costs included along with the fatalities? Okay, sure thing. How does $500B/year sound, for the USA ALONE?

I'd say I hate to break it to you, but that would be dishonest. I LOVE breaking this to you: The world could suffer a Chernobyl level event EVERY year and it would STILL come out cheaper than coal.

And while we are at it, lets add in all of the cost for nuclear power plant accidents both public and private funds and divide that by the the number of operating plants. Let's see, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, smaller costly but less publicized accidents.

Let's see: Chernobyl: $235B, TMI: $975M, Fukushima: too early to tell. Let's go with roughly between Chernobyl and TMI: $118B. It's probably quite high, but eh. Total: $354B, or about 3/5ths the damage coal does to the USA alone each year.

As I've said before, Chernobyl's design wouldn't have been allowed anywhere, the cost would have been far less if it had been built with a containment dome. 437 reactors, leaving the share per nuclear plant at $810M per your stupid standard.

Let's put it into better context: End of 2012 nuclear power had produced 69,760 billion kwh. Chernobyl, TMI, and Fukushima amount to .5 cents of cost per kwh. Yes, half a cent.

The true cost of Nuclear power is more than any other method.

Talk about easy mode! "Any other method" logically includes coal. And coal sucks. To put it in perspective, about twice as much electricity is produced each year from coal(44.9%) as from nuclear power(20.3%) in the USA.

What, you want healthcare costs included along with the fatalities? Okay, sure thing. How does $500B/year sound, for the USA ALONE?

I'd say I hate to break it to you, but that would be dishonest. I LOVE breaking this to you: The world could suffer a Chernobyl level event EVERY year and it would STILL come out cheaper than coal.

And while we are at it, lets add in all of the cost for nuclear power plant accidents both public and private funds and divide that by the the number of operating plants. Let's see, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, smaller costly but less publicized accidents.

Let's see: Chernobyl: $235B, TMI: $975M, Fukushima: too early to tell. Let's go with roughly between Chernobyl and TMI: $118B. It's probably quite high, but eh. Total: $354B, or about 3/5ths the damage coal does to the USA alone each year.

As I've said before, Chernobyl's design wouldn't have been allowed anywhere, the cost would have been far less if it had been built with a containment dome. 437 reactors, leaving the share per nuclear plant at $810M per your stupid standard.

Let's put it into better context: End of 2012 nuclear power had produced 69,760 billion kwh. Chernobyl, TMI, and Fukushima amount to .5 cents of cost per kwh. Yes, half a cent.

Could you remind me again, won't this be the 15th year since global warming stopped?

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

No, no, no.