Slashdot Mirror

Really? Good God. Almost don't even know where to begin.

Ok, first point - references abound. You couldn't have even tried to look. This is like you telling me you never heard of Google or Bing.

http://science.slashdot.org/st...
https://www.psychologytoday.co... ...
Even the NY Times has an article - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04...
Believe it or not, we really do need each other. We really should be civil to one another. Life really can be worth living.

Second point - you provide some proof! Since when does a faith blind people to evidence? Only when you have failed to prove your point and there is nothing constructive to support your side. Couldn't be YOUR the one that is wrong. Understand that sometimes an individual is just stubborn and doesn't want to admit things. This often has nothing to do with a religious belief. I've found it often has a lot to do with their life experiences, what they believe. Sometimes these beliefs were actually lies fed to them over decades. A very good example of that is the one the left says about women not being paid as much as men are. They know it's a lie, yet they keep repeating it.

Now the last part isn't a lie either, and I think you know it. The Catholic church isn't the entirety of Christianity. The Irish example isn't even representative of the Catholic church. This is almost as bad as saying all black people are criminals or all hippies are dumb and criminals based on Charles Manson (or take your pick of other bad examples of hippies, there are a lot of them). If you don't like it, that's fine too. There's Islam, Hindu, Jewish, ... and so on.It doesn't really matter. Some are lot tougher on you than others. Methodist for example - you're welcome to come on in. Easy to get along. Baptist are a bit more stringent.

No, these were called "boarding houses". They were zoned out of existence in most places because they attracted a transient, low income population that was thought to be undesirable.

In today's "gig economy" we have all become transient low income workers, so the stigma has been removed. Of course they need a trendy new name like "co-living", this is the 21st century.

In china, they just call them factory dorms (generally owned by the factory to house transient workers that come in from the countryside)...
I think google and facebook (Anton Menlo) were thinking about building a few of these...

Recently, these things seem to turn out so well, I wonder why they don't build more ;^(

Yeah, a political guy thought his job (and the jobs of his underlings) was to make the President look good. Like I said - this is bi-partisan. Just look at all the jerks in the Obama admin who forgot they were working at the taxpayers' expense and think their jobs are to make Obama look good.

Here's some of the faux-gagging of Hansen:

2006 CBS hansen, while supposedly gagged rants to "60 minutes"

2007 PBS theoretically gagged and persecuted interview.

Jan 2006 NYT interview by the supposedly gagged man with the most-read paper on the planet.

2006 WaPo The supposedly gagged man gives a panel discussion on what he supposedly cannot say without being waterboarded and it's published in one the nation's most-read papers

People really need to stop being manipulated by propaganda meisters like Hansen and his friends. There are TONS of articles in the web based on interviews and talks the man made while he was supposedly wearing a dick-cheney-administered ball-gag. The man is on record admitting that the famous global warming hearings in the Senate in 1988 were political theater - they were scheduled for a hot day and the Democrats made sure to kill the AC in the hearing room so everybody would be hot and sweating in all the pictures and video. YOU HAVE BEEN MANIPULATED, possibly for your entire life by this man and his political allies.

And here I thought only the USA had the best government money can buy.

Billionaire Lawmakers Ensure the Rich Are Represented in China’s Legislature
It seems that Chinese is trying to copy USA, but "building" bigger model. They are now going to build their military structure from USA model (of course, with more soldiers), they already copied the USA highway system, but with larger road, and more lanes.

Here's a much better article: http://www.nytimes.com/interac.... The one linked in the summary doesn't even say who most of the winners were.

The US spends billions" - No, The pipeline was to be paid and built by Transcanada. In fact, Transcanada would have become the largest property tax PAYER in several of the states the pipe crossed.

TransCanada will be the beneficiary of many property tax reductions to get the pipeline made. If TransCanada want to pay full property taxes, let them.

"There will be some jobs to build the pipeline... only a handful to maintain it" - I guess we shouldn't build roads then either? This is about Canada & USA trade, rather than say, Canada & China trade, and USA and Saudi.

Roads are for EVERYONE not just oil carrying trucks. An oil pipeline is just for oil. You can't use it to transport other goods, can you? No this is about Canada trade with the rest of the world. The US will get little from it if TransCanada merely exports all the oil which the vast majority has already been claimed by overseas interests.

" it's not economical to get oil from the tar sands" - Operating costs at existing oilsands operations are now under $35CDN/ barrel. Thats $27USD. And its oil sands, or bitumen, not tar which is a completely different thing.

Where do you get that number? The US Senate disagrees with you.

A frequently cited study prepared for the United States State Department’s review of the Keystone XL pipeline estimated that many oil sands projects become unprofitable at prices of $65 to $75 a barrel. Prices are now below $50.

Yes, this is exactly what they want to do.

Then they should turn down every single tax break and subsidy

Because the GOP's our opposition, therefore much as I hate those chintzy fuckers, opposing Obama is actually their entire fucking job.

OTOH in legal theory the internal politics of all nation-states are supposed to be totally irrelevant to the one another. People don't pay much attention to that shit, but it's still considered a big deal in terms of an international relationship if one country makes a guy who really hates the leadership of another country their fucking spokesman (non-spokesperson-type jobs are different -- nobody gives a shit whether the EPA Administrator thinks Justin Trudeau is the only Canadian stupider then Stephen Harper, but you can bet there's be some fucking angst if John Kerry or Jay Carnay said that shit).

This is magnified when the relationship we're talking about is Israel-US, because the US is pretty much the entire fucking reason that half the Israeli cabinet has not been banned from international travel over ethnic cleansing allegations. And it gets even more fraught now that the stupid fucking politicians involved are Obama and Netanyahu. They have had some extremely strong disagreements over issues such as the Iran deal, Netanyahu's stance on negotiations with the Palestinians, Netanyahu's inexplicable decision to make that speech in front of Congress detailing all that shit, his slightly more explicable decision to run as the don't-worry-I-won't-sign-a-peace-treaty candidate, etc.

Which basically means that by hiring this particular guy Netanyahu would be perceived as intentionally insulting the Obama Administration. Since Obama takes his campaign promises of 2008 way more seriously then he gets credit for, that's probably not a problem in the short term. But in the long-term it's ridiculously fucking stupid because Obama is term-limited, and there's roughly a 50% chance the next President won;t be nearly as pro-Israeli as he is. For example Bernie Sanders was angry enough at Netanyahu's behavior prior to that speech that he boycotted it. Hillary is probably the most pro-Israeli Democrat of any kind left, and she is architect of much of the Obama policy Bibi haters, her husband helped draw up the peace treaties Bibi is trying to work his way around, and if her position on this particular dispute is anything but "Fuck you too Bibi" she's gonna lose a lot of the black votes that make her more likely to be the nominee then Sanders.

After the Loma Prieta earthquake, you couldn't make a cell phone call in San Francisco, period. Why? Everybody in the country called the area, tying up all the trunk lines so that it took more than a minute to get a dial tone. And... the cell companies timed out trying to make a call after not getting a dial tone for one minute, meaning you had to redial and go back to the end of the queue.

That was an extraordinary event and overwhelmed what was a relatively new infrastructure at the time; 1989 was not exactly a robust period for the cellular phone network. I expect that to happen. Cable modem technology is not new, nor is the cable plant infrastructure, yet if Comcast is to be believed, their network is being overwhelmed all the time... No extraordinary event needed.

Comcast has more than 22 million internet subscribers. I don't know about the rest of them, but I'm paying $69 a month for my internet. Being conservative and saying 20 million times $50, Comcast is bringing in a billion dollars a month in internet fees. Where the hell is it going? They sure as fuck aren't investing it into upgrading their infrastructure.

"The thing is, Putin can get away with bombing Syrian rebels because he is very effective (compared to allied sorties) also against ISIS targets."

He's barely even hit ISIS targets, he's been focussing on moderates an al Qaeda, his actions have, more than anything, helped ISIS, because they've massively damaged one of ISIS enemies - moderate rebels, and in fact, as moderate rebels have been losing ground as a result of this, ISIS have been gaining ground. Putin wants to create an Assad vs. ISIS scenario to force the West to support ISIS.

Here are some sources. This map shows the pattern of Russia's bombing campaign compared to that of the West. There are a lot of maps from a lot of sources showing the same pattern if you don't trust the BBC FWIW:

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news...

Here's a fairly detailed analysis showing the advances:

http://www.nytimes.com/interac...

You can actually find similar evidence even on Russian news sources, although they label moderate/al Qaeda areas as ISIS, even though no one in the entire rest of the world including the people in those areas actually identify with ISIS. At best Russia's done a handful of actual strikes on ISIS to try and maintain this false credibility that it's about hitting ISIS, rather than supporting Assad and ISIS to help turn the tide in favour of Assad and force everyone to rally with him against ISIS, because the fact is, if it comes to that kind of two way fight as Putin wants, the West will have no choice but to back Assad against ISIS.

"The thing is that UK and EU public opinion is very much in favor of Russian airstrikes in Syria."

I don't think this is even remotely true. I don't know anyone in the UK or any of my friends in Europe who even remotely support Russia. Support for Russia largely exists on the fringes in groups that feel under-represented in Europe, such as far right groups like the BNP and their supporters.

"I have seen BBC News stories where the comment section was flooded with messages in support of the Russian attacks (it was a story about Turkey warning Russia not to interfere in its air space). And practically all the highest-voted comments were pro-Russian strikes."

Rather than take that as a reasonable vox pop of public opinion, you need to understand that the BBC comments section is fundamentally broken and does not even remotely represent popular opinion. It is a favour melting pot of government propagandists, and zealots. The same comments section on political stories also suggests 80% support for xenophobic and racist parties like UKIP, but actual general election day polls gave them a meagre 13%. You can't discern anything of merit from the BBC comments section, it's a cesspit of nonsense and even the moderators are part of the problem. There was a UKIPer calling Polish people a bunch of lazy spongers, and I responded saying I've actually found the Polish to be incredibly hard working, often more so than many British folk. Guess which one of us got censored and which did not? When the leanings of the moderators there (I believe the BBC contract that work out to a 3rd party company so it's not their direct staff at fault but the company they subcontract to) supports that world view, is it surprising that that view is more prominent there?

I do agree that Russia is more effective though, you're right about that, but it's largely because whilst the West at least tries (even though it regularly fails) to avoid civilian casualties, Russia just doesn't even care about them. If there's a rebel fighter in a hospital of 100 innocents, Putin is happy to see that hospital bombed to get that one fighter - he's a leader who after all openly broke the Geneva Convention and admitted to committing a war crime by removing identifying marks

Let's just bankrupt VW and bankrupt them now.

What would be gained by that? And how do you plan to bankrupt a company?

Assess the maximum penalty per vehicle sold, don't allow vehicles to be registered unless they pass applicable emissions tests, and allow consumers to sue VW to recover damages in the event that VW can't deliver on its advertised performance specs while obeying the law.

All of that is already being done. I don't think that VW is planning to reduce performance with the modifications or that the KBA would let them do that even if they wanted. They have already stated that they will install new parts for engines that would otherwise not be able to meet NOx requirements without affecting mileage or performance.

Can we hold these big companies to the same standards you or I would be held to if we intentionally perpetrated millions of cases of fraud?

Sure, but shall we restrict that treatment to cases where companies actually intentionally perpetrated millions of cases of fraud? Not really applicable in this case.

I'm not even asking that the entire management and executive structure be sent to jail.

But then that would be a bit pointless. Most of them do not seem to have broken any laws as it stands.

Is that really so much to fucking ask?

Yes, since there is this thing called "equality under the law". Several of VW's competitors have done far worse things and got away with minor fines and no criminal prosecution for anyone involved. For example, General Motors did had a defeat device in a similar number of cars in the U.S. and it cost them a grand total of $45 million in fines, recalls and payments towards compensation projects.

given how lightly we treat car companies who deliberately decide that killing vehicle occupants is permissible, I doubt that we will do much to those who merely decide to kill members of the general breathing population.

Well, first, here is Reagan's official reasoning for supporting it.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03...

Second, you are bringing something up after the "i don't know" Iran-Contra hearings in which it was obvious his mind was going and citing a year 1991 in which the law is not the same law passed by congress in 1993. It had been changed a bit and included different languages and provisions like the assault weapon's ban.

By the way, the final and passed version of the brady bill was voted on and passed into law in 1993, less than one year before Reagan's official diagnosis of Alzheimer was made public.

So once again, a statement was made in a vacuum hoping others were not smart enough to know the difference. That or you are just not capable of looking at the entire picture.

Afew years ago they set up random checkpoints for city buses in Indianapolis, just to remind people that the TSA was in charge of that security as well.
As documented here, http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

found this as well, so their still doing it... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08...

"groups are much stronger than individuals when it comes to conquering and defending resources. And building social groups takes political and social skills."

You do know you live in a society of morons who threaten their own survival? The politics of earth is a naked war for power and resources, how you can call all these people intelligent? The same goes for the corporate world and politicians that reject climate change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

This, and also the fact that they reinforced and lock the cockpit doors from now on.

Which also is a major contributing factor to a certain airline suicide crash in Europe.

THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTION! How can the article not address this?

Do they pay Facebook for unlimited access or something?

I can think of a few ways:

First, if you install any Facebook games/apps, they mine your data. I believe that is the entire purpose of them. You would have to read the individual EULAs to see what they gather. This seems like the easiest way because they can get everything.

According to this article from 2012 "Facebook is Using You" they do give out aggregate data, which can affect your credit score.

Your application for credit could be declined not on the basis of your own finances or credit history, but on the basis of aggregate data — what other people whose likes and dislikes are similar to yours have done. If guitar players or divorcing couples are more likely to renege on their credit-card bills, then the fact that you’ve looked at guitar ads or sent an e-mail to a divorce lawyer might cause a data aggregator to classify you as less credit-worthy. When an Atlanta man returned from his honeymoon, he found that his credit limit had been lowered to $3,800 from $10,800. The switch was not based on anything he had done but on aggregate data. A letter from the company told him, “Other customers who have used their card at establishments where you recently shopped have a poor repayment history with American Express.”

The article linked is actually an editorial in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11...

Links to the actual case, from the Associated Press, on the Boston Globe site:
"American can't sue FBI over abuse claims, federal appeals court says", https://www.bostonglobe.com/ne...

Link to the decision:
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11...

C'mon, editors!

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11...

No, you can't. For example, France is demanding that Twitter turn over information about people who tweeted "hate speech" so that it could prosecute them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07...

A tweet is nothing more than speech, and the "speech crimes" that France is pursuing were:

- Anti-semitic comments
- Holocaust denial (this is actually illegal throughout Europe, not just Germany)
- Denigrating muslims

Even if you call this one an exception, I can find countless others, and for practically every country in Europe.

Let's just bankrupt VW and bankrupt them now.

What would be gained by that? And how do you plan to bankrupt a company?

Assess the maximum penalty per vehicle sold, don't allow vehicles to be registered unless they pass applicable emissions tests, and allow consumers to sue VW to recover damages in the event that VW can't deliver on its advertised performance specs while obeying the law.

All of that is already being done. I don't think that VW is planning to reduce performance with the modifications or that the KBA would let them do that even if they wanted. They have already stated that they will install new parts for engines that would otherwise not be able to meet NOx requirements without affecting mileage or performance.

Can we hold these big companies to the same standards you or I would be held to if we intentionally perpetrated millions of cases of fraud?

Sure, but shall we restrict that treatment to cases where companies actually intentionally perpetrated millions of cases of fraud? Not really applicable in this case.

I'm not even asking that the entire management and executive structure be sent to jail.

But then that would be a bit pointless. Most of them do not seem to have broken any laws as it stands.

Is that really so much to fucking ask?

Yes, since there is this thing called "equality under the law". Several of VW's competitors have done far worse things and got away with minor fines and no criminal prosecution for anyone involved. For example, General Motors did had a defeat device in a similar number of cars in the U.S. and it cost them a grand total of $45 million in fines, recalls and payments towards compensation projects.

Oh really? Tell me more...

French Weatherman Fired After Slamming Climate Conference

http://www.nytimes.com/aponlin...

about left/right????

I only mentioned "left" (not "right") because THEY are the ones currently pushing speech codes, complaining that any speech they dislike is "hate speech" that must be suppressed, showing up at speeches and rallies (by many different speakers of many different political stripes) to shout-down the speakers, hijack the microphones, etc.

As for it being "hypocritical" - well you seem to like to troll using that accusation but you seem not to know what the word means. I should not need to cite left wing suppression of speech when it's in the news on a nearly daily basis and is all over the web and is currently the subject of another active thread RIGHT HERE ON SLASHDOT. How about liberal rag Slate DEFENDING speech codes. Even the ACLU has had to recognize the plague of liberal speech suppression on the campus. Here's the left-leaning The Atlantic defending the suppression of free speech. It's happening in all the formerly Judeo-Christian nations as they become more secular and more left-wing as can be seen at The Telegraph

The following actual or publicly-thought-of-as right-of-center people have been attacked while speaking at public events by leftists wielding pies: William F. Buckley, Phyllis Schlafly, G. Gordon Liddy, Anita Bryant, Rupert Murdoch, Ann Coulter, David Horowitz. While pie attacks have been used by leftists against other leftists for not being left enough, I have never heard of a right-winger attacking a left-winger with a pie on stage in an attempt to shut-down the speech of the left-winger.

Of course there are also the incidents where people like Condoleezza Rice, first black female Sec of State was disinvited to speak. How about this: list of stuff leftists have banned from various colleges? Here is a Harvard Crimson editorial in favor of junking free speech in favor of "social justice". If you are so inept that you cannot ferret-out even a tiny bit of evidence from the publicly-available tidal wave of evidence that the left is responsible for most of the speech suppression these days then you are the last person who should be labeling other people as trolls - apparently simply because they disagree with you (Making yourself an example of the phenomena)

Please cite the most recent 5 examples of a US College or University event where a left-of-center speaker was shut down (speech blocked/microphone seized/Pies thrown/etc) by a bunch or college Republicans or TEA Partiers. Please cite any occasions in the past 20 years when any right-leaning group has demanded a left-leaning speaker be shut up (and please exclude those very few cases where such a plea was made as part of a call for balance AFTER left-wingers successfully block right-leaning speakers) on a university campus. The university USED to be the place where all speech was welcome. This is no longer the case

Not only that, but the locality of East Texas is completely about "the little guy" (read: patent troll) against the "mega corporation."

Read this story (an East Texas paper), vs. this story (NY Times). Note also the ridiculous difference in the way the paper mentions the judgment amount.

Smartflash got greedy. They tried to double-dip, and the whole mess got thrown out (a story the Tyler paper neglected to run).

It's about a poisoned jury pool.

Forced abortion seems to be one of the ways they enforce the law (though probably not so publicly): http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012...

I understand that to be an isolated incident. Horrible, no doubt, but hardly the 'regular' action taken. I'm asking what the usual, regular action is.

336 million abortions and 196 million sterilizations according to China's own Ministry of health.

So not so much what one might class as 'isolated incidents'.

Forced abortion seems to be one of the ways they enforce the law (though probably not so publicly): http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012...

I understand that to be an isolated incident. Horrible, no doubt, but hardly the 'regular' action taken. I'm asking what the usual, regular action is.

Forced abortion seems to be one of the ways they enforce the law (though probably not so publicly): http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012...

And after repeated forced abortions you get sterilized...

Forced abortion seems to be one of the ways they enforce the law (though probably not so publicly): http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012...

Yeah, the New York Times disagrees with you.

But any plan that has the potential, as Mr. Price has put it, to “set the world on fire,” is bound to make some people squirm. Leah Brajcich, who oversees sales at Gravity, fielded complaints from several customers who accused her boss of communist or socialist sympathies that would drive up their own employees’ wages and others who felt it was a public relations stunt. A few were worried that fees would rise or service would fall off. “What’s their incentive to hustle if you pay them so much?” Ms. Brajcich said they asked. Putting in 80-hour weeks after the announcement, she called the mistrustful clients, stopping by their offices or stores, and invited them to visit Gravity to see for themselves the employees’ dedication. She said she eventually lured most back.

Emphasis mine.

Not nonsense. It's a symptom of just how offensive people find the idea of their employees getting higher salaries. Gravity went through a period where their customers were reluctant to keep working with them because they thought the raises were a "political statement'. They saw that as a bad thing, because if it got traction, their own workers were going to start expecting higher salaries, and that eats into the profits, which we absolutely can't have, the world would explode if that happened.

This person had to work harder because of the minimum salary. That is going to happen, and in my opinion, that is important work, as unless that work gets done, salaries are going to continue to stagnate while corporate profits are growing exponentially. The fact that most people would stop reading after the first part is a symptom of the myopia that is pervasive among American companies; it's all about RIGHT NOW, when their customers were bitching that they started treating their people better. (Apparently paying your people more makes you a communist. These folks are so blinded by greed and selfishness that anything that disturbs their worldview has to be called names immediately lest it gain traction.) But, a year, 18 months down the line, those customers are back, when they realized that paying your people more is not the same as jumping off a cliff; a company can do that and survive, even thrive.

Sony makes more profit as an insurance company than it does with all its other subsidiaries combined......

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05...
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/ar...

Microsoft got sued by contract temp workers, who called themselves "permatemps", mostly positions like entry-level QA and so forth. Some of these people were contracted for years at a time, but because they were contracted, didn't get benefits, of course. So, after the lawsuit was settled (which was lauded as a huge victory for those workers), to stay within the letter of the law, Microsoft simply laid off all temp workers for a minimum of three months after a year of employment, or else those people wouldn't qualify as "temp" anymore. Recently, the rules were changed to 18-months on / 6-months off.

Sometimes you need to be careful what you ask for. Or at least, *how* you ask for it. Low-skilled workers don't exactly have a lot of collective bargaining power. They may end up with a worse deal than when they started.

Basically the original Wunderground.com site was very, very data dense, and had lots of links to specific views of weather data, data patterns, forecasts including aviation and maritime. You also got a post-it note sized wundermap view of your local area with all of this data. Rather than getting a TV man weather report, they gave you a full weather station with all the relevant data feeds. It was very transparent and if you disagreed with the weather report, there was enough data go dig in and decide if the model was off, or if that weather pattern would impact your local area.
 
The new "web 2.0" redesign dumped most of that data deep in the website, or hid it completely. Rather than having an all-in-one page, you were forced to hunt for relevant information. Data density dropped way, way down as well, which made it harder to put together a coherent picture yourself. If you just wanted to know if it was going to be sunny on Saturday, the new Wunderground was for you. If you were a hard core weather junkie who helped build up the site by telling all your friends about it for the last 15 years, it was total garbage. Since wunderground's primary audience was talented nerds, the new design did not go over well, and it didn't offer anything special (other than Wundermap which is a polished feed of the high resolution radar data now avalible for $$$ from NOAA) so it just kind of died due to absolutely shit management not understanding their core audience, and then alienating them by turning off classic.wunderground.com earlier this year.
 
Here's a NYT article on the topic
 
Here's a blog post detailing the changes
 
  OLD - Here is a screenshot of "Classic" Wunderground, essentially unchanged from 2002 or so when the site really took off: https://i.imgur.com/7PA9TQF.png
 
  NEW - Here is the site with it's "web 2.0 redesign" that went in to beta around 2010 and finally completely replaced Wunderground Classic in 2015: https://i.imgur.com/P7SU61J.png
 
The old site had it's fans for their reasons and it wasn't for everyone, but it was still the best online weather station data aggregator when they finally put it down. The only thing that could have made it beter was some sort of integration with stormpulse (I reccomend Cyclocane as a free alternative)

[citation needed]

But actually, Ireland and Spain have seen higher economic growth after austerity measures.

By which you mean have finally stopped collapsing under the impact of austerity. As Krugman points out to make assertions of success for Spain or Ireland "you need to define success way, way down".

He goes on to say:

We see an awesome slump that leaves Spain far below its pre-crisis level of output, and even further below its pre-crisis trend, followed by an upturn that, even if it continues at the current pace, will take many years to recover the lost ground. This is a vindication of policy?

When will people realize that no corporation ever pays taxes. Not one dime of a corporations real profits are ever taxed. Taxes are included as a business expense and figured into the price of the product. Who pays the "taxes?" the consumer of said product.

Oh, this nonsense again.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes....

To summarize what the (Conservative) economist writing for Economix relates is that the people who really study actual corporate taxes like the Treasury Department and the Tax Policy Center agree that about 80% of the burden of corporate taxes fall on capital and only 20% fall on consumers/workers.

People who argue that "consumers/workers bear the entire cost of corporate taxes, capital doesn't pay a thing" so you are doing consumers/workers a favor by slashing/eliminating corporate taxes are just shilling for capital, or are simply capitalists lying to you for their own profit.

It is notable that many of the people who talk most loudly and frequently about the virtues of eliminating corporate taxes (Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, David Koch are themselves rich men who ordinarily care nothing about helping out consumers or workers.

Does 70k / year really seem that high now?

I'll see your list, and raise you: Does 500k / year really seem that high now?

When will people realize that no corporation ever pays taxes. Not one dime of a corporations real profits are ever taxed. Taxes are included as a business expense and figured into the price of the product. Who pays the "taxes?" the consumer of said product.

Oh, this nonsense again.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes....

Probably most people assume that the corporate income tax is largely paid by consumers of its products or services. That is, they assume that although the tax is nominally levied on the corporation as a whole, in fact the burden of the tax is shifted onto customers in the form of higher prices.

All economists reject that idea. They point out that prices are set by market forces and the suppliers of goods and services aren’t only C-corporations, which pay taxes on the corporate tax schedule, but also sole proprietorships, partnerships and S-corporations that are taxed under the individual income tax. Other suppliers include foreign corporations and nonprofits.

Therefore, corporations cannot raise prices to compensate for the corporate income tax because they will be undercut by businesses to which the tax does not apply. It should also be noted that the states have substantially different corporate tax regimes, including some that do not tax corporations at all, and we do not observe that prices for goods and services vary from state to state depending on its taxation of corporations.

If I built luxury yachts I absolutely extremely want you to earn $10M or more a year. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01...

What axe? I'm stating a fact. Bush had six months of daily warnings of an impending attack, INCLUDING Clarke's own statement a few days after Bush was sworn into office, and a briefing statement titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the United States".

Further, contrary to the lies of those in the Bush administration, the outgoing Clinton administration did leave them a comprehensive plan. We know this because it's been declassified.

If you like, I can keep going with the facts which show a) Bush had been warned, many times, prior to the 9/11 attacks, both from the outgoing Clinton administration, Richard Clarke who spanned both administrations and daily briefings, b) Bush was warned one month before the attacks that Al Qaeda was planning to hijack planes to attack the U.S. and c) Bush ignored everything until the last second when, on 9/4, he finally had a meeting to discuss what Clarke and others had talked about months prior.

The FBI is no longer in the law enforcement business. The FBI is now primarily concerned with 'national security.'

New York Times:

Following the 9/11 attacks, the FBI picked up scores of new responsibilities related to terrorism and counterintelligence while maintaining a finite amount of resources. Whatâ(TM)s not in question is that government agencies tend to benefit in numerous ways when considered critical to national security as opposed to law enforcement. âIf you tie yourself to national security, you get funding and you get exemptions on disclosure cases,â(TM) said McClanahan. âYou get all the wonderful arguments about how if you donâ(TM)t get your way, buildings will blow up and the country will be less safe.â(TM)

foreignpolicy.com:

Instead of declaring âoelaw enforcementâ as its âoeprimary function,â as it has for years, the FBI fact sheet now lists âoenational securityâ as its chief mission.
[â¦]
âoeWe rank our top 10 priorities and CT [counterterrorism] is first, counterintel is second, cyber is third,â [FBI spokesman Paul Bresson] said. âoeSo it is certainly accurate to say our primary function is national security.â

It's usually not the manufacturing that is so expensive but the research and testing needing to get the drug on the market. In this case neither company needs to do any research or additional testing with the FDA since the drug is well known and has been on the market for 60 years. That doesn't apply with a brand new drug which may have to go through years of testing even if the first version is perfect with no side effects.

According to a study done by Tufts University, Cost to Develop and Win Marketing Approval for a New Drug Is $2.6 Billion that "cost" includes (quoting these Washington Post and New York Times write-ups:

Its estimate includes another $1.2 billion in foregone returns investors would have otherwise seen while the drug was under development.

Basically, the money investors *could* have earned by simply putting the other money used for development into the market over the development period. So not actual cost, but lost earnings.

What if a policeman tells you to go into a bank and start shooting?

The law usually limits the cop's orders to "lawful" ones — but it is the cop, who is the immediate judge of whether or not his own order is lawful... If you disobey such an order, you will avoid prosecution later because the order will be deemed by others to have been illegal, but meanwhile he can arrest you. And if you resist the arrest, he can use violence to subdue you, yes. The very arrest may later be deemed illegal, and he will be prosecuted for it, but not for any violence used during it (though such violence may be part of aggravating circumstances during the prosecution).

Frankly, it's people who blindly support the police, irrespective of the violence that they perpetrate on people, that are the root cause of the situation that we are in now.

How so? How many murders and other violent crimes — including unjustified police shootings — have we had before and how many do we have now that police are afraid to do their jobs, according to TFA?

Murder rate is up in cities across America — hundreds more will have died by the end of 2015, than in 2014. How many lives has the police-bashing saved to counter-balance that spike?

There is no "rise in violent crime". It's still lower than it was in the '90s, and one data point does not a trend make.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Also,

The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said on Friday that the additional scrutiny and criticism of police officers in the wake of highly publicized episodes of police brutality may have led to an increase in violent crime in some cities as officers have become less aggressive.

With his remarks, Mr. Comey lent the prestige of the F.B.I., the nation’s most prominent law enforcement agency, to a theory that is far from settled: that the increased attention on the police has made officers less aggressive and emboldened criminals. But he acknowledged that there is so far no data to back up his assertion and that it may be just one of many factors that are contributing to the rise in crime, like cheaper drugs and an increase in criminals who are being released from prison.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10...

So really, it could very well be that the rise in violent crime is the result of increased surveillance on the general population rather than increased surveillance on police.

You don't have to be dishonest to be in law enforcement, but it helps.

This sounds like the comments of someone obviously blind to the realities of stepping into a hostile crowd alone.

Yes, there is an escalating war against the police. In fact, with one shooting per week in 2015, it is a very dangerous time to be a.. toddler? (checks link) Wow.

In America, more preschoolers are shot dead each year (82 in 2013) than police officers are in the line of duty (27 in 2013), according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FBI.

                        --- sketchy source

Well, c'mon, that was back in 2013, before the "Ferguson Effect." What are the more recent statistics--oh...

2015 may be one of the safest years for law enforcement in a quarter century.

So how are these "realities" you speak of any different now than before the new "video scrutiny"?

FTL is possible, and it happens. Here, have some science.

But any sceptic today is immediately suspected of being on Big Oil's payroll anyway.

Not doing so would be failing to take into account the existence of all the groups funded by ExxonMobil, the Koch foundations and others: American Enterprise Institute, American Legislative Exchange Council, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Americans for Prosperity, Beacon Hill Institute, Cato Institute, DonorsTrust, Heartland Institute, Heritage Foundation, Institute for Energy Research, , National Center for Policy Analysis, and hundreds more.

The $1.5 bln would buy a lot of scientists — especially those, who already think AGW is a real concern and whose conscience would thus be a lot cheaper.

So you would have us believe that the thousands of scientists who contributed to the IPCC report are all corrupt and not one of them spilled the beans. Not only that but since the report is reviewed by the governments of over 120 countries with competing interests you would also have us believe that they are all in on the conspiracy and that none saw fit to expose it to discredit their adversaries! And all these scientists would be producing bogus results without anyone in the organizations and countries financing them noticing something fishy?

Well, as they say, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof and all you have are unsubstantiated accusations.

I do not doubt, that you share the concerns over the fabled "Military-Industrial Complex" influencing the government towards "perpetual war" so it can forever sell the armaments.

Wow! Aren't you a bit quick putting people you disagree with into neat little boxes! What will you accuse me of next?

1: Suntrust is deeply, deeply underwater. Texas Ratio of 17+. That means if they went under right now, their creditors, including depositors, would get 5 cents on the dollar. This is a company deeply affected by the subprime mortgage racket, literally they paid a billion bucks to the justice department to settle foreclosing on people's homes they didn't own or have titles to. It is a company that needs to fail and it's current and previous management needs to be imprisoned. http://www.bankregdata.com/all... http://dealbook.nytimes.com/20...

2: This is not just a desperation move, it's almost certainly a move made by an Indian manager, coming from India, where there are no worker protections, and this kind of deal is going to result in a huge class-action lawsuit after a few months or so of "on-call" support. If you are reading this and from sun-trust, call lawyers, get contacts lists NOW, and strategize to get as much money as humanly possible from these scum. Make sure to discuss pressing whatever criminal charges you can as well, make sure to muck up the case where they are assuredly mucking up black-letter FSLA laws. Make sure the world knows if you're an IT manager from Sun-trust that you cannot manage a department competently.

3: Now that I know you are off-shoring IT and are badly underwater, I also know you are probably off-shoring accounting. The problem here for the bank is when the new serfs start stealing things; there's no downside since the Indians don't go to jail since they're remote, and they have all the motive in the world. If you have stock get it out NOW! .

Your post is a bit racist but this explains why they sold my loan. I had an auto loan with them arranged by the dealership (I negotiated the rate down to market rates). I have excellent credit, never a late payment, and my interest rate was fair to them (market rate basically). 3 months after writing that loan, they sold my loan to CSC Logic / aka BB&T, and it seems that I am not the only one they did this to. The paperwork involved for me was a nightmare and I will never use a big bank for a loan again. When your loan is sold, it is rarely to an outfit with good customer service. It's sold to the "highest bidder" which generally means they have low margins and don't spend money on customer service. I couldn't understand why SunTrust would sell my very safe loan, but now it makes sense- they need cash NOW. I'm going to buy a bottle of Don Julio 1942 and drink it on the day they go bust.

This is why is it going to ID: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2...

Sen. Rubber Band Reid got bought...

Most recent write up I can find is from 8/14.

I suspect the ratio CA->TX/TX->CA has fallen somewhat with the decline in oil prices but most likely still > 1.

CA population is still growing, but mainly at the bottom (read "undocumented") end of the income spectrum.
Meanwhile, the middle+ income refugees continue to spread their toxic politics to CO, TX and any other state dumb enough not to follow Hungary's lead.

ASSANGE__IS__NOT__ABOVE__THE__LAW__AND__DESERVES__NO__EXTRAORDINARY__TREATMENT!

Then take the Extraordinary possibility of extradition to the United States off the table, and make it be about the goddamn rape, if it's actually about rape. Glad you stopped gargling James Clapper's balls long enough to see reason.

By the way, you guys wouldn't be so obviously full of shit if you weren't all a bunch of single-rape activists. Assange and Manning revealed Hillary's State Department covering up a contractor that bought boys to be raped for our Afghan "allies". Or that these same boy-fuckers are still allowed to rape kids on U.S. military bases.

But hey, it was never really about rape for you guys, was it?

"But those debates did a great deal for Mr. Sacks. After graduation, he and Mr. Thiel published 'The Diversity Myth,' a book-length critique of Stanford’s efforts. Within a few more years, he, Mr. Thiel, Mr. Rabois and others had transformed themselves into a close-knit network of technology entrepreneurs — innovators who created billion-dollar business after billion-dollar business, using the ideas, ethos and group bonds they had honed at The Stanford Review...

PayPal had a hard time hiring women, Max Levchin, another co-founder, later told a class at Stanford, 'because PayPal was just a bunch of nerds! They never talked to women. So how were they supposed to interact with and hire them?... The notion that diversity in an early team is important or good is completely wrong,' he added. 'The more diverse the early group, the harder it is for people to find common ground.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/23/us/gender-gaps-stanford-94.html