Sorry, what? You're trying to relate Donald Trump to CPU technology? You mad because of politics and this is where you take it out? Can you be more retarded?
Jane said: "Not wanting X in no way implies a fear of X" (where X is "strangers or foreigners" for xenophobia)
You said: "Xenophobia -- fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners, first known use 1903."
How does your definition of xenophobia refute what Jane said? Don't answer... it doesn't. Jane wrote that "fear" does not equal "not wanting" and what you wrote doesn't contradict that. If I don't feel like having cheese on my sandwich today, does that make me cheesephobic? According to you, it does.
I think you're too busy rabidly frothing at the mouth at perceived slights against your political ideology to meaningfully communicate. Relax and get some sleep. Jane makes a valid point that misusing "phobia" words is a technique used by some people to shame and silence other people with whom they disagree. It happens all the time in the media, and it's disheartening to see how often it works.
P.S. It would be great if you didn't claim to speak for all liberals in your future nonsensical "rebuttals", because it's embarrassing for the rest of us.
Just because your comment reminded me, I think later on I'll pull out my old Atari 2600 and hook it up to the CRT TV in the basement, and play for a couple of hours.
Not trying to be an ass here, but Eric Spiegel's self-agrandizing "columns" have been discussed on Slashdot before. Based on his past writings, he seems to think it's ok to treat people like cattle. (Give the cows a salt lick, they'll feel better. Give the developers their carbonated sugar water, they'll feel better.) He also doesn't miss an opportunity to point out how smart he thinks his decisions are, and his writings have an "I told you so" undertone. I can't help but get the feeling that he writes to help convince himself that he was right, if not others. If he were my boss, I'd transfer or quit, and if I couldn't transfer or quit, I'd lie down on his desk and slit my wrists.
Yes. Anybody with a cheap Harbor Freight welder and Chinese 7" mini lathe can produce a gun. Total cost of the tools is about 1/2 that of the Lulz 3D printer, and you'd be able to make actual guns, not these fragile plastic toys that everybody is losing their shit over.
Nope. Nothing will change as a result of these poor quality, single shot, plastic 3D printed guns. Not in Africa, not nowhere.
Before piling onto the 3D printed gun hype bandwagon, think about the practical aspects of deplying these toy guns for any purpose, besides messing around in your basement with your 3D printer and CAD software.
It may be a fun proof of concept, but about the only things it is good for are generating political hype and drawing attention to the inventors.
People fail to realize that it's much easier and cheaper to make a home made gun using existing tools and materials. Just because someone now made a [not very good] one using a 3D printer, everybody seems to be freaking out.
Further well-grounded and thoughtful discussion on the matter can be found here:
You might think that comment was "skeptical" or that it demonstrates your "critical thinking" but really, it was just plain ignorant. Based on this comment, one might reasonably assume you fall in with the kind of douchetards that yell out "42! Haha!" every time a mathematical discussion takes place.
To answer your question, you might start by reading the article. It talks about isotopes and geochemistry.
Then you could do some reading at the library to find out more about isotopes and geochemistry, and why these things are interesting and important. If you want to go further, you could take an undergraduate degree in geology, where you will learn all kinds of strange and wonderful things about the Earth, and how we can know about things that occurred billions of years ago.
Also, I was not in the mood to handle these parrotsheep who bleat out, "42! Get it?? Haha!" on cue, any time there is any remotely math-related discussion taking place.
Also, I see what you did there at the end, but I will not gratify it with a response.
Agreed, that's the dumbest motto I've ever seen, from a weapons company. They must think people are idiots if they think anybody will buy that bleeding heart line of bullshit.
Your genderless, generic 15-year-old piece of human offspring?
Seriously, what the fuck is it with people who refer to their kids as "my 15-year-old" or "my 2-year-old", etc.? In my mind, that reduces a person to nothing more than their age, as if that were the only important characteristic. Why can't people say, "my 15-year-old daughter" or "my 2-year-old son" instead?
Everytime someone says in conversation, "Oh hahahaha you wouldn't BELIEVE what our 2-year-old did the other day!" I cringe a thousand times on the inside. Maybe it's just me.
Ok, so Stewart Lee is a very rage filled man who sincerely hates Jeremy Clarkson. His comedy routine is quite angry and vitriolic actually. He basically repeats the same joke again and again and again for 14 minutes, in varying degrees of hate and rage.
Please help me out, what was I supposed to appreciate?! Did I miss it because I don't have a spine??
99.9% of the things you call "homophobia, misogyny, and racism" on Top Gear, simply aren't.
When you, like most modern politically sensitized people, hear words related to women, homosexuals and non-white, non-Christian cultures, used in a humourous context, you automatically assume that IT MUST BE OFFENSIVE! and therefore IT IS WRONG! and OMG I WAS SO EMBARRASSED TO BE IN THE ROOM!
Please grow a fucking spine and look at the context in which something is said. Not everything that deals with those subjects is bad or offensive or, God help us all, infringes on someone else's right not to be offended.
Cool demo, but seriously, this has been done a thousand times already, in various forms, and more elegantly at that. It looks like it took Eric about 1 hour to slap together the web page to drive his little robot.
And then he produced a video with a woman driving the robot. I suppose that is somewhat original.
Wait... install "cheap tiny speakers" in every room of the house, so you can get "whole house audio"? Right, I'm sure everyone will fucking want that. Those "cheap tiny speakers" are going to sound great, nothing at all like a shitty shopping mall PA system grinding out the Top 40 hits. Because nobody wants some quiet areas in their home, where they can get away from the noise and bustle of the day to day activity, you know, to maybe read a book or just enjoy some silence.
I know you're just pulling some ideas out of your ass and tossing them out there... but from where I am, coincidentally, it does look and smell like the verbal diarrhea that it is.
You're right! Automobiles have headlights facing forward, which exert radiation pressure in the opposite direction the driver wants to go!
As for the fighter jets with radar in the nose creating, as you said it, "forward facing thrust which at the power levels he's claiming would probably be more powerfull [sic] than the jet engine powering the aircraft" -- did you even bother to read the article? The article talks about putting in energy in the several kilowatts range, producing a thrust force in the dozens to several hundred millinewtons range. That's 1/1000th's of a Newton, which is very very tiny, and the article draws a comparison to the "weight of a couple of peanuts" in Earth's gravity field. In your scientific opinion, is that pretty close to being "more powerfull [sic] than the jet engine powering the aircraft"?
Answer: not even close. (For your highly educated ass, we're talking about several orders of magnitude of difference, which is like dividing by ten a bunch of times.)
You should read the article next time before you spout off like a douche. From here, it looks like you're trying to look smart (which you failed at) and/or boost your own little ego by taking a big shit all over something you have no concept about (which you probably succeeded at, for a while).
Don't get me wrong, this EM drive may prove to be completely bogus. That still doesn't mean you will not look like a condescending retard for saying nonsense like you just did.
As for myself, this looks interesting enough to watch. I am hoping someone will continue with more experiments, which will either be unable to reproduce the results, or will confirm that there is something interesting going on.
If you are working as a consultant, then the biggest advantage of incorporating will be in tax savings.
In Canada (Ontario specifically) there is a break-even point around $42k/yr income, where the personal income tax and corporate income tax (and accountant fees, etc.) you pay will be approximately equal. Above $42k/yr income, the corporate tax will become less and less compared to personal tax. This is due to the fact that the corporate tax rate is fixed at 16.5% (until $500k or $1M annual income... I can't recall) while personal tax rates have brackets that increase as you make more money.
To take an example from my past, the last year before I incorporated I made roughly $86,000 and paid about $22,000 in personal income taxes. The accountant that helped me incorporate did some calculating, and if I were incorporated, the corp would have had to pay only about $13,000-14,000 in taxes.
There are some costs associated with running a corporation. There are the initial costs of setting it up, usually between $2000-4000 for lawyers and accountants. Then annually, you will probably have an accountant prepare your corporate taxes, which will cost around $750-2000 depending on who does it and how organized your paperwork is. These are extra hassles that some people find unpalatable, and it is a bit of extra administrative work on your part, but altogether, it saves you thousands and is very much worth it. (Unless you have some kind of ADHD and psychologically cannot deal with paperwork.)
Another tax saving tool available in Canada is that you can make $50k/yr in dividend income, tax free. Therefore, if you and your significant other are both part owners in your newly formed corp, then you can essentially have a combined household (personal) income of $100k/yr, tax free because your corp will pay out dividends to its owners, rather than salary (which is all taxable). You will probably not make exactly $100k/yr tax free (but it will still be around $95k or $98k) because in order to take advantage of various tax credits you have to show some personal income. How this is works is that, whenever you need money from your corp, you just withdraw it. At the end of your fiscal year, you and your accountant will figure out how to label those withdrawals, be it dividends, salary, whatever, to maximize the tax savings. That is how I have been doing it in Canada, anyway, and your accountant will be more familiar with how this stuff works in your area.
The best thing you can do (aside from asking the experts on Slashdot, of course) is to go see an accountant who deals with corporate stuff. Explain to him or her what you are thinking about doing and outline your current situation. Using your 2011 net income as an example, they can then draw up a spreadsheet for you, showing what would be your taxes and other numbers if you had been incorporated in 2011. This will let you know with little uncertainty what is your best course of action.
There are other benefits that come with having a corporation, your corp can purchase the equipment (e.g. laptops, mobile devices for testing, etc.) that you will use to do the service that the corporation sells. This can be recorded as an expense of the corp, which reduces the corporate taxes. In contrast if you bought equipment personally, it would not affect your tax situation at all. This is nice if you like toys, and would like some extra reasons to rationalize their purchase.
In summary, if you plan to make more than $42k (*) this year from your moon-lighting activities, just get it done already.
* $42k, or whatever is the break-even number for the tax system you live in.
Wrong, "toqué" is an adjective. It is never used, anywhere, to refer to the hat, which is a noun. You'll never find a Frenchman who says "toqué". If someone does write "toqué" or "tuke" when they mean "toque" then they belong to the same group that misuses quotes and hyphens (a.k.a. illiterates of questionable moral standing).
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, what? You're trying to relate Donald Trump to CPU technology? You mad because of politics and this is where you take it out? Can you be more retarded?
Just wanted to say you have an excellent signature. Thank you!
LOL
That made no sense, Eunuchswear.
Jane said: "Not wanting X in no way implies a fear of X" (where X is "strangers or foreigners" for xenophobia)
You said: "Xenophobia -- fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners, first known use 1903."
How does your definition of xenophobia refute what Jane said? Don't answer... it doesn't. Jane wrote that "fear" does not equal "not wanting" and what you wrote doesn't contradict that. If I don't feel like having cheese on my sandwich today, does that make me cheesephobic? According to you, it does.
I think you're too busy rabidly frothing at the mouth at perceived slights against your political ideology to meaningfully communicate. Relax and get some sleep. Jane makes a valid point that misusing "phobia" words is a technique used by some people to shame and silence other people with whom they disagree. It happens all the time in the media, and it's disheartening to see how often it works.
P.S. It would be great if you didn't claim to speak for all liberals in your future nonsensical "rebuttals", because it's embarrassing for the rest of us.
Agreed.
Just because your comment reminded me, I think later on I'll pull out my old Atari 2600 and hook it up to the CRT TV in the basement, and play for a couple of hours.
Not trying to be an ass here, but Eric Spiegel's self-agrandizing "columns" have been discussed on Slashdot before. Based on his past writings, he seems to think it's ok to treat people like cattle. (Give the cows a salt lick, they'll feel better. Give the developers their carbonated sugar water, they'll feel better.) He also doesn't miss an opportunity to point out how smart he thinks his decisions are, and his writings have an "I told you so" undertone. I can't help but get the feeling that he writes to help convince himself that he was right, if not others. If he were my boss, I'd transfer or quit, and if I couldn't transfer or quit, I'd lie down on his desk and slit my wrists.
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
Yes. Anybody with a cheap Harbor Freight welder and Chinese 7" mini lathe can produce a gun. Total cost of the tools is about 1/2 that of the Lulz 3D printer, and you'd be able to make actual guns, not these fragile plastic toys that everybody is losing their shit over.
Nope. Nothing will change as a result of these poor quality, single shot, plastic 3D printed guns. Not in Africa, not nowhere.
Before piling onto the 3D printed gun hype bandwagon, think about the practical aspects of deplying these toy guns for any purpose, besides messing around in your basement with your 3D printer and CAD software.
It may be a fun proof of concept, but about the only things it is good for are generating political hype and drawing attention to the inventors.
People fail to realize that it's much easier and cheaper to make a home made gun using existing tools and materials. Just because someone now made a [not very good] one using a 3D printer, everybody seems to be freaking out.
Further well-grounded and thoughtful discussion on the matter can be found here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/10/oh_no_its_the_plastic_3d_gun/
You might think that comment was "skeptical" or that it demonstrates your "critical thinking" but really, it was just plain ignorant. Based on this comment, one might reasonably assume you fall in with the kind of douchetards that yell out "42! Haha!" every time a mathematical discussion takes place.
To answer your question, you might start by reading the article. It talks about isotopes and geochemistry.
Then you could do some reading at the library to find out more about isotopes and geochemistry, and why these things are interesting and important. If you want to go further, you could take an undergraduate degree in geology, where you will learn all kinds of strange and wonderful things about the Earth, and how we can know about things that occurred billions of years ago.
Exactly this.
Also, I was not in the mood to handle these parrotsheep who bleat out, "42! Get it?? Haha!" on cue, any time there is any remotely math-related discussion taking place.
Also, I see what you did there at the end, but I will not gratify it with a response.
what a stupid fucking response
...so this is a pretty big deal."
As if it would NOT be a big deal for anybody else?
Agreed, that's the dumbest motto I've ever seen, from a weapons company. They must think people are idiots if they think anybody will buy that bleeding heart line of bullshit.
Ok ok, guys, message received
Maybe I've been spending too much time on Facebook, getting sick while new parents gush about their kids.
Your genderless, generic 15-year-old piece of human offspring?
Seriously, what the fuck is it with people who refer to their kids as "my 15-year-old" or "my 2-year-old", etc.? In my mind, that reduces a person to nothing more than their age, as if that were the only important characteristic. Why can't people say, "my 15-year-old daughter" or "my 2-year-old son" instead?
Everytime someone says in conversation, "Oh hahahaha you wouldn't BELIEVE what our 2-year-old did the other day!" I cringe a thousand times on the inside. Maybe it's just me.
It's a fucking stupid April Fool's thing
Ok, so Stewart Lee is a very rage filled man who sincerely hates Jeremy Clarkson. His comedy routine is quite angry and vitriolic actually. He basically repeats the same joke again and again and again for 14 minutes, in varying degrees of hate and rage.
Please help me out, what was I supposed to appreciate?! Did I miss it because I don't have a spine??
99.9% of the things you call "homophobia, misogyny, and racism" on Top Gear, simply aren't.
When you, like most modern politically sensitized people, hear words related to women, homosexuals and non-white, non-Christian cultures, used in a humourous context, you automatically assume that IT MUST BE OFFENSIVE! and therefore IT IS WRONG! and OMG I WAS SO EMBARRASSED TO BE IN THE ROOM!
Please grow a fucking spine and look at the context in which something is said. Not everything that deals with those subjects is bad or offensive or, God help us all, infringes on someone else's right not to be offended.
see now, i want one big enough and sturdy enough to have it go pick up food for me down the road..
Do you mean a robot or a woman?
Cool demo, but seriously, this has been done a thousand times already, in various forms, and more elegantly at that. It looks like it took Eric about 1 hour to slap together the web page to drive his little robot.
And then he produced a video with a woman driving the robot. I suppose that is somewhat original.
In conclusion... big deal. Next.
Wait... install "cheap tiny speakers" in every room of the house, so you can get "whole house audio"? Right, I'm sure everyone will fucking want that. Those "cheap tiny speakers" are going to sound great, nothing at all like a shitty shopping mall PA system grinding out the Top 40 hits. Because nobody wants some quiet areas in their home, where they can get away from the noise and bustle of the day to day activity, you know, to maybe read a book or just enjoy some silence.
I know you're just pulling some ideas out of your ass and tossing them out there... but from where I am, coincidentally, it does look and smell like the verbal diarrhea that it is.
You're right! Automobiles have headlights facing forward, which exert radiation pressure in the opposite direction the driver wants to go!
As for the fighter jets with radar in the nose creating, as you said it, "forward facing thrust which at the power levels he's claiming would probably be more powerfull [sic] than the jet engine powering the aircraft" -- did you even bother to read the article? The article talks about putting in energy in the several kilowatts range, producing a thrust force in the dozens to several hundred millinewtons range. That's 1/1000th's of a Newton, which is very very tiny, and the article draws a comparison to the "weight of a couple of peanuts" in Earth's gravity field. In your scientific opinion, is that pretty close to being "more powerfull [sic] than the jet engine powering the aircraft"?
Answer: not even close. (For your highly educated ass, we're talking about several orders of magnitude of difference, which is like dividing by ten a bunch of times.)
You should read the article next time before you spout off like a douche. From here, it looks like you're trying to look smart (which you failed at) and/or boost your own little ego by taking a big shit all over something you have no concept about (which you probably succeeded at, for a while).
Don't get me wrong, this EM drive may prove to be completely bogus. That still doesn't mean you will not look like a condescending retard for saying nonsense like you just did.
As for myself, this looks interesting enough to watch. I am hoping someone will continue with more experiments, which will either be unable to reproduce the results, or will confirm that there is something interesting going on.
If you are working as a consultant, then the biggest advantage of incorporating will be in tax savings.
In Canada (Ontario specifically) there is a break-even point around $42k/yr income, where the personal income tax and corporate income tax (and accountant fees, etc.) you pay will be approximately equal. Above $42k/yr income, the corporate tax will become less and less compared to personal tax. This is due to the fact that the corporate tax rate is fixed at 16.5% (until $500k or $1M annual income... I can't recall) while personal tax rates have brackets that increase as you make more money.
To take an example from my past, the last year before I incorporated I made roughly $86,000 and paid about $22,000 in personal income taxes. The accountant that helped me incorporate did some calculating, and if I were incorporated, the corp would have had to pay only about $13,000-14,000 in taxes.
There are some costs associated with running a corporation. There are the initial costs of setting it up, usually between $2000-4000 for lawyers and accountants. Then annually, you will probably have an accountant prepare your corporate taxes, which will cost around $750-2000 depending on who does it and how organized your paperwork is. These are extra hassles that some people find unpalatable, and it is a bit of extra administrative work on your part, but altogether, it saves you thousands and is very much worth it. (Unless you have some kind of ADHD and psychologically cannot deal with paperwork.)
Another tax saving tool available in Canada is that you can make $50k/yr in dividend income, tax free. Therefore, if you and your significant other are both part owners in your newly formed corp, then you can essentially have a combined household (personal) income of $100k/yr, tax free because your corp will pay out dividends to its owners, rather than salary (which is all taxable). You will probably not make exactly $100k/yr tax free (but it will still be around $95k or $98k) because in order to take advantage of various tax credits you have to show some personal income. How this is works is that, whenever you need money from your corp, you just withdraw it. At the end of your fiscal year, you and your accountant will figure out how to label those withdrawals, be it dividends, salary, whatever, to maximize the tax savings. That is how I have been doing it in Canada, anyway, and your accountant will be more familiar with how this stuff works in your area.
The best thing you can do (aside from asking the experts on Slashdot, of course) is to go see an accountant who deals with corporate stuff. Explain to him or her what you are thinking about doing and outline your current situation. Using your 2011 net income as an example, they can then draw up a spreadsheet for you, showing what would be your taxes and other numbers if you had been incorporated in 2011. This will let you know with little uncertainty what is your best course of action.
There are other benefits that come with having a corporation, your corp can purchase the equipment (e.g. laptops, mobile devices for testing, etc.) that you will use to do the service that the corporation sells. This can be recorded as an expense of the corp, which reduces the corporate taxes. In contrast if you bought equipment personally, it would not affect your tax situation at all. This is nice if you like toys, and would like some extra reasons to rationalize their purchase.
In summary, if you plan to make more than $42k (*) this year from your moon-lighting activities, just get it done already.
* $42k, or whatever is the break-even number for the tax system you live in.
Wrong, "toqué" is an adjective. It is never used, anywhere, to refer to the hat, which is a noun. You'll never find a Frenchman who says "toqué". If someone does write "toqué" or "tuke" when they mean "toque" then they belong to the same group that misuses quotes and hyphens (a.k.a. illiterates of questionable moral standing).
Toque is the correct spelling.