If you tax the top income bracket at 90% where do you think the top income bracket will file taxes? For an example of this in action, see Britain in the 70s.
While the top of the line cards are stupidly expensive, part of the reason is that they are actually two cards - the 5970 and the 6990, for instance, are both dual core cards.
Aside from that a mid range card will only be differentiable from the top end cards at WQXGA resolutions and only costs a maximum of $200 dollars.
Ethical - yes, From a purely rational perspective, the odds of an outsourced employee being in that situation is roughly the same as the probability of the original employee having that situation. The jobs will improve the conditions of the outsourced employees more than it will lessen the conditions of the original employees, both quantatively and qualitively. It is thus the ethical option.
However, your right in a way. It is immoral, personally, for you, me and probably for most other people. However, this is not strictly logical. Our sympathies for the current employee make us place him above the outsourced employee. But ethically, all humans should have equal importance.
"An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law."
You are correct in that agnosticism states that there is no proof. However, Atheism as regularly displayed in religon is different from that - it is more often a statement that because there is no proof, there is no God, or perhaps more that a belief in God is wrong. Obviously, such a reasoning is erroneous, but it is often demonstrated by such strong atheists as Dawkins.
I am personally an agnostic and I find it intensly annoying when people prosthelytize, be their religon atheism or theism.
Even if they do, is it necessary? Here in the UK we have farmers complaining about how crop prices have been forced lower and lower, so many complaining they can't afford to compete each year, we have fields of cabbages and so forth that are just left to rot. In my mind with this kind of evidence we have too much food, perhaps if farmers moved back to organic methods then they may get smaller yeilds but it'd push the prices up for them and yeah, the end customers will probably have to pay more too, but it's not like paying unsustainably low prices in the first place is a good thing, it just means folks will have to give up their chelsea tractors, or get a 40" TV instead of a 50".
I'm sorry, but this sentiment makes very little sense. If they'd already grown them, they'd sell them - unless your suggesting that shipping alone is more expensive than the supermarket price, and if that was the case how does any one sell anything? In fact, if a farmer is unable to finance growing crops, the land will lie fallow, the ground will improve, and it will be of benefit to hedgerow and native wildlife.
But these people weren't dying before, they were just malaria stricken, starving, and having the clothes stolen off their backs by their own government. That's clearly a much better state of affairs.
They should never have had the information available to make choices for themselves - they were much better off being kicked around.
Sorry? The idea of global warming wasn't seriously floated until the late 80s. I don't want to tout Global Cooling, but the models from the 60s and 70s (If they even had the power to model accurately, which I suspect is a fallacy right there), would have absolutely no bearing on models now. You can see that by the massive changes in predictions from the late 80s to date - are you implying that the models from the 70s were right, with the modern ones wrong? Are you somehow implying that two vastly different conclusions are simultaneously right? Or are you pulling a chunk of text out of your backside in an attempt to seem intelligent?
There is a very large difference between climate models and artillery shells. Climate is inherently chaotic, at least to a certain degree. Artillery is not, its a very basic equation. While I would not suggest that predicting the course of climate is impossible, it is certainly very very difficult.
As to your first two "facts", historical stratospheric cooling was a result of ozone depletion, not climate change, and polar amplification was not seriously considered till the start of the millenium, and certainly not seriously recognised before that point.
So in conclusion, thats a definite [citation needed] to earn that 5 informative.
How? By taking away jobs? It's not like a corporations presence actually costs anything, unless there is some cost to housing a name that I can think of? Obviously all its employees in that country still pay income tax etc.
I think you've really missed the thrust of the arguement. The lack of belief in a god is not the suggestion - in fact that would not qualify as atheism, more agnosticism (which is what I personally subscribe to). Instead, he's commenting on a fervent belief in a lack of God. Not only has that belief been displayed here by h4rr4r, but he has also shown many other tenets of religon, such as the statement that his unprovable belief is somehow more correct that someone elses (see point 3 of the op).
Remember lack of belief in God =/= belief in a lack of God.
Interestingly, the average life expectancy of a 16 year old in most civilisations since roman times has been higher than 60. The reason we commonly think they died young is a matter of statistics - infant mortality was massive.
Indeed, I suppose it depends how we define it. But on population alone it is extremly close - South Asia and the Antipideans have a higher population than the rest of Asia (excluding the middle east of course). North America and the UK have a higher population than the rest of Europe. With a very brief back of the envelope calculation I put civil law somewhere between 100 and 200 million ahead (it could be more, the break up of Africa is difficult to estimate from that map).
Now applying to the rest of the world - ie not france, we can see that it is extremly close.
If we also consider that a large population in South East Asia, rural China and parts of South America are less likely to have internet than some of the common law locations, its quite likely, from an internet point of view, that the rest of the world is majority common law.
Well not really. It's reasonably close - India for instance, also uses the common law system. Certainly a majority of internet users will be from a common law country.
So every drug trafficking crime gets reported? You have to remember that most of the profitable crimes - vice, drugs, gambling, smuggling... don't have a victim in the classical sense. No one will report them because everyone is complicit. I'm sure there are plenty of intelligent drug smugglers. How about Mr nice for one?
The point of banning the contraceptive is somewhat missed. The idea is really that sex should only be used for reproduction, more particularly sex outside of marriage is wrong. Banning contraceptives is supposed to discourage sex for pleasure, particularly extra-marital sex. Now, clearly this doesn't work - the logic doesn't necessarily make sense. But the important thing to remember is that wasting semen is not the sin, having sex without the aim of reproducing is.
I'm afraid the gp was right. The reason that the de facto cartel works is because there is only 2 or 3 companies in the network, and the cost of entry is exceptionally high. If this wasnt the case, it doesnt matter that the current cartel individually want to keep prices high, I could come in and offer texts at 1 cent a pop. I'd still make money hand over fist. However, this is impossible because of the monopoly caused by the high cost of entry.
I think this is really the weak point in capitalism, perhaps we should see governments taking an interest in laying infrastructure. If the government laid the infrastructure for projects like this, rented it out at cost + interest, looking to get a return in maybe 5 years, and then upgrade and start again. You'd have a baseline of reliable infrastructure available to keep prices down, but any company that thought they could do it better would be free to lay their own cable or build their own towers.
The other problem with free markets: non-perfect consumers is, however, much more difficult to solve.
Sorry, just an attempt to help out, but the reason you're being attacked is that you wrote the wrong sum. While you wrote a correct answer, if youll notice, you appear to suggest that 1 USD is worth 1.175 GBP.
I remember reading in a post on the Wow forums, that infact most of the staff actually use a linux client, but the cost/benefit ratio of support and patch testing for a linux client makes it impossible to release. At any rate, there is blue support on the forums for using WoW with wine.
Slashdot Mirror
Two comments:
Negative Income Tax, google it.
If you tax the top income bracket at 90% where do you think the top income bracket will file taxes? For an example of this in action, see Britain in the 70s.
While the top of the line cards are stupidly expensive, part of the reason is that they are actually two cards - the 5970 and the 6990, for instance, are both dual core cards. Aside from that a mid range card will only be differentiable from the top end cards at WQXGA resolutions and only costs a maximum of $200 dollars.
Alright, I'll call that. Puzzle games, most of the adventure/platformers consoles have and ofc a variety of indie games.
We hear people say how much they like John Wayne, not that anything interesting happened in the movies.
The Kings Speech, Black Swan, True Grit, were all top grossing film and all original and good work.
True Grit was a remake.
That also starred John Wayne.
Ethical - yes, From a purely rational perspective, the odds of an outsourced employee being in that situation is roughly the same as the probability of the original employee having that situation. The jobs will improve the conditions of the outsourced employees more than it will lessen the conditions of the original employees, both quantatively and qualitively. It is thus the ethical option.
However, your right in a way. It is immoral, personally, for you, me and probably for most other people. However, this is not strictly logical. Our sympathies for the current employee make us place him above the outsourced employee. But ethically, all humans should have equal importance.
"An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law."
Martin Luther King
You are correct in that agnosticism states that there is no proof. However, Atheism as regularly displayed in religon is different from that - it is more often a statement that because there is no proof, there is no God, or perhaps more that a belief in God is wrong. Obviously, such a reasoning is erroneous, but it is often demonstrated by such strong atheists as Dawkins.
I am personally an agnostic and I find it intensly annoying when people prosthelytize, be their religon atheism or theism.
Well obviously, we, the people, want George Lucas to be able to spend the money on more Star Wars films...
Even if they do, is it necessary? Here in the UK we have farmers complaining about how crop prices have been forced lower and lower, so many complaining they can't afford to compete each year, we have fields of cabbages and so forth that are just left to rot. In my mind with this kind of evidence we have too much food, perhaps if farmers moved back to organic methods then they may get smaller yeilds but it'd push the prices up for them and yeah, the end customers will probably have to pay more too, but it's not like paying unsustainably low prices in the first place is a good thing, it just means folks will have to give up their chelsea tractors, or get a 40" TV instead of a 50".
I'm sorry, but this sentiment makes very little sense. If they'd already grown them, they'd sell them - unless your suggesting that shipping alone is more expensive than the supermarket price, and if that was the case how does any one sell anything? In fact, if a farmer is unable to finance growing crops, the land will lie fallow, the ground will improve, and it will be of benefit to hedgerow and native wildlife.
But these people weren't dying before, they were just malaria stricken, starving, and having the clothes stolen off their backs by their own government. That's clearly a much better state of affairs.
They should never have had the information available to make choices for themselves - they were much better off being kicked around.
Sorry? The idea of global warming wasn't seriously floated until the late 80s. I don't want to tout Global Cooling, but the models from the 60s and 70s (If they even had the power to model accurately, which I suspect is a fallacy right there), would have absolutely no bearing on models now. You can see that by the massive changes in predictions from the late 80s to date - are you implying that the models from the 70s were right, with the modern ones wrong? Are you somehow implying that two vastly different conclusions are simultaneously right? Or are you pulling a chunk of text out of your backside in an attempt to seem intelligent?
There is a very large difference between climate models and artillery shells. Climate is inherently chaotic, at least to a certain degree. Artillery is not, its a very basic equation. While I would not suggest that predicting the course of climate is impossible, it is certainly very very difficult.
As to your first two "facts", historical stratospheric cooling was a result of ozone depletion, not climate change, and polar amplification was not seriously considered till the start of the millenium, and certainly not seriously recognised before that point.
So in conclusion, thats a definite [citation needed] to earn that 5 informative.
How? By taking away jobs? It's not like a corporations presence actually costs anything, unless there is some cost to housing a name that I can think of? Obviously all its employees in that country still pay income tax etc.
AFAIK yes, although the system is now automated. Ever seen a cinema projector? Unbelievably cool pieces of kit.
I think you've really missed the thrust of the arguement. The lack of belief in a god is not the suggestion - in fact that would not qualify as atheism, more agnosticism (which is what I personally subscribe to). Instead, he's commenting on a fervent belief in a lack of God. Not only has that belief been displayed here by h4rr4r, but he has also shown many other tenets of religon, such as the statement that his unprovable belief is somehow more correct that someone elses (see point 3 of the op).
Remember lack of belief in God =/= belief in a lack of God.
Interestingly, the average life expectancy of a 16 year old in most civilisations since roman times has been higher than 60. The reason we commonly think they died young is a matter of statistics - infant mortality was massive.
Sorry, Antipodes. My kingdom for an edit function...
Indeed, I suppose it depends how we define it. But on population alone it is extremly close - South Asia and the Antipideans have a higher population than the rest of Asia (excluding the middle east of course). North America and the UK have a higher population than the rest of Europe. With a very brief back of the envelope calculation I put civil law somewhere between 100 and 200 million ahead (it could be more, the break up of Africa is difficult to estimate from that map).
Now applying to the rest of the world - ie not france, we can see that it is extremly close.
If we also consider that a large population in South East Asia, rural China and parts of South America are less likely to have internet than some of the common law locations, its quite likely, from an internet point of view, that the rest of the world is majority common law.
Well not really. It's reasonably close - India for instance, also uses the common law system. Certainly a majority of internet users will be from a common law country.
So every drug trafficking crime gets reported? You have to remember that most of the profitable crimes - vice, drugs, gambling, smuggling... don't have a victim in the classical sense. No one will report them because everyone is complicit. I'm sure there are plenty of intelligent drug smugglers. How about Mr nice for one?
How about Project Orion, a variation of Project Daedalus or Longshot, or maybe even a mixture of the space elevator and solar sails?
You realise this is a story about blind pedestrians right? You'd kind of expect them not to look...
The point of banning the contraceptive is somewhat missed. The idea is really that sex should only be used for reproduction, more particularly sex outside of marriage is wrong. Banning contraceptives is supposed to discourage sex for pleasure, particularly extra-marital sex. Now, clearly this doesn't work - the logic doesn't necessarily make sense. But the important thing to remember is that wasting semen is not the sin, having sex without the aim of reproducing is.
I'm afraid the gp was right. The reason that the de facto cartel works is because there is only 2 or 3 companies in the network, and the cost of entry is exceptionally high. If this wasnt the case, it doesnt matter that the current cartel individually want to keep prices high, I could come in and offer texts at 1 cent a pop. I'd still make money hand over fist. However, this is impossible because of the monopoly caused by the high cost of entry.
I think this is really the weak point in capitalism, perhaps we should see governments taking an interest in laying infrastructure. If the government laid the infrastructure for projects like this, rented it out at cost + interest, looking to get a return in maybe 5 years, and then upgrade and start again. You'd have a baseline of reliable infrastructure available to keep prices down, but any company that thought they could do it better would be free to lay their own cable or build their own towers.
The other problem with free markets: non-perfect consumers is, however, much more difficult to solve.
Sorry, just an attempt to help out, but the reason you're being attacked is that you wrote the wrong sum. While you wrote a correct answer, if youll notice, you appear to suggest that 1 USD is worth 1.175 GBP.
I remember reading in a post on the Wow forums, that infact most of the staff actually use a linux client, but the cost/benefit ratio of support and patch testing for a linux client makes it impossible to release. At any rate, there is blue support on the forums for using WoW with wine.