So I read the article twice- are they going to fix his house for him?
The article I read said the district administration was inspecting the damage, and would be compensating Mr. Krivoruchenko for the damage to his house.
A drug that once was thought to have a very limited application turns out to have a very broad application. In other news, heart attack and cancer patients all stupidly think they have headaches because they keep taking aspirin to remedy their condition.
While I don't dispute those numbers per se, and I think the fact that Google makes 10-30 times as much as any of the Big Four members of the RIAA is substantial in itself, the fact remains that you've only listed the revenue from the Big Four. There are 1,600 member labels of the RIAA. While I'm sure the total revenue of the RIAA (Indy labels included) still wouldn't beat out Google's immense pile of cash, I feel as though if you were to count the other 1,596 or however many labels, the revenue disparity just wouldn't be quite as stark as the one you've portrayed.
Why are we taxing the people that create jobs and provide wealth?
Because they did not create jobs and provide wealth inside of a vacuum. It happened in a society that is connected by roads, governed by laws, protected by police, and patrolled by military. These things are not free. However, they are necessary to creating an environment conducive to creating jobs and providing wealth. It is therefore a responsibility of all those who directly or indirectly benefit from living in this society to pay in to it.
We already have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Of course these international companies are doing everything they can to get around it.
Of course we can't blame our fellow corporate citizens for subverting the system and bringing what they pay in for taxes down to zero - because the more you are required to pay in taxes, the less you should expect to actually pay. I mean, whenever I'm required to do a lot, I should be expected to absolutely nothing, because after all, it is a lot.
Would you rather them just move their entire company offshore?
Oh, I know. Companies have basically had this gun to the collective heads of America ever since the world got flat, and we're supposed to let them get away with paying absolutely nothing in to the tax system in exchange for jobs. Doesn't sound like we're being held hostage or anything.
Including state corporate taxes, it's around 40% in the US, imagine how much faster companies could expand with a 67% increase in profits (0% tax)
Which makes so much sense! Why let corporations have a stake in the city, state or country in which they're currently residing by having them pay into the system that created such a fertile environment for them to thrive? Just let them essentially mooch off everything that makes this country great, because their presence is generally accepted as beneficial.
I hate to split hairs here, but an ad hominem attack is directed at the person making the argument, not the argument itself. If anything, I committed an association fallacy. Please learn your logical fallacies.
Interesting fact! The 27th Amendment was actually proposed along with the original Bill of Rights in 1789. It's just that it took 203 years to ratify it.
Not like it means anything in particular, but of all the amendments to compare unfavorably to the Bill of Rights, you chose the one that was an original member of it.
To be fair, the only reason Fred Phelps did not protest the funeral of that nine year old girl is because he posthumously held her hostage. In exchange for not protesting at the funerals of Christina Green and John Roll, the Westboro Church was granted 30 minutes of uninterrupted air time on the Mike Gallagher Show.
And people making $20k per year are a lot richer than these people, who collectively spend about $1US per week on food.
So why aren't you suggesting that we ramp up the marginal rate on the $20k bracket as well?
Because you're making fallacious comparisons between disparate income brackets. Allow me to summarize your argument in the form of an analogy:
Chadians with $1/day : Americans with $20,000/yr:: Americans with $20,000/yr : Americans with a $250,000/yr
The difference between the person making $20k/yr and the person making $250k/yr is that one people is comfortable. The other person is surviving. The difference between the person making $1/day and the person making $20k/yr is that one person is surviving. The other person is not.
When you're doing spending into the future based on credit, along with very high tax rates, as most states and the federal government are, you're well past that limit.
States do not "do spending into the future based on credit" as you so eloquently put it. The United States is able to offset the gap between its revenue and expenditures by selling bonds through the US Treasury. States, however, do not have this power, and must therefore balance its budget either every year or every biennium, depending on the state's own laws. This leads to a major problem on the state level - during times of economic recession, the federal government can just continue to operate in the red, presuming that once the economy recovers, they can pay back their debt. States cannot do this. Whatever revenue is taken in for that particular year is all the state can spend, and in uncertain economic times, they aren't taking in a whole hell of a lot.
Now, with that said, with nearly every state in the union amidst an budget crisis (except for North Dakota) there is a multi-billion dollar industry that goes untaxed. We're not talking about assessing a tax on the businesses itself, which I know is anathema in the teabagger crowd. We're talking about a sales tax. Really, we're talking about an intuitive revising of sales tax laws, making it so the person doing the buying is assessed a tax based upon which state he resides. Shit, it'd be stupid of the states to not pursue this potential source of tax revenue.
"They... created a ruling that allows corporations to run for office"
Perhaps you should actually read the article before you link to it. A public relations firm announced they are running for office, true. Also true is that it is part of a publicity stunt to A) call attention to the potential implications of corporations gaining personhood from Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and B) raise their own public image as an effective PR firm. No one created a ruling - whatever that means - and quite probably, no one is going to allow Murray Hill, Inc. to run for the House, no matter how hilarious it might be.
Perhaps it was you who did not read the entire article. A petition is not some sort of super special secret document that is somehow protected, private information. It's not like voting. It's a public document. And the reason why it's public is because petitions are documents that are proposing substantive legislation.
I mean, shit. Don't YOU want to know who is proposing legislation that may or may not affect you? Or do you want a bunch of anonymous cowards telling you how to live your life? Because that, sir, is not freedom.
If free will doesn't exist why bother with anything? Everything has already been "decided" for you and you are just following a path. In essence everything we worry about or fight over is totally pointless as it doesn't matter who or what is right or wrong, one of them will happen regardless of the what we think. I pity someone with that outlook.
You seem to be confusing Determinism with Fatalism. The determinist view is just that all events are subject to causality, whereas the fatalist view is that all events are subject to some predetermined fate despite causality. In practice, fatalists tend to be more depressed and irritating, while determinists tend to drive around expensive cars and generally be much cooler.
Supposedly it's an urban legend that he even said that, because no one on the internet can actually source the quote. And if the internet can't find it, then it probably doesn't exist. To sate those who want at least something, however, here is a relevant quote from 1989:
"I have to say that in 1981, making those decisions, I felt like I was providing enough freedom for 10 years. That is, a move from 64k to 640k felt like something that would last a great deal of time. Well, it didn't - it took about only 6 years before people started to see that as a real problem."
Since I already use Google's apps, then no, apparently I don't care about privacy. But then again, I also don't care for tin foil hats either, so I suppose I don't have to worry about burglars hacking into my Google Calendar and looking up when my family will be away at Disney World. Oh well.
I don't really see what your issue is with Google requiring you to create a Google account. All of their apps are based online, and I presume that Android's UI interfaces with Google's online apps - in order to even use any of these features, you'll need a Google account. Plus, it seems fairly difficult to make credit card purchases at their app store without an account, so what's the big deal?
You're obviously British. Democrats don't believe in guns, ruling out revolution for them. Sure, maybe your hoighty-toighty Democrats out there on the East Coast and the West Coast don't believe in firearms, but over here in the fly-over states, Democrats believe in guns as much as Republicans do. Remember: We're a Big Tent.
I think what we're looking at here is less of fascist propaganda, and more of a muddled attempt at creating a topical movie. It just simply doesn't count as propaganda when the writers are too stupid to realize that the schlock they dish out, which is intended to appeal to the lowest common denominator, also happens to expound the ignorant mentality of "Us vs. Them."
Actually, you don't need a body. The Charley Project has documented 170 cases of convictions without bodies, though their list is incomplete and out of date. It's almost certainly much more than that.
Bart Sibrel was actually punched in the face by Buzz Aldrin while filming this documentary. Apparently this guy has a long history of stalking and harassing astronauts. Hooray!
I had no idea supersaturation was such a huge problem for Comcast Twin Cities. I'm actually house hunting down in Minneapolis this weekend, so I'll have to add neighborhood broadband speeds to my checklist of things to look out for.
Slashdot Mirror
So I read the article twice- are they going to fix his house for him?
The article I read said the district administration was inspecting the damage, and would be compensating Mr. Krivoruchenko for the damage to his house.
SOURCE
A drug that once was thought to have a very limited application turns out to have a very broad application. In other news, heart attack and cancer patients all stupidly think they have headaches because they keep taking aspirin to remedy their condition.
Sony Music Entertainment: $1.33 billion
Universal Music Group: $6.14 billion
Warner Music Group: $3.49 billion
EMI: $1.65 billion
versus
Google: $29.32 billion
While I don't dispute those numbers per se, and I think the fact that Google makes 10-30 times as much as any of the Big Four members of the RIAA is substantial in itself, the fact remains that you've only listed the revenue from the Big Four. There are 1,600 member labels of the RIAA. While I'm sure the total revenue of the RIAA (Indy labels included) still wouldn't beat out Google's immense pile of cash, I feel as though if you were to count the other 1,596 or however many labels, the revenue disparity just wouldn't be quite as stark as the one you've portrayed.
Why are we taxing the people that create jobs and provide wealth?
Because they did not create jobs and provide wealth inside of a vacuum. It happened in a society that is connected by roads, governed by laws, protected by police, and patrolled by military. These things are not free. However, they are necessary to creating an environment conducive to creating jobs and providing wealth. It is therefore a responsibility of all those who directly or indirectly benefit from living in this society to pay in to it.
I'm liking what I'm hearing, Americium.
We already have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Of course these international companies are doing everything they can to get around it.
Of course we can't blame our fellow corporate citizens for subverting the system and bringing what they pay in for taxes down to zero - because the more you are required to pay in taxes, the less you should expect to actually pay. I mean, whenever I'm required to do a lot, I should be expected to absolutely nothing, because after all, it is a lot.
Would you rather them just move their entire company offshore?
Oh, I know. Companies have basically had this gun to the collective heads of America ever since the world got flat, and we're supposed to let them get away with paying absolutely nothing in to the tax system in exchange for jobs. Doesn't sound like we're being held hostage or anything.
Including state corporate taxes, it's around 40% in the US, imagine how much faster companies could expand with a 67% increase in profits (0% tax)
Which makes so much sense! Why let corporations have a stake in the city, state or country in which they're currently residing by having them pay into the system that created such a fertile environment for them to thrive? Just let them essentially mooch off everything that makes this country great, because their presence is generally accepted as beneficial.
And yet they STILL screwed it up.
Blame that douchebag, James Madison.
I hate to split hairs here, but an ad hominem attack is directed at the person making the argument, not the argument itself. If anything, I committed an association fallacy. Please learn your logical fallacies.
Interesting fact! The 27th Amendment was actually proposed along with the original Bill of Rights in 1789. It's just that it took 203 years to ratify it.
Not like it means anything in particular, but of all the amendments to compare unfavorably to the Bill of Rights, you chose the one that was an original member of it.
Today's breathless response has been cut/pasted courtesy of the Tea Party.
To be fair, the only reason Fred Phelps did not protest the funeral of that nine year old girl is because he posthumously held her hostage. In exchange for not protesting at the funerals of Christina Green and John Roll, the Westboro Church was granted 30 minutes of uninterrupted air time on the Mike Gallagher Show.
And people making $20k per year are a lot richer than these people, who collectively spend about $1US per week on food.
So why aren't you suggesting that we ramp up the marginal rate on the $20k bracket as well?
Because you're making fallacious comparisons between disparate income brackets. Allow me to summarize your argument in the form of an analogy:
Chadians with $1/day : Americans with $20,000/yr :: Americans with $20,000/yr : Americans with a $250,000/yr
The difference between the person making $20k/yr and the person making $250k/yr is that one people is comfortable. The other person is surviving. The difference between the person making $1/day and the person making $20k/yr is that one person is surviving. The other person is not.
When you're doing spending into the future based on credit, along with very high tax rates, as most states and the federal government are, you're well past that limit.
States do not "do spending into the future based on credit" as you so eloquently put it. The United States is able to offset the gap between its revenue and expenditures by selling bonds through the US Treasury. States, however, do not have this power, and must therefore balance its budget either every year or every biennium, depending on the state's own laws. This leads to a major problem on the state level - during times of economic recession, the federal government can just continue to operate in the red, presuming that once the economy recovers, they can pay back their debt. States cannot do this. Whatever revenue is taken in for that particular year is all the state can spend, and in uncertain economic times, they aren't taking in a whole hell of a lot.
Now, with that said, with nearly every state in the union amidst an budget crisis (except for North Dakota) there is a multi-billion dollar industry that goes untaxed. We're not talking about assessing a tax on the businesses itself, which I know is anathema in the teabagger crowd. We're talking about a sales tax. Really, we're talking about an intuitive revising of sales tax laws, making it so the person doing the buying is assessed a tax based upon which state he resides. Shit, it'd be stupid of the states to not pursue this potential source of tax revenue.
One could argue that DRM actually fixed this movie. :)
I would have to agree. The best way to watch this movie is to not watch it at all.
"They... created a ruling that allows corporations to run for office"
Perhaps you should actually read the article before you link to it. A public relations firm announced they are running for office, true. Also true is that it is part of a publicity stunt to A) call attention to the potential implications of corporations gaining personhood from Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and B) raise their own public image as an effective PR firm. No one created a ruling - whatever that means - and quite probably, no one is going to allow Murray Hill, Inc. to run for the House, no matter how hilarious it might be.
Perhaps it was you who did not read the entire article. A petition is not some sort of super special secret document that is somehow protected, private information. It's not like voting. It's a public document. And the reason why it's public is because petitions are documents that are proposing substantive legislation.
I mean, shit. Don't YOU want to know who is proposing legislation that may or may not affect you? Or do you want a bunch of anonymous cowards telling you how to live your life? Because that, sir, is not freedom.
If free will doesn't exist why bother with anything? Everything has already been "decided" for you and you are just following a path. In essence everything we worry about or fight over is totally pointless as it doesn't matter who or what is right or wrong, one of them will happen regardless of the what we think. I pity someone with that outlook.
You seem to be confusing Determinism with Fatalism. The determinist view is just that all events are subject to causality, whereas the fatalist view is that all events are subject to some predetermined fate despite causality. In practice, fatalists tend to be more depressed and irritating, while determinists tend to drive around expensive cars and generally be much cooler.
Supposedly it's an urban legend that he even said that, because no one on the internet can actually source the quote. And if the internet can't find it, then it probably doesn't exist. To sate those who want at least something, however, here is a relevant quote from 1989:
"I have to say that in 1981, making those decisions, I felt like I was providing enough freedom for 10 years. That is, a move from 64k to 640k felt like something that would last a great deal of time. Well, it didn't - it took about only 6 years before people started to see that as a real problem."
Since I already use Google's apps, then no, apparently I don't care about privacy. But then again, I also don't care for tin foil hats either, so I suppose I don't have to worry about burglars hacking into my Google Calendar and looking up when my family will be away at Disney World. Oh well.
I don't really see what your issue is with Google requiring you to create a Google account. All of their apps are based online, and I presume that Android's UI interfaces with Google's online apps - in order to even use any of these features, you'll need a Google account. Plus, it seems fairly difficult to make credit card purchases at their app store without an account, so what's the big deal?
I'm glad that Stephenson finally figured out that it wasn't postcyberpunk or historic fiction that was his genre - it was battle monk epic.
I think what we're looking at here is less of fascist propaganda, and more of a muddled attempt at creating a topical movie. It just simply doesn't count as propaganda when the writers are too stupid to realize that the schlock they dish out, which is intended to appeal to the lowest common denominator, also happens to expound the ignorant mentality of "Us vs. Them."
Actually, you don't need a body. The Charley Project has documented 170 cases of convictions without bodies, though their list is incomplete and out of date. It's almost certainly much more than that.
Bart Sibrel was actually punched in the face by Buzz Aldrin while filming this documentary. Apparently this guy has a long history of stalking and harassing astronauts. Hooray!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=mQKxAqpjroo
I had no idea supersaturation was such a huge problem for Comcast Twin Cities. I'm actually house hunting down in Minneapolis this weekend, so I'll have to add neighborhood broadband speeds to my checklist of things to look out for.