Everyone who has a job pays FICA taxes. A substantial number of people who pay not federal taxes are retired with (almost) no income other than their SS payments.
If you say that no one should get back more money than they put it then you're probably talking about increasing the welfare departments because the Earned Income Tax Credit is in some ways a substitute for welfare for people with children they are responsible for. It's probably a cheaper way to do it than explicitly giving them welfare too.
Most of the people who pay no federal income tax are still paying FICA tax if they are working. Any they also pay sales taxes and various other state taxes. Another substantial chunk of them are retired and receive so little income they pay no federal income tax. Surprisingly it includes around 160,000 people who are in the top 10% of earners. I Googled "who are the 47% not paying taxes" and found a number of articles. Here is one of them.
Not to mention that Saddam Hussein's Sunni government was not friendly with Iran's Shia government Now there is a Shia government in Iraq which frees up Iran to pay more attention to other things like Israel.
And how many home schooling parents do you think are really competent to teach math beyond basic arithmetic? There is a substantial difference in teaching a class of 15 or more student (who are unrelated to you) vs. teaching 1 or 2 kids as is more typical in home schooling.
I'm not sure I'd say that there's and evolutionary advantage to religion per se so much as an advantage to some pieces of human nature that encourage religion. Humans are a social animal that forms communities and a religion is certainly a community. Humans want to understand the world around them which can lead to mythical explanations of things that are otherwise unexplainable. I think our understanding of time and desire to avoid death play into it also. Put that all together and you can get religion.
The TEA Party owns a significant part of the base of the Republicans but big business and Wall Street own the upper levels and they're willing to pander to the base to get their votes.
Oh, it also only happened once... ever... At least only once on this plannet. How so? Because if it had happened more than once, there would be two completely different lines of DNA code.
It could have easily happened more than once and the line we are part of simply out-competed the other lines early in the process. I have trouble with the idea that 300 million atoms is some minimum number to get the process started. Seems to me the number is quite a bit smaller than that and you probably should be talking molecules anyway.
You might simply not see it because you aren't looking for it...
To someone whose only tool is a hammer everything looks like a nail. If you are consciously seeking evidence of God in nature chances are you are going to convince yourself you've found it.
How many home school situations have a class size as big as even 5? I guarantee if you gave a public school teacher a class size of 5 they would do a whole lot better too.
If someone sees you barreling toward a cliff you don't know is there don't you think it would be nice of them to let you know?
The carbon tax is not a scientific product. All the science says is that if we don't stop increasing the greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, in the atmosphere it's going to cause us problems. How you get there doesn't matter as long as you get there.
Does a scientist have any less right to political advocacy than anyone else? It might be nice to think of scientists as some ivy-towered academic but they have families and they live in our society so they are subject to the folly of our actions like everybody else. If they perceive a problem shouldn't they speak up?
True, but often it's something worth investigating further to see if there is a causal link (but I don't think pirates and global warming is one of those cases).
If you're "correcting" the raw data - you'd damn well better provide that raw data, and the method(s) used to correct it. Along with the reason(s).
And if it can't withstand daylight - it's suspect.
If you are in some backhanded way trying to refer to the corrections done on raw temperature records then the methods used to correct it are well described. Just because you are scientifically savvy enough to seek it out and understand it doesn't mean it's not valid. All the daylight you need is presented in the published results and if it isn't the paper should have never passed peer review in the first place.
If a Scientist starts research with a Bias, then it is very probable that said research is being conducted in a fashion that favors are particular outcome.
The beauty of science is that your biases don't matter. If you publish biased results sooner or later your bias will be discovered because it doesn't match reality well enough. The only way you can get away with it for any length of time is if your research is so trivial it doesn't matter to anyone else.
The reason Romney didn't take all of the charitable contribution deductions he was entitled to was so he could still claim he paid over 13% in taxes on his income. If he had taken the full deduction his tax rate would have been under 10%. Next year after he loses he can file an amended tax return and claim the full deduction.
You contradict yourself in the very next sentence where you claim the problem does exist. It might not be a large problem, but a small problem is not a non-existent problem.
10 cases out of hundreds of millions of ballots cast is equal to zero statistically speaking.
The problem there is, if anyone can just walk in to the poll and say, "I'm Steve Wozniak", and we never ask for any proof that they are who they say they are, how do you prove they aren't Steve Wozniak 3 days later?
Why don't you try that and see how far you get. But you'd better do enough research to find a registered voter in the precinct you'll be voting in who isn't likely to be voting otherwise. I'll bet if you tried real hard you could cast 10 or 15 votes that way as long as you don't get caught.
In my state I have to sign my name when I vote and that signature gets compared to the signature on my voter registration. That's plenty of ID for me.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone who has a job pays FICA taxes. A substantial number of people who pay not federal taxes are retired with (almost) no income other than their SS payments.
If you say that no one should get back more money than they put it then you're probably talking about increasing the welfare departments because the Earned Income Tax Credit is in some ways a substitute for welfare for people with children they are responsible for. It's probably a cheaper way to do it than explicitly giving them welfare too.
Most of the people who pay no federal income tax are still paying FICA tax if they are working. Any they also pay sales taxes and various other state taxes. Another substantial chunk of them are retired and receive so little income they pay no federal income tax. Surprisingly it includes around 160,000 people who are in the top 10% of earners. I Googled "who are the 47% not paying taxes" and found a number of articles. Here is one of them.
Not to mention that Saddam Hussein's Sunni government was not friendly with Iran's Shia government Now there is a Shia government in Iraq which frees up Iran to pay more attention to other things like Israel.
And how many home schooling parents do you think are really competent to teach math beyond basic arithmetic? There is a substantial difference in teaching a class of 15 or more student (who are unrelated to you) vs. teaching 1 or 2 kids as is more typical in home schooling.
He won with 67% of the vote in 2010. It's probably just a waste to try and challenge him.
Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense. Creationism is a theory in the way that most unscientific people define it. Two different meanings.
I'm not sure I'd say that there's and evolutionary advantage to religion per se so much as an advantage to some pieces of human nature that encourage religion. Humans are a social animal that forms communities and a religion is certainly a community. Humans want to understand the world around them which can lead to mythical explanations of things that are otherwise unexplainable. I think our understanding of time and desire to avoid death play into it also. Put that all together and you can get religion.
His father was first elected to the Georgia state senate in 1963. Southern Democrats were a different kind of animal then.
The TEA Party owns a significant part of the base of the Republicans but big business and Wall Street own the upper levels and they're willing to pander to the base to get their votes.
{Shudder}
Amen brother (and I say that as an agnostic who leans atheist).
Oh, it also only happened once... ever... At least only once on this plannet. How so? Because if it had happened more than once, there would be two completely different lines of DNA code.
It could have easily happened more than once and the line we are part of simply out-competed the other lines early in the process. I have trouble with the idea that 300 million atoms is some minimum number to get the process started. Seems to me the number is quite a bit smaller than that and you probably should be talking molecules anyway.
You might simply not see it because you aren't looking for it...
To someone whose only tool is a hammer everything looks like a nail. If you are consciously seeking evidence of God in nature chances are you are going to convince yourself you've found it.
How many home school situations have a class size as big as even 5? I guarantee if you gave a public school teacher a class size of 5 they would do a whole lot better too.
If someone sees you barreling toward a cliff you don't know is there don't you think it would be nice of them to let you know?
The carbon tax is not a scientific product. All the science says is that if we don't stop increasing the greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, in the atmosphere it's going to cause us problems. How you get there doesn't matter as long as you get there.
Does a scientist have any less right to political advocacy than anyone else? It might be nice to think of scientists as some ivy-towered academic but they have families and they live in our society so they are subject to the folly of our actions like everybody else. If they perceive a problem shouldn't they speak up?
True, but often it's something worth investigating further to see if there is a causal link (but I don't think pirates and global warming is one of those cases).
If you're "correcting" the raw data - you'd damn well better provide that raw data, and the method(s) used to correct it. Along with the reason(s).
And if it can't withstand daylight - it's suspect.
If you are in some backhanded way trying to refer to the corrections done on raw temperature records then the methods used to correct it are well described. Just because you are scientifically savvy enough to seek it out and understand it doesn't mean it's not valid. All the daylight you need is presented in the published results and if it isn't the paper should have never passed peer review in the first place.
If a Scientist starts research with a Bias, then it is very probable that said research is being conducted in a fashion that favors are particular outcome.
The beauty of science is that your biases don't matter. If you publish biased results sooner or later your bias will be discovered because it doesn't match reality well enough. The only way you can get away with it for any length of time is if your research is so trivial it doesn't matter to anyone else.
The reason Romney didn't take all of the charitable contribution deductions he was entitled to was so he could still claim he paid over 13% in taxes on his income. If he had taken the full deduction his tax rate would have been under 10%. Next year after he loses he can file an amended tax return and claim the full deduction.
You contradict yourself in the very next sentence where you claim the problem does exist. It might not be a large problem, but a small problem is not a non-existent problem.
10 cases out of hundreds of millions of ballots cast is equal to zero statistically speaking.
3. Your example about "OMG EBIL REPUBS ARE TEARING UP REGISTRATIONS!!11! " is from 2 YEARS AGO.
Here's one from right now.
The problem there is, if anyone can just walk in to the poll and say, "I'm Steve Wozniak", and we never ask for any proof that they are who they say they are, how do you prove they aren't Steve Wozniak 3 days later?
Why don't you try that and see how far you get. But you'd better do enough research to find a registered voter in the precinct you'll be voting in who isn't likely to be voting otherwise. I'll bet if you tried real hard you could cast 10 or 15 votes that way as long as you don't get caught.
In my state I have to sign my name when I vote and that signature gets compared to the signature on my voter registration. That's plenty of ID for me.
That worm is called the trichina worm which causes trichinosis. As long as the pork is well enough cooked it is killed.
Have you tried gluten free bread and/or beer?
The baryon cloud may be 1-2.5 million kelvin but it's probably spread so thin that it would have little effect on a large object passing through it.