Yea totally. look at the america/german divide...the amercas fear the body's love making but love the death and murder, whereas germany censors violence and allows all kinds of sex.
In defense of America, sex is much more of a temptation than violence is. 99.9% of kids won't commit murder regardless of what movies they watch, but 99.9% of them will make stupid decisions at some point regarding sex.
Now, I don't agree with the movie ratings in America, I think they're too prudish, and censoring nudity and erotica probably causes more sexual problems than it prevents... but it's not simply that "the america's fear the body's love making". The exposure of youth to sexual imagery can lead to problems when done wrong. Go look at 4chan if you doubt that.
Shallow isn't bad. I spent countless hours of my childhood tossing and catching a rubber ball with my friends; I did it for five minutes with my son yesterday. Simple, shallow, but perpetually awesome.
Or, to illustrate it with videogames; Asteroids is shallow as hell, but playing it is a much purer state of videogame zen than gears of war will ever be.
My car key snapped in half, and it was my only copy. I made a pattern out of the two halves, and carved a replacement key out of wood. It worked fine; I drove to a locksmith, and they made a new key out of the pieces.
I think it's pretty clear that the success of those music games is because they already cater to a much wider demographic than, say, Gears of War, or other random gritty 1st person shooters. Of course, that's the entire reason the Wii won this generation; I wonder when it will stop being so shocking that all videogamers aren't 17 year old boys?
Bitching about music games and giving an anecdote about playing a real instrument... it's like the new version of posts describing how the poster doesn't even own a tv, and how enriched their life has become.
You link to a calculator on Obama's website? Please.
Here's a fact: The Bush tax cuts were across the board. The lowest bracket dropped from 15% to 10%. Obama supports letting that expire, and does not count that as 'raising taxes.'. Neither, evidently, do you. I am not wrong about this.
It's just like saying you can go black or white. Yes, there are all sorts of shades in between, and yes you can be black in some areas and white in others. But Capitalism and Communism are each the final endpoint of the axis in their respective directions. Socialism is communism with some concessions. That's why a step towards socialism is also considered a step towards communism; it's the same direction. I think that it is a good thing that people can think in principles enough to compare concepts.
The first article twists numbers to give the wrong impression. It describes how rich save more money under the tax cut than the poor do. It's hard to counter that argument without using a 'duh', but I'll try.
Mary has a dollar, and I tax her 10 cents. John has a billion dollars, and I tax him 100 million. That's 10% in both cases. Let's cut it in half for both. Mary saves 5 cents. John saves 50 million.
The article bitches that the cut isn't fair; presumably, it wouldn't be fair until both Mary and John save the same amount of money... which is impossible, unless half of John's taxes are fed into Mary's pocket.
I don't need to go into why that's evil, because it's obvious; if it's not obvious, I don't think I'll ever be able to convince you it is.
From the article: The legislation adopted by the House of Representatives March 8 is an illustration of the class logic of Bush's program. It compresses the current five-bracket rate structure into four and reduces the rates gradually over the next five years. When the full cut is phased in completely in 2006, the top income tax rate will fall from 39.6 percent to 33 percent. The lowest rate will fall from 15 percent to 10 percent.
"the top income tax rate will fall from 39.6 percent to 33 percent. The lowest rate will fall from 15 percent to 10 percent."
You're right, it's unfair. The rich are paying a disproportionate amount.
The second article mainly complains about the widening gap between the rich and poor. Here's an illustrative example:
The top 1 percent received 21.8 percent of all reported income in 2005, up significantly from 19.8 percent the year before and more than double their share of income in 1980. The peak was in 1928, when the top 1 percent reported 23.9 percent of all income.
The top tenth of a percent and top one-hundredth of a percent recorded even bigger gains in 2005 over the previous year. Their incomes soared by about a fifth in one year, largely because of the rising stock market and increased business profits.
So? A widening income gap is not a problem. Indeed, one would expect that people and companies that made more money than normal would continue to make more money than normal. Why is that bad? Keep in mind, that the increasing amount of wealth at the top is TAXED SEVERAL TIMES MORE HEAVILY than wealth among the lower class; even after those evil Bush tax cuts.
This is a good resource: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/. It's the Statistical Abstract of the United States, as provided by the census bureau. I pulled up some real numbers, for 2004.
People/entities with a taxable income over $1,000,000 numbered 0.18% of the population. Their income was 11.4% of the population (how unfair!). But... they accounted for 79.6% of all income tax revenue. I know, it's not enough; it won't be enough until they are brought down to a mere sustenance wage like us; but I think it requires some real non-objectivity to insist they aren't paying their share.
Perhaps the money problems mean that people will give up on plans to get a PS3 or 360 and a widescreen tv, and just opt for the Wii? Most people will still spend a few hundred dollars on their family this Christmas... but they might shy away from BIG luxury expenditures.
If we ever get a picture of Bush playing a Wii, the amount of internet posts spewing hatred will take down servers all over the world.
I imagine Nintendo is aware that this will all end... eventually... and don't want to be stuck with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of wasted manufacturing capability. Now, will it end after this Christmas, next Christmas, or will be be like the gameboy and dominate the market for ten years? Who knows.
Hey, I got modded down to "offtopic" for making the first post mentioning Colin Powell's endorsement of Stevens. Maybe people don't realize he testified on Steven's behalf? Regardless, sometimes the moderation just comes out wrong. Them's the breaks.
Thanks for the sensible post. It's painful watching intelligent people who support Obama (which is fine) twist logic and facts to justify irrational attacks against his opponent (which is not fine).
It's done the other way as well; it's sad either way.
Joe has a fantasy about himself as Mr. Up-And-Coming-Businessman (he's not)
He's not? You're an ass. I can say that with just as much authority as anything you say, from your position of ignorance, about Joe Wurzelbacher. And Joe wouldn't get a tax cut. Obama wants to let the tax breaks Joe got under Bush expire.
Are you mad that a "guy like Joe" even has aspirations? It is not that outlandish that somebody rise from the working class and build a $250k business. There's no guarantee, but it does happen, and frequently. Or are you simply mad because he is on the other side, politically?
I think you're confused. From what I understand, Obama wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts to EVERYBODY, then levy ADDITIONAL taxes on higher-income people.
By charging the business that employees the low income people, and the business that the low income people buy things from, higher taxes. Can you spot the flaw in the plan?
Besides, Obama will be raising everyone's taxes. He admits as much. He wants to repeal all the tax cuts put in place over the last eight years. When he says he won't be raising taxes on the 95% of the public, he's referring to any increases above and beyond that increase.
That is why he says you "won't be paying any more than you were under Clinton." We are currently ALL paying less than we were under Clinton. I know I may be modded down for saying something negative about Obama, but it's true... go look it up.
This is Slashdot, we're supposed to be intelligent here. This means that while we may not know what a Golomb ruler is, we should be eager to find out, and competent enough to take the simple step necessary to do so... not complain that we aren't being spoonfed gently enough (even though posting that complaint takes more effort than the required click to actually find out).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it would be just as stupid.
Yea totally. look at the america/german divide...the amercas fear the body's love making but love the death and murder, whereas germany censors violence and allows all kinds of sex.
In defense of America, sex is much more of a temptation than violence is. 99.9% of kids won't commit murder regardless of what movies they watch, but 99.9% of them will make stupid decisions at some point regarding sex.
Now, I don't agree with the movie ratings in America, I think they're too prudish, and censoring nudity and erotica probably causes more sexual problems than it prevents... but it's not simply that "the america's fear the body's love making". The exposure of youth to sexual imagery can lead to problems when done wrong. Go look at 4chan if you doubt that.
Shallow isn't bad. I spent countless hours of my childhood tossing and catching a rubber ball with my friends; I did it for five minutes with my son yesterday. Simple, shallow, but perpetually awesome.
Or, to illustrate it with videogames; Asteroids is shallow as hell, but playing it is a much purer state of videogame zen than gears of war will ever be.
My car key snapped in half, and it was my only copy. I made a pattern out of the two halves, and carved a replacement key out of wood. It worked fine; I drove to a locksmith, and they made a new key out of the pieces.
I think it's pretty clear that the success of those music games is because they already cater to a much wider demographic than, say, Gears of War, or other random gritty 1st person shooters. Of course, that's the entire reason the Wii won this generation; I wonder when it will stop being so shocking that all videogamers aren't 17 year old boys?
Bitching about music games and giving an anecdote about playing a real instrument... it's like the new version of posts describing how the poster doesn't even own a tv, and how enriched their life has become.
You link to a calculator on Obama's website? Please.
Here's a fact: The Bush tax cuts were across the board. The lowest bracket dropped from 15% to 10%. Obama supports letting that expire, and does not count that as 'raising taxes.'. Neither, evidently, do you. I am not wrong about this.
It's just like saying you can go black or white. Yes, there are all sorts of shades in between, and yes you can be black in some areas and white in others. But Capitalism and Communism are each the final endpoint of the axis in their respective directions. Socialism is communism with some concessions. That's why a step towards socialism is also considered a step towards communism; it's the same direction. I think that it is a good thing that people can think in principles enough to compare concepts.
wsws.org... World Socialist Web Site? Good lord.
The first article twists numbers to give the wrong impression. It describes how rich save more money under the tax cut than the poor do. It's hard to counter that argument without using a 'duh', but I'll try.
Mary has a dollar, and I tax her 10 cents. John has a billion dollars, and I tax him 100 million. That's 10% in both cases. Let's cut it in half for both. Mary saves 5 cents. John saves 50 million.
The article bitches that the cut isn't fair; presumably, it wouldn't be fair until both Mary and John save the same amount of money... which is impossible, unless half of John's taxes are fed into Mary's pocket.
I don't need to go into why that's evil, because it's obvious; if it's not obvious, I don't think I'll ever be able to convince you it is.
From the article: The legislation adopted by the House of Representatives March 8 is an illustration of the class logic of Bush's program. It compresses the current five-bracket rate structure into four and reduces the rates gradually over the next five years. When the full cut is phased in completely in 2006, the top income tax rate will fall from 39.6 percent to 33 percent. The lowest rate will fall from 15 percent to 10 percent.
"the top income tax rate will fall from 39.6 percent to 33 percent. The lowest rate will fall from 15 percent to 10 percent."
You're right, it's unfair. The rich are paying a disproportionate amount.
The second article mainly complains about the widening gap between the rich and poor. Here's an illustrative example:
The top 1 percent received 21.8 percent of all reported income in 2005, up significantly from 19.8 percent the year before and more than double their share of income in 1980. The peak was in 1928, when the top 1 percent reported 23.9 percent of all income. The top tenth of a percent and top one-hundredth of a percent recorded even bigger gains in 2005 over the previous year. Their incomes soared by about a fifth in one year, largely because of the rising stock market and increased business profits.
So? A widening income gap is not a problem. Indeed, one would expect that people and companies that made more money than normal would continue to make more money than normal. Why is that bad? Keep in mind, that the increasing amount of wealth at the top is TAXED SEVERAL TIMES MORE HEAVILY than wealth among the lower class; even after those evil Bush tax cuts.
This is a good resource: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/. It's the Statistical Abstract of the United States, as provided by the census bureau. I pulled up some real numbers, for 2004.
People/entities with a taxable income over $1,000,000 numbered 0.18% of the population. Their income was 11.4% of the population (how unfair!). But... they accounted for 79.6% of all income tax revenue. I know, it's not enough; it won't be enough until they are brought down to a mere sustenance wage like us; but I think it requires some real non-objectivity to insist they aren't paying their share.
Perhaps the money problems mean that people will give up on plans to get a PS3 or 360 and a widescreen tv, and just opt for the Wii? Most people will still spend a few hundred dollars on their family this Christmas... but they might shy away from BIG luxury expenditures.
If we ever get a picture of Bush playing a Wii, the amount of internet posts spewing hatred will take down servers all over the world.
I imagine Nintendo is aware that this will all end... eventually... and don't want to be stuck with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of wasted manufacturing capability. Now, will it end after this Christmas, next Christmas, or will be be like the gameboy and dominate the market for ten years? Who knows.
Hey, I got modded down to "offtopic" for making the first post mentioning Colin Powell's endorsement of Stevens. Maybe people don't realize he testified on Steven's behalf? Regardless, sometimes the moderation just comes out wrong. Them's the breaks.
The existence of a tax plan means that we are becoming socialist, not communist. True. It is primarily a difference in terminology, though.
Or you're a good Republican. Why the need to insult?
As is Obama, self-admittedly. Since, for both of them, it was in their youth, why does it matter?
Powell's recent endorsement must not have counted for much, eh?
You are conflating being a war prisoner, tortured for years by the country's enemies, with your picked-on childhood?
Please don't vote. You should be grown up before you do that.
Thanks for the sensible post. It's painful watching intelligent people who support Obama (which is fine) twist logic and facts to justify irrational attacks against his opponent (which is not fine).
It's done the other way as well; it's sad either way.
It is not any more socialist than the current tax structure which favors the rich rather than the middle class.
Explain how the tax structure favors the rich. Please don't avoid the fact that the rich pay a larger share of their income in taxes in your answer.
Joe has a fantasy about himself as Mr. Up-And-Coming-Businessman (he's not)
He's not? You're an ass. I can say that with just as much authority as anything you say, from your position of ignorance, about Joe Wurzelbacher. And Joe wouldn't get a tax cut. Obama wants to let the tax breaks Joe got under Bush expire.
Are you mad that a "guy like Joe" even has aspirations? It is not that outlandish that somebody rise from the working class and build a $250k business. There's no guarantee, but it does happen, and frequently. Or are you simply mad because he is on the other side, politically?
I think you're confused. From what I understand, Obama wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts to EVERYBODY, then levy ADDITIONAL taxes on higher-income people.
By charging the business that employees the low income people, and the business that the low income people buy things from, higher taxes. Can you spot the flaw in the plan?
Besides, Obama will be raising everyone's taxes. He admits as much. He wants to repeal all the tax cuts put in place over the last eight years. When he says he won't be raising taxes on the 95% of the public, he's referring to any increases above and beyond that increase.
That is why he says you "won't be paying any more than you were under Clinton." We are currently ALL paying less than we were under Clinton. I know I may be modded down for saying something negative about Obama, but it's true... go look it up.
Forget "\", they should have used "-==-"
I don't think that is a reserved sequence of characters. It would have made the source code more interesting.
This is Slashdot, we're supposed to be intelligent here. This means that while we may not know what a Golomb ruler is, we should be eager to find out, and competent enough to take the simple step necessary to do so... not complain that we aren't being spoonfed gently enough (even though posting that complaint takes more effort than the required click to actually find out).