Common sense and human decency should override it.
Actually, its a great rule that codified common sense. If your trademark ceases to distinguish your product from your competitors, you lose it. So, for example, if you invent a product called a "Band-aid", you have to ensure there is a generic term for it (like "Adhesive Bandage"), that people use unless they referring to your brand.
There are a lot of examples of companies that lost their brand to a generic term "Zipper", "Thermos", "Escalator", "Videotape", "Laundromat"... heck even "Kerosene" and "Heroin". A lot have fought hard to keep their brand serparate, and are required to be douches about it to keep their brandname. For instance, Xerox will get made at you if you call a generic photocopier a xerox machine. Google has to fight its use as a verb. Heck, "ping pong", "chain gun", and "muzak" are all trademarks.
, even allowing for the improvements in the state of the art since I worked with them
Which haven't been that much. I've used the Oculus. I also remember the VR glasses that CompUSA had for sale (was Descent the game they used to show off?), as well as some other VR tech that never got off the ground. The Oculus is clearly better, but it wasn't unusable technology before. Hell, the VirtualBoy is roundly criticized, but it technically functioned just fine.
Do you mean Java, or JavaScript. One is an cross-platform language with strong C++ style syntax, the other looks like someone looked at VB and said "programming shouldn't have to be this complex." The latter is an admirable goal for small things (batch file replacements) but doesn't scale well if you want to do complex things.
Actually, Adobe offered to opensource ActionScript (Flash's language) to be adopted as the update to JavaScript, but some stupid argument about... XML parsing(?) lead to some holy war where the ECMA-scripts parted. Which is too bad. Because ActionScript supports object oriented code.
[America] is not the official name of any of those things.
Neither is Mexico. Neither is the United Kingdom. Neither is Norway. No one gives a shit about the official name.
I mean, do you throw a fit because people dare call the country Iceland, because technically that's the name of the island, not the country? No, because it's obvious from context.
Arrogant or not, we refer to ourselves as American. Name another nationality that does? So it should be pretty clear.
The thing is, I've never seen anybody to refer to the Commonwealth of Nations as just "Britain", but everyone around here in Europe uses "America" either for the US, or for the combined NA+SA landmass, quite unambiguously based on the context.
Right, on that side of the pond. On this side of the pond, I've never heard anyone utter the phrase "Commonwealth of Nations". (I'm sure Canadian's do, but we tune them out, since half of everything they say is French anyway.) But calling it all "Britian", heck yeah.
In other news, Europeans telling people in far-away places what they should call themselves went out with things like them being the only ones capable of making guns and having smallpox antibodies.
Under etymology. If you want to be pedantic, be better at being pedantic. The definition was basically summed up in in this excerpt: "an ultimate or idealized destination or aim"
It is triggered upon one's death and for no other criteria... Literally, the only way it comes into play is if you die -- which everyone does.
Thanks for pointing out why it's so dishonest to call it a "death" tax and not an "estate" tax. It's triggered upon one leaving an estate valued at more than $X (I believe $1.5 million) to heirs -- which is something not everyone does. There's no tax unless you use a transaction to move that money to an heir. Donate it all to the Red Cross, and the government doesn't get a dime.
First, the family farm is a cute story, but in this day of giant agribusiness, an unfortunately vanishing one. Second, farmers tend to make higher than the average income, so it's not like they're the poorest people in the world. Third, and most importantly, when this idea was brought up in the Senate in 2002, in spite of contingent concessions being offered by the Democrats, not one example of a family farm being lost to estate taxes was able to be produced.
That said, I tend to believe in family businesses. I certainly don't believe that farms are somehow magical and special. What about a plumbing firm? A shopping mall? In my ideal world, you can inherit such a business with a giant deduction (sorry Mars family) as long as you were intimately involved in running said business for X years prior to inheriting it. That is, I'm fine with a family firm, but not a tax free payoff just because it's a private firm.
These deductions may include mortgages and other debts, estate administration expenses, property that passes to surviving spouses and qualified charities. The value of some operating business interests or farms may be reduced for estates that qualify. After the net amount is computed, the value of lifetime taxable gifts (beginning with gifts made in 1977) is added to this number and the tax is computed.
The gifts are per person (up to their inheritance) is added to the deduction. So, you're correct on form, but wrong on substance.
It makes sense because you have better uses for your money than investing it in easy to liquid assets. For example, long term positions in privately held companies. However, your death could bring the need for cash. So, you are essentially paying a premium for the ability to make longer term investments, in the form of paying an insurance premium.
Further, there are also questions of debt and leveraged positions. Being forced to liquidate a leveraged position at a specific point in time can be quite devastating.
Then again, using insurance to allow more leveraged/risky investments hasn't caused any issues in at least half-a-decade, so it seems fine to me.
then pay the capital gains taxes again if they sell it a few years later
They pay capital gains based on appreciation from the fair market value when they inherited the asset, not when the purchase price their ancestor paid.
Why is there an estate tax of 45% upon anyone's death!!!
There is not a tax on anyone's death. There is a tax on receiving an inheritance. There is more than a semantic difference. Given X dollars, dividing them among Y heirs leads to no taxes, regardless of how large X is (although the higher X is, the higher Y needs to be).
That income has been taxed already.
Oft times not. Death obviates long-term capital gains taxes. So that's, in the most advantageous case 20%. It also obviates other cases of asset appreciation being taxes, which can be 28% or higher.
On the other hand, it would be interesting to see a comparative study of the energy resources consumed (per user) to create and maintain the paper money supply. I wouldn't be too surprised if the per-capita efficiency advantage was actually on the BitCoin side, once all the paper production costs, transport costs, guard costs, legal overhead, etc is tallied up.
Well, please take into account that less than 1% of currency is even printed. The rest is all digital anyway. But with less overhead.
To avoid any feeling of obligation you mean? Probably
But as I said, once the initial (few) date(s) are over, most women start going dutch. In fact, I'm having trouble thinking of the last beyond-third date I went on where it was expected that I continue to be the only one paying.
Well, ghash.io does have over 50% of the mining power; they do have the ability to double(triple)-spend bitcoins; and they do have the ability to ensure only they mine new blocks, pushing their number up to 100%
I take it then that your wife/GF insisted on going dutch on all your dates?
Ummm... yeah. With the exception of first dates (or maybe the first few dates), I find almost all women want to go dutch. Or, more likely, take turns buying dinner.
I suppose you have to be nice enough/not misogynistic enough to get a second date for that to pan out, so maybe that explains why you're inexperienced with this phenomenon.
"Equality" in their mind is getting all the perks of being a woman (men fawning over you and buying you free food and drinks, sexual power, the taboo on physically attacking you, etc.) while simultaneously also getting all the perks of being a man (higher breadwinner pay, political power, etc.)--and all without having to suffer ANY of the downsides of either gender.
Well, let me say, I think it's entirely reasonable for both genders to expect a "taboo on being physically attacked" (exceptions for friendly scuffles aside).
If you're talking about "free food" being dinner, that's probably offset by the higher priced clothes, makeup and haircare.
If you're talking about "sexual power" as the inability to hit on a guy, and needing to wait for him to hit on them, or she's overly aggressive/slutty.... well, that may or may not be a better position than guys have. I'm not even sure.
. All the problems we have seen with thefts have had nothing to do with the Bitcoin protocol.
No, the problems with the bitcoin protocol are two-fold. First, it's extraordinarily wasteful to burn electricity for "proof-of-work". Second, the largest bitcoin mining operation has sufficient horsepower that it can manipulate any bitcoin it wants.
Yeah. Because all the people with a negative reaction (like me) avoided your stepson, probably taking steps to walk behind him. Thanks for inconveniencing me. But beyond that, you intend to take the skewed sample as evidence that you're on the side of right. I suppose you could have written this in the 50's, about how there didn't seem to be any objection about the bus segregation - after all, all the reactions you saw around your seat were positive.
Slashdot Mirror
Except 4 wheels are useful (more stable than 3, cheaper than 5). You don't get to trademark useful things, only non-useful things.
Actually, its a great rule that codified common sense. If your trademark ceases to distinguish your product from your competitors, you lose it. So, for example, if you invent a product called a "Band-aid", you have to ensure there is a generic term for it (like "Adhesive Bandage"), that people use unless they referring to your brand.
There are a lot of examples of companies that lost their brand to a generic term "Zipper", "Thermos", "Escalator", "Videotape", "Laundromat"... heck even "Kerosene" and "Heroin". A lot have fought hard to keep their brand serparate, and are required to be douches about it to keep their brandname. For instance, Xerox will get made at you if you call a generic photocopier a xerox machine. Google has to fight its use as a verb. Heck, "ping pong", "chain gun", and "muzak" are all trademarks.
Which haven't been that much. I've used the Oculus. I also remember the VR glasses that CompUSA had for sale (was Descent the game they used to show off?), as well as some other VR tech that never got off the ground. The Oculus is clearly better, but it wasn't unusable technology before. Hell, the VirtualBoy is roundly criticized, but it technically functioned just fine.
Do you mean Java, or JavaScript. One is an cross-platform language with strong C++ style syntax, the other looks like someone looked at VB and said "programming shouldn't have to be this complex." The latter is an admirable goal for small things (batch file replacements) but doesn't scale well if you want to do complex things.
Actually, Adobe offered to opensource ActionScript (Flash's language) to be adopted as the update to JavaScript, but some stupid argument about... XML parsing(?) lead to some holy war where the ECMA-scripts parted. Which is too bad. Because ActionScript supports object oriented code.
Neither is Mexico. Neither is the United Kingdom. Neither is Norway. No one gives a shit about the official name.
I mean, do you throw a fit because people dare call the country Iceland, because technically that's the name of the island, not the country? No, because it's obvious from context.
Arrogant or not, we refer to ourselves as American. Name another nationality that does? So it should be pretty clear.
Right, on that side of the pond. On this side of the pond, I've never heard anyone utter the phrase "Commonwealth of Nations". (I'm sure Canadian's do, but we tune them out, since half of everything they say is French anyway.) But calling it all "Britian", heck yeah.
In other news, Europeans telling people in far-away places what they should call themselves went out with things like them being the only ones capable of making guns and having smallpox antibodies.
Under etymology. If you want to be pedantic, be better at being pedantic. The definition was basically summed up in in this excerpt: "an ultimate or idealized destination or aim"
So, you know...
America is a country. North America and South America are continents.
Thanks for pointing out why it's so dishonest to call it a "death" tax and not an "estate" tax. It's triggered upon one leaving an estate valued at more than $X (I believe $1.5 million) to heirs -- which is something not everyone does. There's no tax unless you use a transaction to move that money to an heir. Donate it all to the Red Cross, and the government doesn't get a dime.
First, the family farm is a cute story, but in this day of giant agribusiness, an unfortunately vanishing one. Second, farmers tend to make higher than the average income, so it's not like they're the poorest people in the world. Third, and most importantly, when this idea was brought up in the Senate in 2002, in spite of contingent concessions being offered by the Democrats, not one example of a family farm being lost to estate taxes was able to be produced.
That said, I tend to believe in family businesses. I certainly don't believe that farms are somehow magical and special. What about a plumbing firm? A shopping mall? In my ideal world, you can inherit such a business with a giant deduction (sorry Mars family) as long as you were intimately involved in running said business for X years prior to inheriting it. That is, I'm fine with a family firm, but not a tax free payoff just because it's a private firm.
One, you should pay more attention to ending tags
Two:
The gifts are per person (up to their inheritance) is added to the deduction. So, you're correct on form, but wrong on substance.
It makes sense because you have better uses for your money than investing it in easy to liquid assets. For example, long term positions in privately held companies. However, your death could bring the need for cash. So, you are essentially paying a premium for the ability to make longer term investments, in the form of paying an insurance premium.
Further, there are also questions of debt and leveraged positions. Being forced to liquidate a leveraged position at a specific point in time can be quite devastating.
Then again, using insurance to allow more leveraged/risky investments hasn't caused any issues in at least half-a-decade, so it seems fine to me.
They pay capital gains based on appreciation from the fair market value when they inherited the asset, not when the purchase price their ancestor paid.
There is not a tax on anyone's death. There is a tax on receiving an inheritance. There is more than a semantic difference. Given X dollars, dividing them among Y heirs leads to no taxes, regardless of how large X is (although the higher X is, the higher Y needs to be).
Oft times not. Death obviates long-term capital gains taxes. So that's, in the most advantageous case 20%. It also obviates other cases of asset appreciation being taxes, which can be 28% or higher.
What is bequeathment if not income?
The old record was probably 200 million.
Yeah, in reality that's what happens.
Well, please take into account that less than 1% of currency is even printed. The rest is all digital anyway. But with less overhead.
To avoid any feeling of obligation you mean? Probably
But as I said, once the initial (few) date(s) are over, most women start going dutch. In fact, I'm having trouble thinking of the last beyond-third date I went on where it was expected that I continue to be the only one paying.
Well, ghash.io does have over 50% of the mining power; they do have the ability to double(triple)-spend bitcoins; and they do have the ability to ensure only they mine new blocks, pushing their number up to 100%
Ummm... yeah. With the exception of first dates (or maybe the first few dates), I find almost all women want to go dutch. Or, more likely, take turns buying dinner.
I suppose you have to be nice enough/not misogynistic enough to get a second date for that to pan out, so maybe that explains why you're inexperienced with this phenomenon.
Well, let me say, I think it's entirely reasonable for both genders to expect a "taboo on being physically attacked" (exceptions for friendly scuffles aside).
If you're talking about "free food" being dinner, that's probably offset by the higher priced clothes, makeup and haircare.
If you're talking about "sexual power" as the inability to hit on a guy, and needing to wait for him to hit on them, or she's overly aggressive/slutty.... well, that may or may not be a better position than guys have. I'm not even sure.
No, the problems with the bitcoin protocol are two-fold. First, it's extraordinarily wasteful to burn electricity for "proof-of-work". Second, the largest bitcoin mining operation has sufficient horsepower that it can manipulate any bitcoin it wants.
Suggestions please?
Yeah. Because all the people with a negative reaction (like me) avoided your stepson, probably taking steps to walk behind him. Thanks for inconveniencing me. But beyond that, you intend to take the skewed sample as evidence that you're on the side of right. I suppose you could have written this in the 50's, about how there didn't seem to be any objection about the bus segregation - after all, all the reactions you saw around your seat were positive.