Or is it possible that you actually have specific target numbers that you think are actually the ideal tax rate for each and every area of economic activity?
Yes, there are. 0% and 100% are both demonstrably wrong, so the proper level is in between them. Determining that exact level is set as an exercise to the reader.
Just because that level cannot be determined exactly does not somehow make less taxes better any more than it makes more taxes better.
know how to take that tax money and use it through government agencies that, somehow, will be more efficient than private investment in creating jobs and economic activity. Do tell, really.
This part is really simple. Spend it on American made (and only American made) products. Doesn't matter what it is really. It'll "stimulate the economy". See also, the WPA. By contast, most consumer goods ship money to other countries.
They need to purge all the religious zealots, war mongers, and lobbyist puppets and get back to a base of solid fiscal conservancy and international trade.
Which Republican president do you think ever worked for that? There have been some great Republican presidents, but they were hardly conservative, instead they changed the world in dramatic ways.
Umm, you do realize that this entire article is about Obama WINNING the nomination right?
Obama is projected to win. The superdelegates wote later, and will decide who actually wins. Based how those superdelegates will likely vote, Obama will likely win. However, there are no tricks necessary, just a few people who change their mind.
That means Hillary can't get the nomination, or in other words, SHE LOST.
She lost the pledged delegate count, won the popular vote, and the nomination is in the air.
You can't get a rental at just any old checkout counter, because rentals require infrastructure to manage inventory, handle returns, late fees, etc.
I see lots of rental kiosks behind random, any old, checkout counters. Software does it all, and they just throw new disks in the hopper from time to time. It uses paper protectors, but other than that is just as convenient as a regular rental store. Moreso, if you go somewhere you shop often.
He later supported revising it with civil liberties measures.
Reinstituting it, as the first version had expired. So, he did vote for a Patriot Act, just not the first Patriot Act. I don't know much about the second, just the first however, so I don't know if their similarities go beyond the names.
I really hope that you aren't suggesting that we pick and chose what is in the constitution and determine what is worth violating or not.
Nope, I asked, other than the arguement you presented, what argument is there? Why not repeal it. I then say that, depending on how you read the constitution, you can read the preamble different ways. The way I read it, it's hardly applicable, as it only applies to "well-regulated militias", and most people with guns are not members of them. Hence, I don't see there being any kind of slippery slope with restrictive gun laws.
The shareholders legally run the company and as such can do whatever they hell they like including firing CEO's who do not sell out for get rich quick schemes
A proxy fight, battle over control of the company and shifting the future direction? Sure. Suing the Board/CEO for not accepting a past offer? Hardly.
Actually, what you're referring to is the "business judgment rule,"... The Board is *required* to focus on maximizing wealth for the company's owners, i.e., the shareholders.
No, I'm not. And no, the board is not. Unocal v. Mesa Petroleum established that, for Deleware companies (like Yahoo!), when faced with an unsolicited bid, the board could take into account not only shareholder value, but also the interests of: creditors, customers, employees, and possibly a larger community.
When the Board throws a "For Sale" sign up, however, it is obligated to take the highest bid.
Basically, Hollywood accounting is paying your film-making subsidiary pay your other subsidiaries huge amounts of money for their work, so that the film does not make money, but your subsidiaries do. Therefore, anyone expecting a percentage of the profits from the movie (or presumably, legal liabilities resulting from the movie, although IANAL), have no recourse, as the money is not associated with the company that made the movie.
As for why you cannot do it with your tax returns, well, the government gets paid taxes by the otehr subsidiaries. If no one paid the taxes that is evasion, and the government cares. Otherwise, A or B, the government still gets paid.
Why does it surprise anybody that the driving force behind these companies is to sell out no matter what the cost to the business, the employees, or even the customers?
And to head off the stream of ignorance about to insist that public companies are legally required to maximize shareholder value, the US Supreme Court has rejected that interpertation. The purpose of a Board of Directors is to protect a company, which it is allowed to view as a collection of relationships between customers, employees, etc. The case that decided this precident was based around rejecting a higher offer to take one that better served the companies culture.
Your company culture may be "profit maximizing," but don't pretend you can dictate to other companies.
Not every township does this though. I usually just avoid those townships.
In my township, they have to record the speeds at least once a year at certain spots, and change the speed limit based on the aggregated data. Which is why they are very careful to draw attention to the fact that your speed is being monitored.
but the Democratic party is just as anti-freedom and in particular Obama has no respect for the 2nd Amendment
I love how one amendment is seen as the equal of all the others combined. A case could be made for that in the case of the 9th or 14th amendment, but the 2nd? Other than maintaining integrity for the consititution (whose argument is based on how one interperts the "well-regulated" preamble), is there any reason for gun rights to be considered anywhere near the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th amendments? I mean, there fundmental things about freedom of speech and privacy and equality. Things that ensure justice and prevent government overreaching. And then there is the 2nd amendment.
The standard line may be that guns are a last resort to prevent government overreaching, but that seems unlikely. The first attempt to do so was crushed mercilessly, and the only serious attempt required a split in the army. Nowadays, your small arms aren't going to really enable you to win a fight against the military, and surely there will be worse problems when average people can start buying and misusing more serious weapons.
It's not that I don't think people should be able to go hunting or keep a gun for their protection. I just don't buy it as a fundamental right.
Mind you, R3 could use this as an excuse for LOTS of discovery, and post the results as video news. "Today we got the perl scripts that are the heart of MediaDefender..."
They may be allowed to view/copy the Perl scripts, but they certainly wouldn't be allowed to distribute them (it would expose them to horrendous counterclaims). Subpoenaed company secrets have to be protected. I am not a lawyer.
the government can not, under any circumstances, make it illegal to say what you want.
Sure, and if you can tell me what "2 girls 1 cup" is trying to say, then it would be protected speech. It's only obscene if the only reason it exists is to be offensive.
Most people would consider it offensive to have someone burn a flag, and even consider it obscene. However, there is a political point that is being made, so it is protected. There have to be some lines, because the world isn't as simple as you would like. You cannot shout "fire" in a theater, threaten to kill someone, walk around naked (even though clothes are commonly considered something protected by free speech rights), or do any other acts where you are clearly not trying to communicate anything. Should the line be drawn so as to error on the side of too much free speech? Yes. But just like "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean that no one could get convicted (hey, the universe may have popped into existence 10 seconds ago, so there is a doubt they committed the crime), free speech doesn't mean no regulation.
Well no shit, Sherlock! If the government was provided directly then it would be an obvious and flagrant violation of the First Amendment. This way, it's a scheming, tricky, underhanded violation instead.
Obscenity isn't protected speech. Obscenity doesn't mean a curseword or a breast. It has to have no artistic or political merit. It has to shock the average person. 2 girls 1 cup is obscene. "Fuck the fucking fuckers" (in reference to some identifiable group, so it is an opinion and not a line) is protected speech, and hence, not obscene.
The first step is to allow people to access restricted content for free, which will drive many people away from neutral ISP's. The next step is to make blacklists mandatory for all. In the end the majority will accept those measures and a few people will use proxies to circumvent it (sounds like China, doesn't it?).
You're totally right. I mean, I used to pay for TV, and got a huge choice and profanity and nudity. Then the damn government started letting people send FREE SIGNALS to people and I can no longer get my lesbians wrestling in week-old mayo. Poor HBO went bankrupt:-(
It's only a slippery slope if you can really show how it will come to pass.
Fact is, the FCC has a legal mandate to keep obcenity (and there is some decision by the Supreme Court, pretty liberal) off the public airwaves. Which is why they cannot allow porn to be broadcast over the air either.
so someone had a few songs in their shared folders, but they can't even prove they are or were being shared!).
1) Of course they were being shared. Whether anyone took them up on their offer to share, and whether the person understood what they were doing... those are issues that are uncertain. But they were accessable for other people to download.
Reasonable doubt doesn't factor in at all. It is a civil case, the standard of proof is "more likely than not". Which means you will need to explain why those files were publically shared.
Not once did they go talk to the lady running the xray machine less than 50 feet away, who had told me to go through.
Who wasn't allowed to tell you to go through. I mean, if I give you carte blanche to *insert crime with victim other than me*, don't you still expect to get in trouble? Can a cashier not ring up your Wii, as a gift from the company?
So we added text "This cannot be undone. Continue?" and still the incidents did not go down (People just randomly click OK.)
There are times when I get bad data and don't know how to react. So I throw up an error dialog (complete with exclaimation point) that explains what happened (in English) and that now would be a good time to save your work and restart. I have internal users complain that things act funny, when I go to their desk to watch them reproduce it, they get one of my messages. I then read the box to them, and they don't even notice I'm reading off of the screen.
It cuts down on my debugging time at least.
Oh, and to those who ask why I don't point out the box, their (and our mutual boss's) opinion is that no one reads error dialogs.
If this employee was classified as someone who may not engage in partisan political activity,
They weren't. The people on that list are mainly judges, law enforcement, prosecutors, intelligence services and various fairness in government posts ( FEC, civil service overview, etc.).
And even they may "express opinions about candidates and issues". Others, like the NASA employee, can actively "campaign for or against candidates in partisan elections". Both can actively campaign for or against specific laws, be part of political organizations, etc.
freedom means I can say 'NO!' too. I say NO all the time to ads and flash and javascript. I find NOTHING morally wrong with this.
Well, it fails the categorical imperative, as you benefit from the advertising revenue. So Kantians would say that it was morally wrong. Rawls would probably claim that subjecting you to ads helped the less fortunate, so he would also say it was morally wrong. Utilitarians would claim it was wrong because obviously the ads cost less than the TV is worth, yet it collapses without them.
Why would you not see anything wrong with it? It's not as though you are boycotting the channel/site. You're just depriving them of revenue. Just because they didn't expressly make you sign a contract? And you complain when they try to force you to watch (extrapolated from the "arms race" ending).
the nerve of The Industry(tm) to force manufacturers (mafia tactics, essentially) to comply with the PUO (the real name for this, 'prohibited user operations') rules.
It's part of the spec. Love it or hate it, either it is okay to go off the spec (apologize for 1/3 of MS bashing now) or it is not (apologize to the industry now). Anything else is hypocritical.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, not since the 60's.
Mea culpa. I thought the three types of neutrino were +/0/-, and the name an artifact because the neutral one was found first. Sorry.
Yes, there are. 0% and 100% are both demonstrably wrong, so the proper level is in between them. Determining that exact level is set as an exercise to the reader.
Just because that level cannot be determined exactly does not somehow make less taxes better any more than it makes more taxes better.
This part is really simple. Spend it on American made (and only American made) products. Doesn't matter what it is really. It'll "stimulate the economy". See also, the WPA. By contast, most consumer goods ship money to other countries.
Those last three may stimulate the economy, but the first only stimulates the economy of Japan/Korea/China.
Which Republican president do you think ever worked for that? There have been some great Republican presidents, but they were hardly conservative, instead they changed the world in dramatic ways.
Obama is projected to win. The superdelegates wote later, and will decide who actually wins. Based how those superdelegates will likely vote, Obama will likely win. However, there are no tricks necessary, just a few people who change their mind.
She lost the pledged delegate count, won the popular vote, and the nomination is in the air.
I see lots of rental kiosks behind random, any old, checkout counters. Software does it all, and they just throw new disks in the hopper from time to time. It uses paper protectors, but other than that is just as convenient as a regular rental store. Moreso, if you go somewhere you shop often.
Reinstituting it, as the first version had expired. So, he did vote for a Patriot Act, just not the first Patriot Act. I don't know much about the second, just the first however, so I don't know if their similarities go beyond the names.
You are thinking of neutrons.
Nope, I asked, other than the arguement you presented, what argument is there? Why not repeal it. I then say that, depending on how you read the constitution, you can read the preamble different ways. The way I read it, it's hardly applicable, as it only applies to "well-regulated militias", and most people with guns are not members of them. Hence, I don't see there being any kind of slippery slope with restrictive gun laws.
A proxy fight, battle over control of the company and shifting the future direction? Sure. Suing the Board/CEO for not accepting a past offer? Hardly.
No, I'm not. And no, the board is not. Unocal v. Mesa Petroleum established that, for Deleware companies (like Yahoo!), when faced with an unsolicited bid, the board could take into account not only shareholder value, but also the interests of: creditors, customers, employees, and possibly a larger community.
When the Board throws a "For Sale" sign up, however, it is obligated to take the highest bid.
Basically, Hollywood accounting is paying your film-making subsidiary pay your other subsidiaries huge amounts of money for their work, so that the film does not make money, but your subsidiaries do. Therefore, anyone expecting a percentage of the profits from the movie (or presumably, legal liabilities resulting from the movie, although IANAL), have no recourse, as the money is not associated with the company that made the movie.
As for why you cannot do it with your tax returns, well, the government gets paid taxes by the otehr subsidiaries. If no one paid the taxes that is evasion, and the government cares. Otherwise, A or B, the government still gets paid.
And to head off the stream of ignorance about to insist that public companies are legally required to maximize shareholder value, the US Supreme Court has rejected that interpertation. The purpose of a Board of Directors is to protect a company, which it is allowed to view as a collection of relationships between customers, employees, etc. The case that decided this precident was based around rejecting a higher offer to take one that better served the companies culture.
Your company culture may be "profit maximizing," but don't pretend you can dictate to other companies.
In my township, they have to record the speeds at least once a year at certain spots, and change the speed limit based on the aggregated data. Which is why they are very careful to draw attention to the fact that your speed is being monitored.
I love how one amendment is seen as the equal of all the others combined. A case could be made for that in the case of the 9th or 14th amendment, but the 2nd? Other than maintaining integrity for the consititution (whose argument is based on how one interperts the "well-regulated" preamble), is there any reason for gun rights to be considered anywhere near the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th amendments? I mean, there fundmental things about freedom of speech and privacy and equality. Things that ensure justice and prevent government overreaching. And then there is the 2nd amendment.
The standard line may be that guns are a last resort to prevent government overreaching, but that seems unlikely. The first attempt to do so was crushed mercilessly, and the only serious attempt required a split in the army. Nowadays, your small arms aren't going to really enable you to win a fight against the military, and surely there will be worse problems when average people can start buying and misusing more serious weapons.
It's not that I don't think people should be able to go hunting or keep a gun for their protection. I just don't buy it as a fundamental right.
They may be allowed to view/copy the Perl scripts, but they certainly wouldn't be allowed to distribute them (it would expose them to horrendous counterclaims). Subpoenaed company secrets have to be protected. I am not a lawyer.
Sure, and if you can tell me what "2 girls 1 cup" is trying to say, then it would be protected speech. It's only obscene if the only reason it exists is to be offensive.
Most people would consider it offensive to have someone burn a flag, and even consider it obscene. However, there is a political point that is being made, so it is protected. There have to be some lines, because the world isn't as simple as you would like. You cannot shout "fire" in a theater, threaten to kill someone, walk around naked (even though clothes are commonly considered something protected by free speech rights), or do any other acts where you are clearly not trying to communicate anything. Should the line be drawn so as to error on the side of too much free speech? Yes. But just like "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean that no one could get convicted (hey, the universe may have popped into existence 10 seconds ago, so there is a doubt they committed the crime), free speech doesn't mean no regulation.
Obscenity isn't protected speech. Obscenity doesn't mean a curseword or a breast. It has to have no artistic or political merit. It has to shock the average person. 2 girls 1 cup is obscene. "Fuck the fucking fuckers" (in reference to some identifiable group, so it is an opinion and not a line) is protected speech, and hence, not obscene.
You're totally right. I mean, I used to pay for TV, and got a huge choice and profanity and nudity. Then the damn government started letting people send FREE SIGNALS to people and I can no longer get my lesbians wrestling in week-old mayo. Poor HBO went bankrupt :-(
It's only a slippery slope if you can really show how it will come to pass.
Fact is, the FCC has a legal mandate to keep obcenity (and there is some decision by the Supreme Court, pretty liberal) off the public airwaves. Which is why they cannot allow porn to be broadcast over the air either.
1) Of course they were being shared. Whether anyone took them up on their offer to share, and whether the person understood what they were doing... those are issues that are uncertain. But they were accessable for other people to download.
Reasonable doubt doesn't factor in at all. It is a civil case, the standard of proof is "more likely than not". Which means you will need to explain why those files were publically shared.
Who wasn't allowed to tell you to go through. I mean, if I give you carte blanche to *insert crime with victim other than me*, don't you still expect to get in trouble? Can a cashier not ring up your Wii, as a gift from the company?
There are times when I get bad data and don't know how to react. So I throw up an error dialog (complete with exclaimation point) that explains what happened (in English) and that now would be a good time to save your work and restart. I have internal users complain that things act funny, when I go to their desk to watch them reproduce it, they get one of my messages. I then read the box to them, and they don't even notice I'm reading off of the screen.
It cuts down on my debugging time at least.
Oh, and to those who ask why I don't point out the box, their (and our mutual boss's) opinion is that no one reads error dialogs.
They weren't. The people on that list are mainly judges, law enforcement, prosecutors, intelligence services and various fairness in government posts ( FEC, civil service overview, etc.).
And even they may "express opinions about candidates and issues". Others, like the NASA employee, can actively "campaign for or against candidates in partisan elections". Both can actively campaign for or against specific laws, be part of political organizations, etc.
Well, it fails the categorical imperative, as you benefit from the advertising revenue. So Kantians would say that it was morally wrong. Rawls would probably claim that subjecting you to ads helped the less fortunate, so he would also say it was morally wrong. Utilitarians would claim it was wrong because obviously the ads cost less than the TV is worth, yet it collapses without them.
Why would you not see anything wrong with it? It's not as though you are boycotting the channel/site. You're just depriving them of revenue. Just because they didn't expressly make you sign a contract? And you complain when they try to force you to watch (extrapolated from the "arms race" ending).
It's part of the spec. Love it or hate it, either it is okay to go off the spec (apologize for 1/3 of MS bashing now) or it is not (apologize to the industry now). Anything else is hypocritical.