I have already explained this, but I can do the favour of repeating once for idiots.
If you add rentable space, property valuation goes up. This means the owners pay more in property taxes.
To X. Unsubstantiated part is that X is same as the road builder/maintainer. Unstated is the transaction between additional tax collector and road builder/maintainer.
Similarly, if more people rent apartments, property owners make more money, which means they owe more in income taxes.
Income taxes are even more remotely connected than property taxes to road builders/maintainers for the vast majority of roads in the US.
should be alleviated by public transport.
Which doesn't exist.
This is another external claim. You did not support it.
Ok, this is some implicit mathematics quite difficult for idiots. I will try to make it explicit - show it to some non-idiot and they can explain it directly to you taking into account your specific disabilities.
The public transport that is required for this is the one that will be usable by 10 times higher number of commuters. For some thing to be "the solution" without specified context where a country of 300 million is being discussed, it has to apply to a few millions of people at least. So the public transport that I tell you doesn't exist is the 90% under-utilized mass transport for millions which can actually accommodate tens of millions.
The reason is that the immigrants are more ready for discrimination in a foreign country for the economic and other opportunities. The home-grown blacks are not ready.
Also, money is the antidote to racist discrimination. And immigrants are rich - especially Indians, Pakistanis, and Chinese. Why? I recently wrote this to explain the success of people moving within the country. It applies even more to people moving to another country. Reproduced below :
A. People motivated enough to move away are likely to be motivated enough to work harder to succeed.
B. 100 talented people living in density of 1 per 500 square miles are much less likely to produce lasting value than those same 100 talented people working together. Teams of great people are more than the sum of their parts. Which means moving their asses to where the good people and opportunities are, for the benefit of themselves and society at large.
C. People away from their homelands MUST work hard. Often there is no family to fall back on.
Due to the reasons Indians, Pakistanis and Chinese migrate to the US - these factors apply more to them, hence this subcommunity of immigrants is richer than most others.
for once that douchebag makes your private details public, it's public
Same can be said for copyrighted work that is released to selected members of public, say for a fee. Despite the difficulty to enforce it since the "digital revolution", society is persisting with copyright. There is no reason to believe it will not persist with some illusion of "return to privacy" too, despite it being difficult to enforce.
Is it difficult to implement? Yes. Is it valuable? Definitely more than centuries old copyright.
It is also individuals fight against corporations. Corporations are typically benefited from centuries of copyright as well as from damaging the privacy of individuals. If corporations got their illusion of centuries of copyrights, there is no reason for individuals to not get their illusion of privacy.
The only external claim that I made was 25-50 storeys being 10 times 4 storeys. Rest all is concluded from that.
If you "value logical arguments very highly" (That was sarcasm), go ahead and provide substantiation for Increased taxes would materialize; property values would go up, and the owners of the property would make more money, thus paying additional taxes
While providing substantiation, remember this statement of yours is about the future, and extraordinary claims need extraordinary proofs.
I had guessed from your unsubstantiated claims that you consider emotions more important than logical arguments. But I have not expressed my emotions more clearly because emotions are completely irrelevant.
If we're talking about gentrification in South Africa because of apartheid then that's not OK
Since apartheid itself is not OK for so many people in the world, this is not saying anything of substance, is it?
Basically you are saying if "new economic opportunities in an area for certain kinds of people" are themselves not OK, then the gentrification due to that is not OK. Which while being true is irrelevant as it is the gentrification being OK is being discussed. In the situations you point out, gentrification is by itself OK but since it is associated by other non-OK things it acquires a shade of non-OK-ness.
In my last post, I basically asked you if you are sure that increased taxes and benefits from increased incomes to road makers will materialize. If you are, you can go ahead and convince others, though it is far from certain.
should be alleviated by public transport.
Which doesn't exist. Do you mean to say you are sure it will start existing? You yourself said that the increased taxes (I think unsubstantiated) should ideally go towards public transport. Was that an admission of uncertainty?
I'm not sure why you're so upset
Do you mean to say you are sure I am upset? If so, one department where you are surely wrong.
I am not in a habit of discussing made up claims, so I will keep my post limited to questioning you, as many of your sentences seem to me just vague possibilities packaged as certainties.
If dedicated non-violent protesters cannot peacefully prevent violent protesters from causing violence, they aren't yet enough in number, or in moral strength, or both. They could call off their protest until they are ready.
The fine amount is not significantly higher than the cost (including labour) of getting a new phone number? Such a low fine wouldn't have worked anyway.
Though the reason could be that it might be illegal for the Police to "cause" someone to commit a crime - and hailing an illegal cab is sometimes considered that. It is difficult to argue against this reason.
Ok, so we are in agreement that the claim in GP post "it's a problem when people who were born and raised in an area can't buy there" is true only in the monopoly/collusion case, and not in general.
Ok, my office building weighs a million tons. Include the cost of moving it a dozen miles over other people's property and I am sold. Don't forget to convince the 250 people who live on the other side of office to move, or you move their property for them. If they need help, you can feel free to convince their spouses and kids, in turn their organizations etc. too.
Sure. Feel free to convince the stakeholders which includes voters and government that taxes will increase enough and incomes will increase enough in such a way that building ten storey roads will become viable. Note that increase in income gives only a little direct increased income to the organization responsible for making roads. Most of the increase is indirect, which may or may not materialize for that particular county/city, and even state in case of land close to state borders.
Include the cost of this convincing in the "solution", and let us see how much of a solution it seems then. But in isolation raising the number of storeys ten fold is NOT a solution.
Of course. Feel free to move millions of tons by dozens of miles, potentially disturbing other people's property. But be sure to include the cost of this when mentioning the "solution".
Credit scores don't work like that. When you take out a mortgage and establish a history of paying it, your credit rating goes up, not down.
Goes up after you have repaid $400k. Until then it is down. Or probably break even somewhere close to having repaid $330k-$360k. So opportunity cost remains for most of the repayment period.
The solution is to go up. Even in Manhattan, much of the land is restricted to four stories. Most builders would prefer to go to 25 to 50 stories, allowing six to twelve times as many people to live on the same land
Not necessarily. 4 storey vs 25 to 50 storey is about ten-fold increase. So your "solution" is not a solution if the single storey roads to the place are not also replaced with 10 storey roads. They could be widened 10 times too, if there is space.
If building the 10-storey road is the government's responsibility, you are advocating socializing the external costs and privatizing the profits.
The point is that it's a problem when people who were born and raised in an area can't buy there
This can happen due to
1. land monopolists/collusioninsts, and 2. new economic opportunities in an area for certain kinds of people.
The first is surely a problem - morally, as per free-market-principles, and as far as collusion is illegal, it is a problem legally too.
But second? Why deny certain kinds of people have opportunities in an area, access to that area just because they were not "born and raised" there ? Many great innovations in history have happened by people away from their homelands. This is because of 3 reasons :
A. People motivated enough to move away are likely to be motivated enough to work harder to succeed.
B. 100 talented people living in density of 1 per 500 square miles are much less likely to produce lasting value than those same 100 talented people working together. Teams of great people are more than the sum of their parts. Which means moving their asses to where the good people and opportunities are, for the benefit of themselves and society at large.
C. People away from their homelands MUST work hard. Often there is no family to fall back on.
Update, June 21st 9:45AM: Microsoft has updated its blog post today and removed references to "remain activated." The stealthy edit isn't acknowledged, and we've reached out to the company for comment.
I don't understand the American view about left and right, so, my honest question for you is - do you call him a right winger ? He doesn't seem like that to me, or as general definition of "right".
Toward the end of the rant, he even mentions that probably government getting into the business of educating (at least guaranteeing it) might be a good thing. The idea he expresses against guaranteeing loans by governments is also not much of a right wing attitude - since guaranteeing loans is socializing the loss and privatizing the profit. Right wing nuts typically love such loan guarantees.
In civilized countries, education due to having huge positive externalities, is government subsidized. Spending a billion dollars to subsidize education gets a trillion dollar returns - but 20,000 dollars spent to subsidize every single student doesn't necessarily make him earn 20 million.
Government is the one entity that can and should take the burden of all financial expenditures of this nature. But that is too "communist" for Americans so they enjoy the loans.
Government, if anything, guarantee the loans. In other words, only the losses are socialized, profits are all privatized into universities and banks.
Yes, but you didn't address the fundamental difference between ways of enjoying movies/shows and music. It is drastically different. How?
When one hears a piece of music for the second time, they like it MORE than they liked it for the first time. The degree of enjoyment grows for a while - longer for some music, less for some other. It is easy to find music for me which keeps increasingly pleasant for five times of concentrated listen sessions. Many other people are like this, at least for the genres I am interested in.
When you "discover" a new genre, the "learning curve" is even steeper. I have hated music of some genres which in a few months became the only genre I listened to for a while. With this steeper learning curve, comes much more happiness too. When I develop the taste for a new genre of music (happened only thrice in my life), for a while, people can tell I am happy just by talking to me on phone, or meeting me briefly. Of course it fades then.
Movies/shows are decidedly NOT like that for many many people. At most, most people can enjoy a movie twice within a few days - and that is a different enjoyment when it is watched the second time.
When you have a monopoly on idiots, you can afford to choose a few people and not do them favours. Better if those people represent a minority, unpopular view. E.g. many Sikhs in India are patriotic, and only a vanishingly miniscule minority are separatist like this Facebook page advocates.
Slashdot Mirror
I have already explained this, but I can do the favour of repeating once for idiots.
If you add rentable space, property valuation goes up. This means the owners pay more in property taxes.
To X. Unsubstantiated part is that X is same as the road builder/maintainer. Unstated is the transaction between additional tax collector and road builder/maintainer.
Similarly, if more people rent apartments, property owners make more money, which means they owe more in income taxes.
Income taxes are even more remotely connected than property taxes to road builders/maintainers for the vast majority of roads in the US.
should be alleviated by public transport.
Which doesn't exist.
This is another external claim. You did not support it.
Ok, this is some implicit mathematics quite difficult for idiots. I will try to make it explicit - show it to some non-idiot and they can explain it directly to you taking into account your specific disabilities.
The public transport that is required for this is the one that will be usable by 10 times higher number of commuters. For some thing to be "the solution" without specified context where a country of 300 million is being discussed, it has to apply to a few millions of people at least. So the public transport that I tell you doesn't exist is the 90% under-utilized mass transport for millions which can actually accommodate tens of millions.
You keep saying these things, but remain unable to explain, why these very same racist police do not treat Asians just as badly
They do.
The reason is that the immigrants are more ready for discrimination in a foreign country for the economic and other opportunities. The home-grown blacks are not ready.
Also, money is the antidote to racist discrimination. And immigrants are rich - especially Indians, Pakistanis, and Chinese. Why? I recently wrote this to explain the success of people moving within the country. It applies even more to people moving to another country. Reproduced below :
A. People motivated enough to move away are likely to be motivated enough to work harder to succeed.
B. 100 talented people living in density of 1 per 500 square miles are much less likely to produce lasting value than those same 100 talented people working together. Teams of great people are more than the sum of their parts. Which means moving their asses to where the good people and opportunities are, for the benefit of themselves and society at large.
C. People away from their homelands MUST work hard. Often there is no family to fall back on.
Due to the reasons Indians, Pakistanis and Chinese migrate to the US - these factors apply more to them, hence this subcommunity of immigrants is richer than most others.
for once that douchebag makes your private details public, it's public
Same can be said for copyrighted work that is released to selected members of public, say for a fee. Despite the difficulty to enforce it since the "digital revolution", society is persisting with copyright. There is no reason to believe it will not persist with some illusion of "return to privacy" too, despite it being difficult to enforce.
Is it difficult to implement? Yes. Is it valuable? Definitely more than centuries old copyright.
It is also individuals fight against corporations. Corporations are typically benefited from centuries of copyright as well as from damaging the privacy of individuals. If corporations got their illusion of centuries of copyrights, there is no reason for individuals to not get their illusion of privacy.
The only external claim that I made was 25-50 storeys being 10 times 4 storeys. Rest all is concluded from that.
If you "value logical arguments very highly" (That was sarcasm), go ahead and provide substantiation for Increased taxes would materialize; property values would go up, and the owners of the property would make more money, thus paying additional taxes
While providing substantiation, remember this statement of yours is about the future, and extraordinary claims need extraordinary proofs.
I had not "said" that idiot, I had "basically said" that. http://dictionary.reference.co...
I had guessed from your unsubstantiated claims that you consider emotions more important than logical arguments. But I have not expressed my emotions more clearly because emotions are completely irrelevant.
If we're talking about gentrification in South Africa because of apartheid then that's not OK
Since apartheid itself is not OK for so many people in the world, this is not saying anything of substance, is it?
Basically you are saying if "new economic opportunities in an area for certain kinds of people" are themselves not OK, then the gentrification due to that is not OK. Which while being true is irrelevant as it is the gentrification being OK is being discussed. In the situations you point out, gentrification is by itself OK but since it is associated by other non-OK things it acquires a shade of non-OK-ness.
In my last post, I basically asked you if you are sure that increased taxes and benefits from increased incomes to road makers will materialize. If you are, you can go ahead and convince others, though it is far from certain.
should be alleviated by public transport.
Which doesn't exist. Do you mean to say you are sure it will start existing? You yourself said that the increased taxes (I think unsubstantiated) should ideally go towards public transport. Was that an admission of uncertainty?
I'm not sure why you're so upset
Do you mean to say you are sure I am upset? If so, one department where you are surely wrong.
I am not in a habit of discussing made up claims, so I will keep my post limited to questioning you, as many of your sentences seem to me just vague possibilities packaged as certainties.
If dedicated non-violent protesters cannot peacefully prevent violent protesters from causing violence, they aren't yet enough in number, or in moral strength, or both. They could call off their protest until they are ready.
The fine amount is not significantly higher than the cost (including labour) of getting a new phone number? Such a low fine wouldn't have worked anyway.
Though the reason could be that it might be illegal for the Police to "cause" someone to commit a crime - and hailing an illegal cab is sometimes considered that. It is difficult to argue against this reason.
Ok, so we are in agreement that the claim in GP post "it's a problem when people who were born and raised in an area can't buy there" is true only in the monopoly/collusion case, and not in general.
Ok, my office building weighs a million tons. Include the cost of moving it a dozen miles over other people's property and I am sold. Don't forget to convince the 250 people who live on the other side of office to move, or you move their property for them. If they need help, you can feel free to convince their spouses and kids, in turn their organizations etc. too.
Sure. Feel free to convince the stakeholders which includes voters and government that taxes will increase enough and incomes will increase enough in such a way that building ten storey roads will become viable. Note that increase in income gives only a little direct increased income to the organization responsible for making roads. Most of the increase is indirect, which may or may not materialize for that particular county/city, and even state in case of land close to state borders.
Include the cost of this convincing in the "solution", and let us see how much of a solution it seems then. But in isolation raising the number of storeys ten fold is NOT a solution.
Of course. Feel free to move millions of tons by dozens of miles, potentially disturbing other people's property. But be sure to include the cost of this when mentioning the "solution".
Let us see how much of a solution it seems then.
Credit scores don't work like that. When you take out a mortgage and establish a history of paying it, your credit rating goes up, not down.
Goes up after you have repaid $400k. Until then it is down. Or probably break even somewhere close to having repaid $330k-$360k. So opportunity cost remains for most of the repayment period.
The solution is to go up. Even in Manhattan, much of the land is restricted to four stories. Most builders would prefer to go to 25 to 50 stories, allowing six to twelve times as many people to live on the same land
Not necessarily. 4 storey vs 25 to 50 storey is about ten-fold increase. So your "solution" is not a solution if the single storey roads to the place are not also replaced with 10 storey roads. They could be widened 10 times too, if there is space.
If building the 10-storey road is the government's responsibility, you are advocating socializing the external costs and privatizing the profits.
The point is that it's a problem when people who were born and raised in an area can't buy there
This can happen due to
1. land monopolists/collusioninsts, and
2. new economic opportunities in an area for certain kinds of people.
The first is surely a problem - morally, as per free-market-principles, and as far as collusion is illegal, it is a problem legally too.
But second? Why deny certain kinds of people have opportunities in an area, access to that area just because they were not "born and raised" there ? Many great innovations in history have happened by people away from their homelands. This is because of 3 reasons :
A. People motivated enough to move away are likely to be motivated enough to work harder to succeed.
B. 100 talented people living in density of 1 per 500 square miles are much less likely to produce lasting value than those same 100 talented people working together. Teams of great people are more than the sum of their parts. Which means moving their asses to where the good people and opportunities are, for the benefit of themselves and society at large.
C. People away from their homelands MUST work hard. Often there is no family to fall back on.
Thanks. The Verge says that
Update, June 21st 9:45AM: Microsoft has updated its blog post today and removed references to "remain activated." The stealthy edit isn't acknowledged, and we've reached out to the company for comment.
Do you have any updates since then?
I have attached the refund $0 with this post. Enjoy.
They are both being sole as "Entry Level" systems
Ever heard of the word "tablet"? Touchscreen? Battery? Sensors for light, acceleration, GPS?
If your position is correct, why does it have no supporting evidence.... You are intellectually lazy.
You don't even specify which exact "position" you are asking about from the GP post, and you are calling the other person lazy?
Heard about pots, kettles and tendencies to absorb visible electromagnetic radiation?
right wing plant
I don't understand the American view about left and right, so, my honest question for you is - do you call him a right winger ? He doesn't seem like that to me, or as general definition of "right".
Toward the end of the rant, he even mentions that probably government getting into the business of educating (at least guaranteeing it) might be a good thing. The idea he expresses against guaranteeing loans by governments is also not much of a right wing attitude - since guaranteeing loans is socializing the loss and privatizing the profit. Right wing nuts typically love such loan guarantees.
In civilized countries, education due to having huge positive externalities, is government subsidized. Spending a billion dollars to subsidize education gets a trillion dollar returns - but 20,000 dollars spent to subsidize every single student doesn't necessarily make him earn 20 million.
Government is the one entity that can and should take the burden of all financial expenditures of this nature. But that is too "communist" for Americans so they enjoy the loans.
Government, if anything, guarantee the loans. In other words, only the losses are socialized, profits are all privatized into universities and banks.
Yes, but you didn't address the fundamental difference between ways of enjoying movies/shows and music. It is drastically different. How?
When one hears a piece of music for the second time, they like it MORE than they liked it for the first time. The degree of enjoyment grows for a while - longer for some music, less for some other. It is easy to find music for me which keeps increasingly pleasant for five times of concentrated listen sessions. Many other people are like this, at least for the genres I am interested in.
When you "discover" a new genre, the "learning curve" is even steeper. I have hated music of some genres which in a few months became the only genre I listened to for a while. With this steeper learning curve, comes much more happiness too. When I develop the taste for a new genre of music (happened only thrice in my life), for a while, people can tell I am happy just by talking to me on phone, or meeting me briefly. Of course it fades then.
Movies/shows are decidedly NOT like that for many many people. At most, most people can enjoy a movie twice within a few days - and that is a different enjoyment when it is watched the second time.
When you have a monopoly on idiots, you can afford to choose a few people and not do them favours. Better if those people represent a minority, unpopular view. E.g. many Sikhs in India are patriotic, and only a vanishingly miniscule minority are separatist like this Facebook page advocates.
Ask the government.