I can't read your post because your lack of capitalization makes me angry.
It's hard to describe, but I get the feeling that someday somebody is going to write another illiterate post like yours and I'm going to snap, find out where they live, and gouge their eyes out.
Anyway, whatever you said, I'm sure it made sense.
Americans seem to be holding a grudge over colonial times and the War of Independence.
So that's why the English are the American's strongest allies, because Americans still hold a grudge over... wait what?
It's complete nonsense.
The only time this stuff comes up is when one person can't think of a better response in an argument (that was almost certainly retarded to begin with - case in point, this thread). Generally it is limited to one or two wars, because most people don't know all that much about history anyway.
The truth is relationships between countries is very complex and ever-evolving. For the 60 years prior to independence France was the biggest enemy of the colonists. There were two wars fought against them. After the Declaration of Independence Great Britain was (for obvious reasons) the greatest enemy to the colonies, and France was suddenly our ally.
The United States of America would almost certainly not exist without the help of France.
After that the US was largely on its own, dealing with internal conflict, along with Mexico and Cuba.
For world war one the US came in late and "saved the day" (the Triple Entente probably would have won anyway), siding with the countries who, based on the number of wars fought, had been enemies more often than allies.
For world war two Japan made a slight miscalculation, bringing the US into the war when it really should have just let things be. Europe probably didn't need the US's help, since Germany was spread too thin, and Russia was willing to throw as many men at the problem as it took to win. Though, judging by the way Russia treated Germans and Pollacks after the war, you probably wouldn't have liked it if they were the ones who clinched the victory. The US took care of Japan largely by themselves. Had Japan been attacking Russia instead of the US, it's possible things could have ended differently, but Japan wanted the US, since the Russia closest to Japan sucks.
Hey guess which two countries are on real good terms 50 years later? If you guessed Japan and the US, you get the prize!
Honestly, the best response to the "you'd all be speaking such-and-such if we hadn't saved you" nonsense is to roll your eyes and move on. It's a juvenile argument, you win by ignoring it (or mocking it, mocking it is fun too).
I'm afraid he pulled one over on you with some very clever word-play.
Greenland isn't melting.
This is a fact. Greenland is an island made of dirt and rock sitting on top of bedrock. Of course it isn't melting.
The ice sheet is ablating.
Also a fact. Glacial ablation is any form of erosion, including melting.
Just because its average temp during the summer is 3C above "normal" (whatever that is) does not mean that the average temp is not 20-30C below freezing.
Also true. If the average temperature of Greenland's ice sheet were not far below freezing it would not be ice.
The probability of getting a 6 on the first die roll is 1 in 6. The probability of getting another 6 after you've already gotten one 6 is also 1 in 6. However, the probability of rolling two 6's in a row is 1 in 6^2, or 1 in 36. That means it is likely that you will roll two sixes in a row one out of every thirty six times you try rolling two sixes in a row.
Suppose you got that second 6, and you try again. The probability that you will get another 6 is, once again, 1 in 6. However, the probability for the whole sequence - getting three 6's in a row, has jumped to 1 in 6^3, or 1 in 216. Again, that means for every 216 times you roll three times in a row, it is highly likely that you will get three sixes in a row once.
Rolling a single die twice and expecting a 6 on each roll is exactly the same as rolling two dice in a row and expecting two sixes. I hope if you think for a moment you will realize why. Each die is independent, one roll has absolutely no bearing on the next, whether the rolls are made together or 20 years apart. The probability of rolling one die twice and getting a six both times is 1 in 36, as I've just described. The probability of rolling two dice and getting 12 is also 1 in 36, for exactly the same reason.
And in a truly random universe, the dice would explode for no reason at all.
Not really. If you roll a 6 sided die 6 times, you don't "expect" to see each side exactly once, but over 600 rolls, you'd expect approximately 100 of each side.
However, the nature of random being what it is, it is entirely possible for one side to hit 30 times and another side to hit 170 times without it being non-random. A result of this nature simply means you need more samples.
That's why you generally take millions of samples to evaluate how random something is.
Climate, however, is not random. Neither is weather. Both are effects that have specific causes. It only appears random because the causes are complex and numerous, and it is currently impossible to track and understand all of them at once.
That was largely the fault of the state and city governments. They had been given the money to build the proper levies, but they chose to waste it on other things. Had they been responsible, Katrina would have been just another hurricane.
The Dutch are in a far worse position than New Orleans ever was, and they manage just fine.
It can be done, it isn't even that hard, but you have to have people willing to do it.
Did you know you can sail 2/3 the way across the US already? Most US states have a shipping port, the exceptions being the handful of land-locked states in the mid-west.
Aside from a missing comma, a missing verb, and a single misspelled word, I don't see all that much to get upset about with Pyro.exe's post.
I'm a stickler for grammar too, but I've done all those things by simply typing too fast. I see no systematic errors that would indicate that his English is poor.
I'm quite informed of the alternatives: Linux sucks monkey balls for daily desktop use, and a Mac is far too expensive in my opinion (great machines though, I can't knock the quality).
Windows, however, offers a great desktop at a reasonable price. Since I can't get a PC I like with Linux that is cheaper than a PC I like with Windows, so the fact that Linux is free* is a moot point.
You may be an exception, but I find most people who bash Windows, particularly Vista and 7, have at most a very limited experience with them. Vista was horrible at release, but since SP2 it has been great, and 7 was great out of the gate. I much prefer XP to Linux, and I prefer Vista and 7 both to XP. I actually used Linux for over a year while Vista sucked (my laptop came with Vista), I eventually had to switch back to Vista because I was wasting far too much time fixing stupid problems in Linux. Fortunately by then the wrinkles in Vista had been fixed (though there was no fixing its reputation - the damage was done).
*Linux is only free if you consider your time to be worthless. If you consider your time to be worth something, like I do, Windows pays for itself in a few months even on a minimum wage salary. That's at full price, too. I never pay full price for Windows if I can avoid it, and I'm an IT guy, I can always avoid it.
We use the french form for that particular title. That's why it's Attorney General instead of the more sensible General Attorney. We do the same thing for Solicitor General.
He didn't get in trouble for the distributions; he paid all the income tax he was require to. He got in trouble for the obvious payroll tax evasion.
The stock options you are thinking of are incentive stock options (ISOs), and are taxed as capital gains when sold, not as income (though they do force you to take the Alternative Minimum Tax when exercised). Stock grants are non-statutory stock options, and are taxed as income.
You only pay Medicare and FICA taxes on payroll - i.e. wages and tips. Stock options of any kind are not payroll, you never pay Medicare or FICA taxes on them (just because it is income does not mean it is payroll). Another example of income that is taxed at the income tax rate but is not taxed by Medicare or FICA is rent income.
ISO's (the kind of stock option granted to employees - i.e. CEOs) are never taxed as income. They are capital gains only.
The problem was not that he was taking profits above his salary. The problem is that he was paying himself well below the market rate for the purposes of avoiding taxes. That's fraud. Had he paid himself $50k instead of $24k, the IRS probably would have thought it unusual, but almost certainly would not have pursued it.
Remember that intent is 9/10ths of the law. He intended to defraud the IRS, and that's what he got in trouble for. The judge assessed him a reasonable salary of $90k for tax purposes, still far below his profit distributions.
You should probably do more research on how stock options work. I'll sum it up for you:
If the company does well, the options are worth lots of money.
If the company does poorly, the options are worth jack shit.
There is potential to make huge profits at a reduced tax rate, but there is also potential to make absolutely nothing. A CEO taking a $1 salary is banking everything on his company's performance. I'd say that's pretty "ohhh and ahhh" worthy.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't read your post because your lack of capitalization makes me angry.
It's hard to describe, but I get the feeling that someday somebody is going to write another illiterate post like yours and I'm going to snap, find out where they live, and gouge their eyes out.
Anyway, whatever you said, I'm sure it made sense.
Hey, quit forcing your education on others! That's not cool man!
Americans seem to be holding a grudge over colonial times and the War of Independence.
So that's why the English are the American's strongest allies, because Americans still hold a grudge over... wait what?
It's complete nonsense.
The only time this stuff comes up is when one person can't think of a better response in an argument (that was almost certainly retarded to begin with - case in point, this thread). Generally it is limited to one or two wars, because most people don't know all that much about history anyway.
The truth is relationships between countries is very complex and ever-evolving. For the 60 years prior to independence France was the biggest enemy of the colonists. There were two wars fought against them. After the Declaration of Independence Great Britain was (for obvious reasons) the greatest enemy to the colonies, and France was suddenly our ally.
The United States of America would almost certainly not exist without the help of France.
After that the US was largely on its own, dealing with internal conflict, along with Mexico and Cuba.
For world war one the US came in late and "saved the day" (the Triple Entente probably would have won anyway), siding with the countries who, based on the number of wars fought, had been enemies more often than allies.
For world war two Japan made a slight miscalculation, bringing the US into the war when it really should have just let things be. Europe probably didn't need the US's help, since Germany was spread too thin, and Russia was willing to throw as many men at the problem as it took to win. Though, judging by the way Russia treated Germans and Pollacks after the war, you probably wouldn't have liked it if they were the ones who clinched the victory. The US took care of Japan largely by themselves. Had Japan been attacking Russia instead of the US, it's possible things could have ended differently, but Japan wanted the US, since the Russia closest to Japan sucks.
Hey guess which two countries are on real good terms 50 years later? If you guessed Japan and the US, you get the prize!
Honestly, the best response to the "you'd all be speaking such-and-such if we hadn't saved you" nonsense is to roll your eyes and move on. It's a juvenile argument, you win by ignoring it (or mocking it, mocking it is fun too).
personally, I envy those who have learned how to capitalize their sentences.
Just like the United States is a Christian nation. ;)
I'm afraid he pulled one over on you with some very clever word-play.
Greenland isn't melting.
This is a fact. Greenland is an island made of dirt and rock sitting on top of bedrock. Of course it isn't melting.
The ice sheet is ablating.
Also a fact. Glacial ablation is any form of erosion, including melting.
Just because its average temp during the summer is 3C above "normal" (whatever that is) does not mean that the average temp is not 20-30C below freezing.
Also true. If the average temperature of Greenland's ice sheet were not far below freezing it would not be ice.
DiamondGeezer, you are a master of the ambiguous on par with Professor Robert Thornton and his Lexicon of Inconspicuously Ambiguous References (LIAR).
And you don't understand probability.
The probability of getting a 6 on the first die roll is 1 in 6. The probability of getting another 6 after you've already gotten one 6 is also 1 in 6. However, the probability of rolling two 6's in a row is 1 in 6^2, or 1 in 36. That means it is likely that you will roll two sixes in a row one out of every thirty six times you try rolling two sixes in a row.
Suppose you got that second 6, and you try again. The probability that you will get another 6 is, once again, 1 in 6. However, the probability for the whole sequence - getting three 6's in a row, has jumped to 1 in 6^3, or 1 in 216. Again, that means for every 216 times you roll three times in a row, it is highly likely that you will get three sixes in a row once.
Rolling a single die twice and expecting a 6 on each roll is exactly the same as rolling two dice in a row and expecting two sixes. I hope if you think for a moment you will realize why. Each die is independent, one roll has absolutely no bearing on the next, whether the rolls are made together or 20 years apart. The probability of rolling one die twice and getting a six both times is 1 in 36, as I've just described. The probability of rolling two dice and getting 12 is also 1 in 36, for exactly the same reason.
And in a truly random universe, the dice would explode for no reason at all.
Musta missed the "grant money" post.
It pays their salary. No grant = no job. It's as good an incentive as those who wish to deny AGW.
That's exactly what you can do with grant funding. It pays your salary.
No grant money = no science. No science = no job. No job = no sports car.
If you are a scientist with a sports car (and a frugal scientist could certainly afford it), then grant money paid for your sports car.
Not really. If you roll a 6 sided die 6 times, you don't "expect" to see each side exactly once, but over 600 rolls, you'd expect approximately 100 of each side.
However, the nature of random being what it is, it is entirely possible for one side to hit 30 times and another side to hit 170 times without it being non-random. A result of this nature simply means you need more samples.
That's why you generally take millions of samples to evaluate how random something is.
Climate, however, is not random. Neither is weather. Both are effects that have specific causes. It only appears random because the causes are complex and numerous, and it is currently impossible to track and understand all of them at once.
That worked really awesomely in New Orleans.
That was largely the fault of the state and city governments. They had been given the money to build the proper levies, but they chose to waste it on other things. Had they been responsible, Katrina would have been just another hurricane.
The Dutch are in a far worse position than New Orleans ever was, and they manage just fine.
It can be done, it isn't even that hard, but you have to have people willing to do it.
Did you know you can sail 2/3 the way across the US already? Most US states have a shipping port, the exceptions being the handful of land-locked states in the mid-west.
But in the last half century, this rising has slowed down due to the rising sea level.
Really? 2cm over the last 100 years is that noticeable?
I highly doubt it.
No, most Americans believe we came from monkeys (which is still wrong - if you don't think it's wrong, you're an idiot). :)
Aside from a missing comma, a missing verb, and a single misspelled word, I don't see all that much to get upset about with Pyro.exe's post.
I'm a stickler for grammar too, but I've done all those things by simply typing too fast. I see no systematic errors that would indicate that his English is poor.
I'm quite informed of the alternatives: Linux sucks monkey balls for daily desktop use, and a Mac is far too expensive in my opinion (great machines though, I can't knock the quality).
Windows, however, offers a great desktop at a reasonable price. Since I can't get a PC I like with Linux that is cheaper than a PC I like with Windows, so the fact that Linux is free* is a moot point.
You may be an exception, but I find most people who bash Windows, particularly Vista and 7, have at most a very limited experience with them. Vista was horrible at release, but since SP2 it has been great, and 7 was great out of the gate. I much prefer XP to Linux, and I prefer Vista and 7 both to XP. I actually used Linux for over a year while Vista sucked (my laptop came with Vista), I eventually had to switch back to Vista because I was wasting far too much time fixing stupid problems in Linux. Fortunately by then the wrinkles in Vista had been fixed (though there was no fixing its reputation - the damage was done).
*Linux is only free if you consider your time to be worthless. If you consider your time to be worth something, like I do, Windows pays for itself in a few months even on a minimum wage salary. That's at full price, too. I never pay full price for Windows if I can avoid it, and I'm an IT guy, I can always avoid it.
I prefer the updated addage: "What you don't know can kill you."
It holds true far more often than the old one.
Someone needs to look up the difference between "income" and "profit".
So to sum it all up, you're a dick?
Nice.
If you have broadband you can still connect to AOL without having to pay for it. The $20 a month or whatever is only for the dial-up service.
You went through far more trouble than you needed to, and could have convinced them without it.
It's Attorneys General.
We use the french form for that particular title. That's why it's Attorney General instead of the more sensible General Attorney. We do the same thing for Solicitor General.
Gotta love English!
He didn't get in trouble for the distributions; he paid all the income tax he was require to. He got in trouble for the obvious payroll tax evasion.
The stock options you are thinking of are incentive stock options (ISOs), and are taxed as capital gains when sold, not as income (though they do force you to take the Alternative Minimum Tax when exercised). Stock grants are non-statutory stock options, and are taxed as income.
You only pay Medicare and FICA taxes on payroll - i.e. wages and tips. Stock options of any kind are not payroll, you never pay Medicare or FICA taxes on them (just because it is income does not mean it is payroll). Another example of income that is taxed at the income tax rate but is not taxed by Medicare or FICA is rent income.
ISO's (the kind of stock option granted to employees - i.e. CEOs) are never taxed as income. They are capital gains only.
The Oracle CEO makes $85 million per year.
What's your point, exactly?
The problem was not that he was taking profits above his salary. The problem is that he was paying himself well below the market rate for the purposes of avoiding taxes. That's fraud. Had he paid himself $50k instead of $24k, the IRS probably would have thought it unusual, but almost certainly would not have pursued it.
Remember that intent is 9/10ths of the law. He intended to defraud the IRS, and that's what he got in trouble for. The judge assessed him a reasonable salary of $90k for tax purposes, still far below his profit distributions.
You should probably do more research on how stock options work. I'll sum it up for you:
If the company does well, the options are worth lots of money.
If the company does poorly, the options are worth jack shit.
There is potential to make huge profits at a reduced tax rate, but there is also potential to make absolutely nothing. A CEO taking a $1 salary is banking everything on his company's performance. I'd say that's pretty "ohhh and ahhh" worthy.