Well, I guess I can't explain it. I just think that is far far far far far left. The "conservative" parties in those countries aren't conservative, IMHO.
I think Bernie's about one of the only candidates who would be WORSE than Trump.
Why should we have to "take care" of our old? Why don't they (and soon enough, me) take care of THEMSELVES, even if that means (which it does) investing for DECADES to have the money to do that... or at least take care of one's own family, NOT other random people.
I've been paying into SS/Medicare too, and I want to GET RID of them. Make a "mandatory" 401k _perhaps_ as a replacement, but in quotes because I would still probably let people avoid it, even if it's difficult to avoid.
POSSIBLY give people a one time tax break if they've been "paying into them their entire lives".. but even without that, I would still vote to get rid of them.
This batch of 'elderly' aren't the same as the last. No bank CDs. Keep their assets illiquid and in a trust, just to game the tax system,
How does a trust "game the tax system"? Can I still live off interest generated from it?
I want to pay as little tax as legally possible.
(Scarily, I saw recently that even though there aren't details yet, supposedly Trump's tax proposal will greatly REDUCE the yearly 401k amount to something like $2000.. It should be greatly INCREASED instead, and get rid of social security, that's a 6% raise for everyone.)
The far left is marginalized even within the left-most of US parties
From Wikipedia (which has sources): Initially considered a long shot, Sanders won 23 primaries and caucuses and approximately 43% of pledged delegates to Clinton's 55%.
Umm, no. The link you originally included talked about the most valuable *BRAND* in the world, not the most valuable company in the world. (Also, it was from February.)
Honest question. Since MAC spoofing is apparently easy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_spoofing), why is registration of your MAC addresses "absolutely essential for security"?
It should be patented. It should just be patented by the U.S. Government, and royalties paid by the companies who use the info to bring a product to market.
I could even see some kind of special patent type for the government, maybe perpetual _until_ it pays for itself (including wages, etc.), then is free for all to use. (But being free to use would then maybe have some sort of price restriction.. No price restriction, you keep paying the government.) That way, the very expensive long term basic research absolutely has "payback", in that it has benefit for the public, but if it's successful, ends up being "free" via the patent payback.
I think they sound just as good (for podcasts, at least, since I listen to podcasts far more than I listen to music) as wired earbuds, and of course are wireless.
But thatâ(TM)s basically what I mean - make the shell company part go away or âoesee throughâ or whatever. I honestly have no idea how to do that at the moment, but o think things could be improved from how they are now WITHOUT restricting donations (which I consider a free speech issue, even from corporations).
I agree with you in general. The rules should just be changed then. You shouldnâ(TM)t just let some company come in and provide basically the same service WITHOUT having the same restrictions that the existing companies have.
I think the medallion system is weird too, but instantly obsoleting something someone spent $1 million for sucks.
Yes, but the message you replied to is right. Unless he's lying and trying to rewrite history, Reed named it Netflix precisely because he knew they would be streaming eventually. This has been covered in many interviews with him.
I'd love to see political lobbyists outlawed, period. There's no reason someone should get paid just to try to win a politician's favor on an issue when that's the job of the voting public to decide. My elected representatives are supposed to be up there, doing the lobbying for the issues those of us in their district believe should be handled a certain way. Individuals trying to influence them with gifts, dinners, and what-not? They're clearly only there to subvert the process.
Then get the voting public to decide on their own, and slowly the companies will realize that their lobbying is ineffective, so will stop doing it.
Plus, similar to what another response said, that seems very much against the First Amendment, since you're trying to let the government control one's speech.
(I would go the opposite way. Get rid of basically if not completely all donation limits, but make ALL donations traceable back to the source, whether Joe Public gives $5, or Evil Tobacco Company gives $1 million.)
That's funny, because I signed up for moviepass largely so I could see the big blockbusters for only a couple bucks apiece in the theater. (assuming 3-4 movies/month, which I think is the minimum I'll use it.)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I guess I can't explain it. I just think that is far far far far far left. The "conservative" parties in those countries aren't conservative, IMHO.
I think Bernie's about one of the only candidates who would be WORSE than Trump.
Why should we have to "take care" of our old? Why don't they (and soon enough, me) take care of THEMSELVES, even if that means (which it does) investing for DECADES to have the money to do that... or at least take care of one's own family, NOT other random people.
I've been paying into SS/Medicare too, and I want to GET RID of them. Make a "mandatory" 401k _perhaps_ as a replacement, but in quotes because I would still probably let people avoid it, even if it's difficult to avoid.
POSSIBLY give people a one time tax break if they've been "paying into them their entire lives".. but even without that, I would still vote to get rid of them.
How does a trust "game the tax system"? Can I still live off interest generated from it?
I want to pay as little tax as legally possible.
(Scarily, I saw recently that even though there aren't details yet, supposedly Trump's tax proposal will greatly REDUCE the yearly 401k amount to something like $2000.. It should be greatly INCREASED instead, and get rid of social security, that's a 6% raise for everyone.)
From Wikipedia (which has sources):
Initially considered a long shot, Sanders won 23 primaries and caucuses and approximately 43% of pledged delegates to Clinton's 55%.
So it doesn't seem marginalized at all to me.
Umm, no. The link you originally included talked about the most valuable *BRAND* in the world, not the most valuable company in the world. (Also, it was from February.)
An up-to-date list of the list of companies by market valuation, the true definition of "valuable", is at:
http://dogsofthedow.com/largest-companies-by-market-cap.htm
As I post this, Apple is #1, and Google is #2, about $110 billion lower in market value.
Honest question. Since MAC spoofing is apparently easy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_spoofing), why is registration of your MAC addresses "absolutely essential for security"?
Doesn't even mention Apple??
200 MW of solar in Reno, 170 MW of solar in China, etc..
https://www.computerworld.com/...
The term is "rife".
https://www.merriam-webster.co...
It should be patented. It should just be patented by the U.S. Government, and royalties paid by the companies who use the info to bring a product to market.
I could even see some kind of special patent type for the government, maybe perpetual _until_ it pays for itself (including wages, etc.), then is free for all to use. (But being free to use would then maybe have some sort of price restriction.. No price restriction, you keep paying the government.) That way, the very expensive long term basic research absolutely has "payback", in that it has benefit for the public, but if it's successful, ends up being "free" via the patent payback.
You didn't even READ the summary!!!
That's the first lesson in "The Millionaire Next Door".
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201222
I think they sound just as good (for podcasts, at least, since I listen to podcasts far more than I listen to music) as wired earbuds, and of course are wireless.
You do realize that you can get Bluetooth earbuds for $20 (or under)?
But thatâ(TM)s basically what I mean - make the shell company part go away or âoesee throughâ or whatever. I honestly have no idea how to do that at the moment, but o think things could be improved from how they are now WITHOUT restricting donations (which I consider a free speech issue, even from corporations).
I agree with you in general. The rules should just be changed then. You shouldnâ(TM)t just let some company come in and provide basically the same service WITHOUT having the same restrictions that the existing companies have.
I think the medallion system is weird too, but instantly obsoleting something someone spent $1 million for sucks.
Yes, but the message you replied to is right. Unless he's lying and trying to rewrite history, Reed named it Netflix precisely because he knew they would be streaming eventually. This has been covered in many interviews with him.
But they need to be covered under the same rules that the to-be-disrupted companies are.. (e.g. taxi limitations, medallions, etc..)
I'm not a taxi person btw.
Then get the voting public to decide on their own, and slowly the companies will realize that their lobbying is ineffective, so will stop doing it.
Plus, similar to what another response said, that seems very much against the First Amendment, since you're trying to let the government control one's speech.
(I would go the opposite way. Get rid of basically if not completely all donation limits, but make ALL donations traceable back to the source, whether Joe Public gives $5, or Evil Tobacco Company gives $1 million.)
You do realize that bottles are recyclable, right?
(BTW, I don't buy bottled water myself.. I definitely buy _flavored_ water [diet soda] though.)
I thought everybody knew that most bottled water was someone else's tap water.
That's funny, because I signed up for moviepass largely so I could see the big blockbusters for only a couple bucks apiece in the theater. (assuming 3-4 movies/month, which I think is the minimum I'll use it.)
Uhh, isn't that a very very large percentage of the movies people want to see?
Too many products still aren't user-friendly, so we can't be 'after' it yet.