If you go back and reread his comment, you'll notice that he didn't say that liberals didn't use it. He was merely disagreeing with the notion that conservatives don't use it.
Humanity [is] always tried to find out how to live
Spirituality != Religion.
Religion isn't about finding out how to live, it's about arbitrarily picking a way to live and making sure everyone else lives that way too, whether they want to or not.
makes you wonder how the show failed so fast. was it because...
Yes, yes, and yes. Also it was preempted by sports fairly often.
I think that a hefty majority of current fans are people who first watched the show on dvd. As evidenced even here, many people simply couldn't understand the show until they could see all of the episodes in the correct order. So subtract those potential viewers from the potential viewers who never even heard of the show before the dvds, and you get one canceled show.
Though I would quibble with saying that the cancellation was "fast". As we saw with Wonderfalls, FOX was actually fairly generous with Firefy by airing more than half of the episodes before pulling the plug.
I would assume though that they would still require *some* proof of destruction, such as returning a single specific piece of the drive, to curb people reporting problems whenever they want more drive space.
Coins are more expensive to make (both in material and actual money)
A single coin is more expensive to make than a single bill, but that one coin can replace up to 20 bills, because the bills wear out and need to be replaced every 18 months. In the long run it's actually far cheaper to replace bills with coins.
If you and your family are US citizens, then why would you even have your passports with you if you were only traveling within the country? Perhaps you left out a few details...
RE the first point, in the scene where Baltar asks Adama for the nuke, Adama says something along the lines of "You told us you had a working detector. Where is it?" And Baltar pulls someexcuse out of his ass.
As for the second point, I haven't seen that episode in a while, but I'm fairly sure there was a time cut between the beginning and the end of the test. Her test had been processing for hours and we just saw the final few minutes.
By not taxing income, an employee can invest the money that would otherwise be taken immediately as taxes.
Except that the poor already pay little or no tax on their income. That's because they are poor and the system takes that into account. If they were making enough that a sales tax only system would benefit them, then it's unlikely they'd fall into the "poor" category unless they're just really bad at managing money.
So, to recap: There would be little or no additional money for the poor if the income tax is dropped.
So this means that there is no additional money to defray the significantly higher sales taxes that everyone, poor included, would be subject to. Even if you exempt food and clothes, the poor need to buy more than just that to get by. How about a car or scooter in order to get to their jobs? Under a consumable tax only system such items would cost much more than they do now which would ultimately contribute to keeping them poor. And how about furniture, or pots and pans, or school supplies for their children? This scheme would force the poor to pay much more in taxes than they do under the current system.
The thing is, making taxes "more fair" for one group necessarily involves making them "less fair" for another group. The current system is designed so that the "less fair" burden is applied to the group that is best able to cope with it. Sales tax only places that burden on the group that is least able to cope.
And that way *fairly* penalizes the poor? An income tax takes (or at least should take) into account relative poorness. Consumption taxes do not and as such hit the poor much harder than income tax.
I bet you know someone who has been sued though. For instance if you know anyone who was at fault in a car accident they were probably sued at some point.
First off, I would argue that those shows hardly qualify as quality, but that's another matter.
At no point did I say that it is impossible for a good show to also be profitable enough to stay on the air. I was pointing out that the current paradigm for the networks is to kill a high cost show if it isn't instantly a huge hit. All of the shows you cite were big hits right out of the gate.
That's a terrible example which undermines your point.
I agree that people want things to "just work", but it doesn't follow that people prefer a single "something broke" light to a system that actually gives you useful information about what's wrong. That light is there for one reason and one reason alone: So that mechanics can rip you off. If that light goes off you have no way of knowing if it's because your catalytic converter is failing or if it just triggers after a set number of miles. You're truly lucky if you can trust your mechanic to be honest in that situation.
Let's do a little math. Let's say we have Show A which is a critical hit with 5 million viewers each new airing. But it also costs $1 million per episode. That $1 for every five viewers. It's simplistic I know but this is an example. Now let's say we have Show B which is a reality show that costs $100k per episode but only attracts 2 million viewers per new airing. Fewer viewers overall, but they're getting four times as many viewers per dollar spent. Which show do you think is likely to get picked up for a new season?
That's bullshit. They weren't in the courtroom, they were outside standing in line. And while the conversation may have been a little boisterous, you know damn well that they wouldn't have been arrested if they had been talking about a sports rivalry or something.
Slashdot Mirror
If you go back and reread his comment, you'll notice that he didn't say that liberals didn't use it. He was merely disagreeing with the notion that conservatives don't use it.
There were three preview screenings actually.
Sean McMullen's Greatwinter Trilogy...
Mirrorsun.
"Simultaniously" in this context means on or about the same day, as opposed to several months apart. It does not mean at the very same moment.
Spellbound
Humanity [is] always tried to find out how to live
Spirituality != Religion.
Religion isn't about finding out how to live, it's about arbitrarily picking a way to live and making sure everyone else lives that way too, whether they want to or not.
makes you wonder how the show failed so fast. was it because...
Yes, yes, and yes. Also it was preempted by sports fairly often.
I think that a hefty majority of current fans are people who first watched the show on dvd. As evidenced even here, many people simply couldn't understand the show until they could see all of the episodes in the correct order. So subtract those potential viewers from the potential viewers who never even heard of the show before the dvds, and you get one canceled show.
Though I would quibble with saying that the cancellation was "fast". As we saw with Wonderfalls, FOX was actually fairly generous with Firefy by airing more than half of the episodes before pulling the plug.
anyone laying odds of Firefly returning to the small screen of the film does well?
I'd say they're exactly the same as the odds that FOX will suddenly have totally new management.
I would assume though that they would still require *some* proof of destruction, such as returning a single specific piece of the drive, to curb people reporting problems whenever they want more drive space.
Coins are more expensive to make (both in material and actual money)
A single coin is more expensive to make than a single bill, but that one coin can replace up to 20 bills, because the bills wear out and need to be replaced every 18 months. In the long run it's actually far cheaper to replace bills with coins.
Please, kids have been going to school in the dark for decades. It obviously hasn't been that big of a problem so far.
If you and your family are US citizens, then why would you even have your passports with you if you were only traveling within the country? Perhaps you left out a few details...
Well it's worked pretty well for GWB so far...
RE the first point, in the scene where Baltar asks Adama for the nuke, Adama says something along the lines of "You told us you had a working detector. Where is it?" And Baltar pulls someexcuse out of his ass.
As for the second point, I haven't seen that episode in a while, but I'm fairly sure there was a time cut between the beginning and the end of the test. Her test had been processing for hours and we just saw the final few minutes.
By not taxing income, an employee can invest the money that would otherwise be taken immediately as taxes.
Except that the poor already pay little or no tax on their income. That's because they are poor and the system takes that into account. If they were making enough that a sales tax only system would benefit them, then it's unlikely they'd fall into the "poor" category unless they're just really bad at managing money.
So, to recap: There would be little or no additional money for the poor if the income tax is dropped.
So this means that there is no additional money to defray the significantly higher sales taxes that everyone, poor included, would be subject to. Even if you exempt food and clothes, the poor need to buy more than just that to get by. How about a car or scooter in order to get to their jobs? Under a consumable tax only system such items would cost much more than they do now which would ultimately contribute to keeping them poor. And how about furniture, or pots and pans, or school supplies for their children? This scheme would force the poor to pay much more in taxes than they do under the current system.
The thing is, making taxes "more fair" for one group necessarily involves making them "less fair" for another group. The current system is designed so that the "less fair" burden is applied to the group that is best able to cope with it. Sales tax only places that burden on the group that is least able to cope.
And that way *fairly* penalizes the poor? An income tax takes (or at least should take) into account relative poorness. Consumption taxes do not and as such hit the poor much harder than income tax.
I bet you know someone who has been sued though. For instance if you know anyone who was at fault in a car accident they were probably sued at some point.
Like shoot cops, run down pedestrians and rape women.
Just a nitpick, but as far as I know there is no rape in any of the GTA games. At least, the player never rapes anyone.
ever notice how all these crime and law shows on TV never have the main characters defending someone they know is guilty?
I believe the new Law and Order show will be about exactly that. At least, that's the impression I get from the commercials for it.
You're an idiot.
First off, I would argue that those shows hardly qualify as quality, but that's another matter.
At no point did I say that it is impossible for a good show to also be profitable enough to stay on the air. I was pointing out that the current paradigm for the networks is to kill a high cost show if it isn't instantly a huge hit. All of the shows you cite were big hits right out of the gate.
That's a terrible example which undermines your point.
I agree that people want things to "just work", but it doesn't follow that people prefer a single "something broke" light to a system that actually gives you useful information about what's wrong. That light is there for one reason and one reason alone: So that mechanics can rip you off. If that light goes off you have no way of knowing if it's because your catalytic converter is failing or if it just triggers after a set number of miles. You're truly lucky if you can trust your mechanic to be honest in that situation.
Back it up? How about every reality show ever?
Let's do a little math. Let's say we have Show A which is a critical hit with 5 million viewers each new airing. But it also costs $1 million per episode. That $1 for every five viewers. It's simplistic I know but this is an example. Now let's say we have Show B which is a reality show that costs $100k per episode but only attracts 2 million viewers per new airing. Fewer viewers overall, but they're getting four times as many viewers per dollar spent. Which show do you think is likely to get picked up for a new season?
Yeah, cause that's the best way to determine the quality of a show.
The problem is that "high quality" and "profitable" are concepts that don't often play well together.
That's bullshit. They weren't in the courtroom, they were outside standing in line. And while the conversation may have been a little boisterous, you know damn well that they wouldn't have been arrested if they had been talking about a sports rivalry or something.
Interestingly enough, in the show they often refer to the fighters as planes.